-
Anyone that grew up through the 40's, 50's and 60's were literally bombarded with promises of space travel, flying cars, shopping malls in space, you name it. With billions of planets to choose from the universe was all of a sudden a much bigger place.
Nasa makes it look so easy, yet so impossible at the same time.
Sure John Glenn can shoot off the tip of a rocket in the 1950's going 10,000+ mph around the world 3 times backwards, but we can't even find a missing airplane in 2014.
In the 1970's they traveled to the moon in 72 hours using a calculator landing in an unknown atmosphere, and hopped in their happy little lunar module and blasted right off back to earth 220,000 miles easy peasy.
Yet, in 2015 SpaceX can't even land a rocket on earth and Virgin Galactic can't get higher than a couple hundred thousand feet. Which seems more logical to you? That they are liars or we have actually reversed in progress over the last 50 years despite all the advances in technology?
There is a project called Persephone, led by the Icarus Interstellar foundation, who aims to achieve interstellar space travel by the year 2100. Wow wonderful, we'll all likely be dead by then.
-
These rockets and Moon Mission rockets are different, it's newer technology.
-
All that proves is that space travel is very difficult.
The moon missions were certainly not "easy peasy", but they were driven by the Cold War and overwhelming public support. Those conditions haven't existed since.
-
Nobody on this forum will ever go to space.
Never, ever.
Because you can't.
Because the laws of physics won't allow it.
Give me a call when this situation changes & just one of you mugs has first-hand evidence of any of this space-nonsense.
Until then keep up your childish 'If Santa doesn't exist then where do the Xmas presents come from?' debate tactics.
Ta-ta suckers.
-
Only if you can tell me what physical principle prevents us from going to space.
-
Anyone that grew up through the 40's, 50's and 60's were literally bombarded with promises of space travel, flying cars, shopping malls in space, you name it.
We also can't buy flying cars. Maybe speculation from an overexcited era isn't the most reliable source?
Nasa makes it look so easy, yet so impossible at the same time.
Which you can say about any discipline requiring any training. Stunt plane flying? Looks easy, really isn't. Acrobatics? Check. I could go on.
Yet, in 2015 SpaceX can't even land a rocket on earth and Virgin Galactic can't get higher than a couple hundred thousand feet. Which seems more logical to you? That they are liars or we have actually reversed in progress over the last 50 years despite all the advances in technology?
Well given their aims are entirely different, they're working with technology that has not yet tried to do what they're trying...
Have you ever updated your operating system? Generally speaking, they're more advanced than the previous. For the first few weeks, however, they're much less useful because you don't yet know how to use it: you haven't gotten used to it yet. Same principle.
There is a project called Persephone, led by the Icarus Interstellar foundation, who aims to achieve interstellar space travel by the year 2100. Wow wonderful, we'll all likely be dead by then.
Your point? If they were faking, surely they could have it done by next Tuesday.
Besides, no one has ever claimed space travel is easy. What timescale would be believable to you?
-
My, what a very swift response!
Anyhow; what physical principles prevent us from going to space?
All of them.
Firstly, try learning how to apply Newtons 3rd law correctly to a device as simple as a rocket (clue: a rocket's exhaust column Pushes against an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere; no outside Mass, no Push).
Secondly, learn exactly what a vacuum purportedly is, what happens to materials (especially gases) within it & why the oldest axiom in science is 'Nature Abhors a Vacuum'.
But lastly, & most importantly, please do not reply to my post until you have genuine first-hand evidence of 'space travel'.
I.e. you, yourself, have been there in person.
As previously stated, the 'If Santa doesn't exist, then where do the Xmas presents come from?' debate tactic cuts no ice with me; either put up or shut up.
So: have you been to space?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, though I suspect you're incapable of giving a simple answer to anything.
-
My, what a very swift response!
Was this one slow enough for you?
Anyhow; what physical principles prevent us from going to space?
All of them.
So, you don't know of any, either.
Firstly, try learning how to apply Newtons 3rd law correctly to a device as simple as a rocket (clue: a rocket's exhaust column Pushes against an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere; no outside Mass, no Push[citation needed]).
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Maybe it's you that needs to brush up on Newton's Third. Where does it mention "pushes against an outside mass" there?
Secondly, learn exactly what a vacuum purportedly is, what happens to materials (especially gases) within it & why the oldest axiom in science is 'Nature Abhors a Vacuum'[citation needed].
If the materials are solids, pretty much nothing will happen to them; they will remain solid. If they're gas they will expand unconstrained (absent outside forces such as gravity), becoming less and less dense as all the particles fly off in random directions. If they are liquid, they will become gas since there's zero vapor pressure and they will boil away; then they will behave as gases as already described.
Since you posed the question the way you did, you seem to have specific ideas what you think will happen. Care to elaborate?
But lastly, & most importantly, please do not reply to my post until you have genuine first-hand evidence of 'space travel'.
I.e. you, yourself, have been there in person.
You don't get to tell others what they can and can't do here. Sorry.
Unlike "Zetacists", rational people don't have to personally experience everything before believing it's possible.
As previously stated, the 'If Santa doesn't exist, then where do the Xmas presents come from?' debate tactic cuts no ice with me; either put up or shut up.
Who said anything about Santa, besides you? Keep him out of this, please (i.e. wth are you talking about?)
So: have you been to space?
Not yet.
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, though I suspect you're incapable of giving a simple answer to anything.
::)
By the way, weren't you supposed to be gone until we called?
Give me a call when this situation changes & just one of you mugs has first-hand evidence of any of this space-nonsense.
Ta-ta suckers.
Why are you still posting here, anyway? Stuff like this is why we don't believe anything else you say, either.
-
Anyone that grew up through the 40's, 50's and 60's were literally bombarded with promises of space travel, flying cars, shopping malls in space, you name it. With billions of planets to choose from the universe was all of a sudden a much bigger place.
Promises? By whom? A lot of folks, especially Science Fiction writers, were making bold predictions.
The developments in manned spaceflight in the earliest part of the 21st Century written about by the likes of Arthur C. Clarke were, alas, optimistic. So it goes.
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
NASA wasn't into the flying cars thing, and didn't even exist for more than half of the time span you mention. They did make projections about progress in manned space exploration but their funding was cut drastically after some very successful Apollo moon landings. They never promoted "billions of planets to choose from" as an attainable goal in the foreseeable future, as far as I know (they knew better); such wasn't even known, only speculated, in the '60s. See "the Drake equation".
Nasa makes it look so easy, yet so impossible at the same time.
They make it look easy and impossible at the same time? Man, those guys are good! I thought it looked hard (and dangerous, as in"what could possibly go wrong?"), but NASA made some things look possible.
Sure John Glenn can shoot off the tip of a rocket in the 1950's going 10,000+ mph around the world 3 times backwards, but we can't even find a missing airplane in 2014.
Glenn didn't fly in space until 1962. This stuff is easy to find if you need to look it up; why don't you try doing a little fact checking before saying something stupid. We can dream, can't we?
Why the obsession with the direction the spacecraft is pointing while it's in orbit? Exactly why does it matter? It's almost like the ones who keep bringing this up don't know the first thing about what they're whining about.
What does any of this have to do with finding an airplane that disappeared somewhere in a very large ocean, anyway?
In the 1970's they traveled to the moon in 72 hours using a calculator landing in an unknown atmosphere, and hopped in their happy little lunar module and blasted right off back to earth 220,000 miles easy peasy[citation needed].
They were also doing this in the 1960s. See the above about fact checking.
What calculator are you referring to? Much of the math was done before the flights using slide rules, some on Monroe desk calculators [plural] that could add, subtract, and multiply (and also divide if you knew how to do that on them; it wasn't simple). What couldn't be done on these was done on mainframe computers. They did have a small, dedicated-purpose, navigation computer aboard. Is that what you meant? It was much less powerful than modern general-purpose calculators, but then, it was powerful enough for the task at hand, and that's what matters. They probably brought one or more slide rules, but I don't know for sure.
"Unknown atmosphere"? It was quite well known; there is no atmosphere, which made things much easier. Fact check, please.
And, no, again. They didn't "blast off" in the LM to earth. They only had to make it to the CSM, which was much closer. Again, facts, please, not ignorant blather. It wasn't easy. At all. It did work, so I suppose from your personal experience, means it must be easy, since easy things likely are all you can accomplish.
Yet, in 2015 SpaceX can't even land a rocket on earth and Virgin Galactic can't get higher than a couple hundred thousand feet. Which seems more logical to you? That they are liars or we have actually reversed in progress over the last 50 years despite all the advances in technology?
False dichotomy. They're neither liars, nor are we regressing. Nice try, though.
Were we soft-landing boosters on earth in the Apollo years? I don't remember that? I thought they were all discarded and simply allowed to fall into the ocean. I doubt that what Space-X is attempting to do would have been even remotely feasible 40 years ago. Advances in sensors, control systems, computers, navigation, and aerodynamics make it at least potentially possible now, and they've come closer to success than I've expected.
Let's see you get higher than a couple hundred thousand feet (physically, not figuratively... the way you write, I wonder if you're not always "high"). Since this fits into the "not easy to do" category, there's little chance you ever will. Virgin Galactic doesn't have a fraction of the budget NASA had or even still has. They can't do as much. So what's your point?
There is a project called Persephone, led by the Icarus Interstellar foundation, who aims to achieve interstellar space travel by the year 2100. Wow wonderful, we'll all likely be dead by then.
So? No idea if this will come to pass but thank goodness not everyone thinks as small as you do.
-
So, after a lot of irrelevant blather, we have learnt that alpha2omega has not been to space.
Well that's one down; who's next?
-
So, after a lot of irrelevant blather, we have learnt that alpha2omega has not been to space.
Well that's one down; who's next?
Me. I have been to space. Everything they say is true.
-
So, after a lot of irrelevant blather, we have learnt that alpha2omega has not been to space.
Well that's one down; who's next?
I was in space. I frequently go to space. have my own space ship.
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
Why is evidence "pure belief"? Do you feel the same about everything you have not witnessed first hand?
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Why? I clearly said: yes. ???
-
Too late; Falseprophet's lame attempt at humour failed.
As I said before: Two down; who's next?
-
Too late; Falseprophet's lame attempt at humour failed.
As I said before: Two down; who's next?
Ask Rama Set! I took him on a trip. He was like WOW all the time. And I was like Uh-hu.
-
True story. Space is the bomb.
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
So you believe nothing is true unless personally experienced?
That is a bit dumb.
We know that recent historical events happened, even though we weren't there.
We know that many animals exist, even though we haven't seen all of them.
Or do you dispute WW2, orang-utans and the Roman empire as well?
-
Anyone that grew up through the 40's, 50's and 60's were literally bombarded with promises of space travel, flying cars, shopping malls in space, you name it. With billions of planets to choose from the universe was all of a sudden a much bigger place.
Nasa makes it look so easy, yet so impossible at the same time.
Sure John Glenn can shoot off the tip of a rocket in the 1950's going 10,000+ mph around the world 3 times backwards, but we can't even find a missing airplane in 2014.
In the 1970's they traveled to the moon in 72 hours using a calculator landing in an unknown atmosphere, and hopped in their happy little lunar module and blasted right off back to earth 220,000 miles easy peasy.
Yet, in 2015 SpaceX can't even land a rocket on earth and Virgin Galactic can't get higher than a couple hundred thousand feet. Which seems more logical to you? That they are liars or we have actually reversed in progress over the last 50 years despite all the advances in technology?
There is a project called Persephone, led by the Icarus Interstellar foundation, who aims to achieve interstellar space travel by the year 2100. Wow wonderful, we'll all likely be dead by then.
Everything you've said is spot on. In normal everyday, logical adult reality, we shouldn't even need to look any further into space travel, except to think of it as a nice fantasy concept of the early days when people were all doe eyed naive wishful thinkers who dreamed of every gadget from hyper space craft to time machines.
We have many people on this forum and in many physics/science forums, who sit there and actually believe they know what space rockets are and actually do in the physical sense.
These people have absolutely NO experience of any physical sense of any craft that supposedly leaves Earth's atmospheric barrier, yet they will throw as much paper work as you wish at you to show you that it's legitimate and has been achieved because rockets can shoot out 60 billion trillion squillion lbs of thrust to propel that rocket and all the cargo needed , into space.
Slow rocket?...add a warp valve. slow a rocket down after usage of warp valve. use an warp arrester nozzle. Simple stuff and the maths are there for how it works.
Time machines. Easy stuff. You send apples and safety pins from one room to another. A bit, Willy Wonka style. It works, it's been done, albeit only a shot time and distance - as you do.
Time machines work. Ask the tefal heads of this forum and other physics forums. They work because the maths adds up when you jumble it all together. It doesn't add up to us because we are just dense neanderthals with basic knowledge or sandal fastening at best. You need calculations and formulas.
It doesn't matter that Earth has no time clock. It doesn't matter that a time piece is man made. A time machine can send you back and forward in time if you set the Marty Mcfly/doc Brown digital clock with date and time, something Earth does not care for but the human psyche, does.
The only spaceship's anyone will ever own are one's that use space to move into. Large oceans. The sky atmosphere. Taxiing around a large airport or secret installation.
Anything space related just add it to your star trek collection, people. In time it will be worth money if kept in it's original box or the poster is in excellent condition.
Don't forget. If you have any starship enterprise ship diagrams, including the engine diagrams - keep them safe and in good condition because in time they may be needed for the next few generations of fantasy mindset's who may choose to send them to NASA just in case NASA manage to lose their own diagrams.
Let's face it, they managed to do it with Apollo. ;D
Time to wake up people. Any of you who are called Sheldon or display any actions similar to this fictional person on the big bang, I suggest that you hang onto your fantasy because reality will not aid you in life. It's too scary. :P
-
It's really sad to Americans denying their nation's greatest achievements. I thought you were a patriotic lot. Obviously I was wrong.
-
Does scepti expect anyone to read all that shit?
-
It's really sad to Americans denying their nation's greatest achievements. I thought you were a patriotic lot. Obviously I was wrong.
What greatest achievements are these?
What does patriotic mean when your own people are blatantly lying to you?
-
Does scepti expect anyone to read all that shit?
I don't care who reads it. It's there to read if anyone wants to read it.
As for people like you, crabby. I'd be happy for you and your like-minded frenzy group to bypass what I say. Stop giving me any of your time. ;D
-
It's really sad to Americans denying their nation's greatest achievements. I thought you were a patriotic lot. Obviously I was wrong.
What greatest achievements are these
Putting a man on the moon, the space shuttle, Hubble telescope, etc etc.
You should be proud of these achievements. The fact that a large proportion of the US population believes the moon landings were faked is a disgrace, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
-
It's really sad to Americans denying their nation's greatest achievements. I thought you were a patriotic lot. Obviously I was wrong.
What greatest achievements are these
Putting a man on the moon, the space shuttle, Hubble telescope, etc etc.
You should be proud of these achievements. The fact that a large proportion of the US population believes the moon landings were faked is a disgrace, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
The very fact that you actually took the time to type this tells me two things about you.
1. You're either a wind up merchant who knows fine well the space adventures are nothing other than utter bullcrap, but take great delight in playing along.
2. You are simply a big bang/star trek/etc fantasist who actually believes everything you're told no matter what, as long as it comes from someone who has been pushed as a hero, into your psyche and you're so naive to the point of kiddified innocence, that you readily accept it and actually get upset when someone challenges it.
This will be my last post to you. Don't bother replying to this, seriously.
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
'Yes' comes across as 'no' to you, too.
Ask a simple question. Ignore answers and everything else you don't want to hear. That comes across like willful ignorance to me. It also explains a lot.
-
it's amazing that as soon as something becomes possible, it gets monetized. cars are designed, and quickly sold. even guns were spread around: and yet space travel is apparently the one exception. oh, it's been promised so many times. still hasn't happened.
the shuttles would have been the perfect chance for some space tourism. reusable, constantly going up, bring one or two tourists each time: but no. the only layperson offered to go to space was a teacher, and that was on challenger. great coincidence there.
amazing that no one wants to see it. just because something makes a good story does not mean it's true. that's how propaganda works.
-
it's amazing that as soon as something becomes possible, it gets monetized. cars are designed, and quickly sold. even guns were spread around: and yet space travel is apparently the one exception. oh, it's been promised so many times. still hasn't happened.
What do you mean? The space industry generates over $300B a year in revenues.
-
It's really sad to Americans denying their nation's greatest achievements. I thought you were a patriotic lot. Obviously I was wrong.
What greatest achievements are these
Putting a man on the moon, the space shuttle, Hubble telescope, etc etc.
You should be proud of these achievements. The fact that a large proportion of the US population believes the moon landings were faked is a disgrace, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
The very fact that you actually took the time to type this tells me two things about you.
1. You're either a wind up merchant who knows fine well the space adventures are nothing other than utter bullcrap, but take great delight in playing along.
2. You are simply a big bang/star trek/etc fantasist who actually believes everything you're told no matter what, as long as it comes from someone who has been pushed as a hero, into your psyche and you're so naive to the point of kiddified innocence, that you readily accept it and actually get upset when someone challenges it.
This will be my last post to you. Don't bother replying to this, seriously.
Woo-hoo! ;D
-
it's amazing that as soon as something becomes possible, it gets monetized. cars are designed, and quickly sold. even guns were spread around: and yet space travel is apparently the one exception. oh, it's been promised so many times. still hasn't happened.
What do you mean? The space industry generates over $300B a year in revenues.
are you even paying attention to, for example, the title of the thread?
let alone what i was actually saying...
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
Have you ever worked at Microsoft? If not, does Microsoft not exist? Ever been to Mount Everest? Is the bottom of the ocean nonexistent, as you've never been there?
-
Lots of blather & diversion here, but it still looks like none of you have been to space.
You know what I call someone who claims to be an expert in something they've never actually experienced?
A con-man.
Though they could just be a crank I guess?
Whatever; keep dreaming, Space-cadets, & don't forget to pay your taxes!
-
Aaaand... Bump!
You ain't been to space.
Your dad ain't been to space.
Your sister & your brother & your ever-loving mother; none of em been to space...
BUT!!!
You know all about it.
Cos you been TOLD all about it.
YET:
None of you been to space.
Keep.
On.
Dreaming.
Suckers!
-
This is in response to the original post.
Nobody ever promised private space flight and flying cars, those were predictions. The main reason why we are not using space ships in place of cars is that they are really expensive. With our current technology, getting something into low Earth orbit costs about $10,000 per pound. Getting into space is not easy, it takes rockets which cost millions of dollars and can only be used once. If you happened to have $70,000,000 on hand then you can buy a seat on a Soyuz rocket and stay on the International Space Station for a while, so space flight is not off limits to civilians, although it's still not within the budget of the average person.
-
This is in response to mikeman-whatever's post: GROW UP!
-
This is in response to mikeman-whatever's post: GROW UP!
You know "whatever" is longer than 7918? Considering the quality of your posts vs Mike's, I think you should consider taking your own advice.
-The Forum Daddy
-
Lots of blather & diversion here, but it still looks like none of you have been to space.
You know what I call someone who claims to be an expert in something they've never actually experienced?
A con-man.
Though they could just be a crank I guess?
Whatever; keep dreaming, Space-cadets, & don't forget to pay your taxes!
Who claimed to be an expert?
-
More diversion & wriggling; you been to space yet Rama Set?
Didn't think so.
Next!
-
P.S. Thank you, Rama Set, for stating that no-one here's an expert on space; I'll bear that in mind next time anyone pontificates on the subject.
But never mind that; anyone here actually BEEN to space yet?
-
More diversion & wriggling; you been to space yet Rama Set?
Didn't think so.
Next!
I already said I had been. Please don't forget to read the thread!
-
P.S. Thank you, Rama Set, for stating that no-one here's an expert on space; I'll bear that in mind next time anyone pontificates on the subject.
But never mind that; anyone here actually BEEN to space yet?
Why does one have to be an expert to discuss a topic with certainty?
-
to: Rama Set.
You just called yourself 'the forum daddy'; forgive me if I never take you seriously ever again.
Plus, you been to space yet?
Btw, don't expect any replies for a while, cos I got a life, job, wife, etc, so need sleep & such.
That okay, 'daddy'?
-
If you have nothing to add but idiotic comments that add nothing to the conversation, kindly go away. We do not need to do something to know how it works. Have you ever moderated a forum? I assume you know how it works, do you not? Find reported posts, do what you need to do to them, repeat.
-
What do we have? Satellites that give us minutes-old photos from space http://gizmodo.com/this-photo-of-san-francisco-was-shot-just-minutes-ago-f-1700474148 (http://gizmodo.com/this-photo-of-san-francisco-was-shot-just-minutes-ago-f-1700474148)
Drones that do mapping for us. http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/great-demo-of-drone-mapping-using-mapbox-and-pix4d-with-a-3d-robo (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/great-demo-of-drone-mapping-using-mapbox-and-pix4d-with-a-3d-robo)
Real-time mapping of a backpacking trip http://blog.thematicmapping.org/2015_04_01_archive.html (http://blog.thematicmapping.org/2015_04_01_archive.html)
It's 2015 where's your map? Where's your evidence of the ice wall?
-
I have no idea what the last two comments meant.
There's some very odd people here, banging on about satellites, moderators, ice walls & being 'the daddy'.
All I want to know is if any of you have been to space?
You can lie if you like; just makes you look even more foolish.
But not as foolish as believing in all this space-malarkey to begin with.
Keep dreaming, daddy-o!
-
I have no idea what the last two comments meant.
There's some very odd people here, banging on about satellites, moderators, ice walls & being 'the daddy'.
All I want to know is if any of you have been to space?
You can lie if you like; just makes you look even more foolish.
But not as foolish as believing in all this space-malarkey to begin with.
Keep dreaming, daddy-o!
I have been to space. ama
-
Looks like nobody can answer Papa's question about going to space.
Many experts on space travel and even Mikeman's poundage per dollars calculations are there for all to see. All this without any knowledge of space travel in any physical sense.
Papa asked a question about who's been to space. Rama is the only one that's been to space, it seems, yet doesn't seem to recall anything about it. Maybe he was asleep on his mission.
So who's the experts?
Mikeman the 17 year old kid seems the only potential expert on here after Geoffrey the Aussie, yet none of them will admit to being in space. Hmmmmm.
-
Looks like nobody can answer Papa's question about going to space.
Many experts on space travel and even Mikeman's poundage per dollars calculations are there for all to see. All this without any knowledge of space travel in any physical sense.
Papa asked a question about who's been to space. Rama is the only one that's been to space, it seems, yet doesn't seem to recall anything about it. Maybe he was asleep on his mission.
So who's the experts?
Mikeman the 17 year old kid seems the only potential expert on here after Geoffrey the Aussie, yet none of them will admit to being in space. Hmmmmm.
No one asked me a question! I remember it all vividly.
-
the shuttles would have been the perfect chance for some space tourism. reusable, constantly going up, bring one or two tourists each time: but no. the only layperson offered to go to space was a teacher, and that was on challenger. great coincidence there.
Excuse me, but what about the 7 tourists that Russia sent to space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists)
-
Looks like nobody can answer Papa's question about going to space.
Many experts on space travel and even Mikeman's poundage per dollars calculations are there for all to see. All this without any knowledge of space travel in any physical sense.
Papa asked a question about who's been to space. Rama is the only one that's been to space, it seems, yet doesn't seem to recall anything about it. Maybe he was asleep on his mission.
So who's the experts?
Mikeman the 17 year old kid seems the only potential expert on here after Geoffrey the Aussie, yet none of them will admit to being in space. Hmmmmm.
The average person does not make enough money in their life to afford a space ship. That's why space travel is not something that everyone has done. That is assuming that that person never buys food or anything at all and just save up their entire life.
-
Looks like nobody can answer Papa's question about going to space.
Many experts on space travel and even Mikeman's poundage per dollars calculations are there for all to see. All this without any knowledge of space travel in any physical sense.
Papa asked a question about who's been to space. Rama is the only one that's been to space, it seems, yet doesn't seem to recall anything about it. Maybe he was asleep on his mission.
So who's the experts?
Mikeman the 17 year old kid seems the only potential expert on here after Geoffrey the Aussie, yet none of them will admit to being in space. Hmmmmm.
The average person does not make enough money in their life to afford a space ship. That's why space travel is not something that everyone has done. That is assuming that that person never buys food or anything at all and just save up their entire life.
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
All of the highest altitude records are set using Air Balloons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record)
Isn't that strange?
Nasa was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in 72 hours 40-50 years ago, but no one can do it today!
We are still using 1700s technology in 2015 to reach space....
-
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
Nope.
-
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
Has he tried paying the Russians to take him into orbit in a Soyuz space craft? They are selling rides to anyone who can afford it.
All of the highest altitude records are set using Air Balloons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record)
Isn't that strange?
Air balloons use buoyancy to go up and they have a height limit because the atmosphere gets thinner as you get higher. Balloons can't reach space because there is no air in space. I do not go d that strange at all.
Nasa was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in 72 hours 40-50 years ago, but no one can do it today!
In 1969 there was a Cold War to push the development of the space program and there was a huge amount of public support. Nobody ever said that going to the Moon was easy. Moon missions take longer then 72 hours, if you include the time speant building the rocket it took 6 months for each mission and that's not even including the years speant designing and prototyping the Saturn V.
We havn't been to the Moon sense Apolli because there is no need to. It has already been done and there is no real reason to do it again, especially considering how hard it is.
We are still using 1700s technology in 2015 to reach space....
That is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. In the 1700's almost none of the technology used in space travel even existed. Airplanes and cars didn't even exist at the time. I am having trouble thinking of a single piece of technology from 1700 used in space travel.
-
We havn't been to the Moon sense Apolli because there is no need to. It has already been done and there is no real reason to do it again, especially considering how hard it is.
Actually, there does seem to be enough renewed interest in the moon that there have several space agencies have engaged in a number of unmanned lunar missions. It seems that one of the greatest challenges of continued lunar exploration is finding a compelling reason to do so. Mars seems to be on everyone's mind right now and the moon doesn't really help much towards that goal.
-
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
This Branson space glider with a fireworks engine Virgin Galaxy is really a joke. It must be carried by an airplane to say 10 000 m altitude, where it is dropped off and starts to glide - like a sail plane. Time to start the engine. The engine is just a solid fuel fireworks that burns for 90 seconds and in that time the pilot shall manually steer the glider from horizontal flight to vertically straight up flight into space at 100 000 m altitude. Doesn't appear difficult.
And then the glider space craft drops back to Earth and hits atmosphere at increasing speed and it is time to manually brake the thing. If it is possible, nobody knows, incl. any pilot or Branson. I assume the Virgin Galaxy will go into an uncontrolled spin or just break up. It cannot possibly land again.
The only test flight so far ended in disaster with the space craft breaking apart going up. Apparently hundreds of people have bought expensive tickets for a flight. I can recommend less expensive suicide methods.
-
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
This Branson space glider with a fireworks engine Virgin Galaxy is really a joke. It must be carried by an airplane to say 10 000 m altitude, where it is dropped off and starts to glide - like a sail plane. Time to start the engine. The engine is just a solid fuel fireworks that burns for 90 seconds and in that time the pilot shall manually steer the glider from horizontal flight to vertically straight up flight into space at 100 000 m altitude. Doesn't appear difficult.
And then the glider space craft drops back to Earth and hits atmosphere at increasing speed and it is time to manually brake the thing. If it is possible, nobody knows, incl. any pilot or Branson. I assume the Virgin Galaxy will go into an uncontrolled spin or just break up. It cannot possibly land again.
The only test flight so far ended in disaster with the space craft breaking apart going up. Apparently hundreds of people have bought expensive tickets for a flight. I can recommend less expensive suicide methods.
You are so wrong that I don't know where to start. First of all it's called Space Ship Two, not the Birgin Galaxy. Also, the only probelem you seem to have found is the part where it glides and lands in a runway, and last I checked airplanes didn't fail every time they try to take off.
-
So, I took a day or so off; plenty of time for one of you to take a quick trip up to orbit then a leisurely splash-down...
Anybody manage that yet?
The thing about space is that in nasa's adverts it looks all lovely & floaty, everybody up there is happy & nobody ever dies.
Plus, only special & worthy people get to go.
Sounds kinda like the old idea of Heaven to me, just with a veneer of science painted over it.
Of course, if i were to suggest that believing in space travel is a religion, all the space-cadets would come after me with pitchforks; again, kinda like religious fundamentalists come after a heretic.
But that's okay; you'll all go to space eventually & prove me wrong.
Won't you?
Dream on... Daddy!
-
So, I took a day or so off; plenty of time for one of you to take a quick trip up to orbit then a leisurely splash-down...
Anybody manage that yet?
The thing about space is that in nasa's adverts it looks all lovely & floaty, everybody up there is happy & nobody ever dies.
Tell that to the Challenger astronauts or the cosmonauts on board the Soyuz 11.
Plus, only special & worthy people get to go.
Weird that they would want highly qualified people to undertake a highly technical and complicated endeavor. They should just draw business cards from their local bars prize giveaway.
Sounds kinda like the old idea of Heaven to me, just with a veneer of science painted over it.
Of course, if i were to suggest that believing in space travel is a religion, all the space-cadets would come after me with pitchforks; again, kinda like religious fundamentalists come after a heretic.
No, they would ask you to provide evidence for it being fake and maybe to have a look at the ISS through a telescope.
But that's okay; you'll all go to space eventually & prove me wrong.
Won't you?
Dream on... Daddy!
I already have, AMA.
[/quote]
-
So, I took a day or so off; plenty of time for one of you to take a quick trip up to orbit then a leisurely splash-down...
Anybody manage that yet?
The thing about space is that in nasa's adverts it looks all lovely & floaty, everybody up there is happy & nobody ever dies.
Plus, only special & worthy people get to go.
Sounds kinda like the old idea of Heaven to me, just with a veneer of science painted over it.
Of course, if i were to suggest that believing in space travel is a religion, all the space-cadets would come after me with pitchforks; again, kinda like religious fundamentalists come after a heretic.
But that's okay; you'll all go to space eventually & prove me wrong.
Won't you?
Dream on... Daddy!
Nearly dying of carbon dioxide poisoning during Apollo 13, a Russian capsule exploding on reentry, 2 space shuttles exploding while taking off and landing, the Apollo 1 fire, the constant risk of being hit by space debris and micrometeorites, exercising for a few hours a day just to keep your bones from degrading, the Mir space station almost getting destroyed by a Russian Bruan space ship bumping into it after a software failure, Space Shuttle Atlantis almost loosong a wing on reentry, and the rigorous schedules astronauts have to follow to get what they need done. That just sounds like sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows right?
-
Nearly dying of carbon dioxide poisoning during Apollo 13, a Russian capsule exploding on reentry, 2 space shuttles exploding while taking off and landing, the Apollo 1 fire, the constant risk of being hit by space debris and micrometeorites, exercising for a few hours a day just to keep your bones from degrading, the Mir space station almost getting destroyed by a Russian Bruan space ship bumping into it after a software failure, Space Shuttle Atlantis almost loosong a wing on reentry, and the rigorous schedules astronauts have to follow to get what they need done. That just sounds like sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows right?
Hollywood?
-
Well, you are the forum daddy so who am I to disagree with all the tosh you spam off wikipedia & nasa.gov sites?
Put your pitchfork down for a moment, daddy, & honestly state, once & for all, if you have personal, first-hand experience of space travel.
If not then everything you say is a matter of blind faith.
& I don't buy blind faith.
Daddy.
-
P.s. my last post was aimed at Rama 'daddy' Set & mikeman-blah.
Though they do seem to be strangely inter-changeable, so in future I'll just treat em as one person.
it'll save time; I may add others as necessary.
Enough of that though; anyone been to space yet?
Or feel like making fools of themselves by lying about it?
Lovely, floaty space, where only special people go & nobody ever dies...
Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeam on!
-
Lovely, floaty space, where only special people go & nobody ever dies...
Clearly you know nothing about the history of space exploration. Plenty of people have died. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia and several in the Russian program.
-
To: mainframes.
Clearly you haven't been to space either.
Yet, as with the rest of your drone-like brethren, you are an expert in all aspects of it.
I don't intend to get dragged into minutiae by you madmen, so I'll leave it up to the neutral reader to note the ridiculous obfuscations & discrepancies in all of your posts...
Me, I just want to know if any of you been to space yet?
Keep the dream alive, daddy-o!
-
P.s. my last post was aimed at Rama 'daddy' Set & mikeman-blah.
Though they do seem to be strangely inter-changeable, so in future I'll just treat em as one person.
it'll save time; I may add others as necessary.
Enough of that though; anyone been to space yet?
Or feel like making fools of themselves by lying about it?
Lovely, floaty space, where only special people go & nobody ever dies...
Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeam on!
Did you miss my last post? I'll quote it again but this time in big red bold Comic Sans so it's harder to ignore:
Nearly dying of carbon dioxide poisoning during Apollo 13, a Russian capsule exploding on reentry, 2 space shuttles exploding while taking off and landing, the Apollo 1 fire, the constant risk of being hit by space debris and micrometeorites, exercising for a few hours a day just to keep your bones from degrading, the Mir space station almost getting destroyed by a Russian Bruan space ship bumping into it after a software failure, Space Shuttle Atlantis almost loosong a wing on reentry, and the rigorous schedules astronauts have to follow to get what they need done. That just sounds like sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows right?
I know that ignoring information is a big part of being a flat earther because if you actually use logic and look at things objectively then you become a round earther, but just this once I would like you to to start grinding the rusty gears in your head and think objectively.
-
To: mikeman-spam.
Have you been to space?
-
To: mikeman-spam.
Have you been to space?
No, but I have preformed an experiment which proves that the Earth is round. It's linked in the second link in my forum signature (WARNING: it might endanger your flat earth beliefs and force you to think objectively). I have also seen the International Space Station flying overhead and communicated with satellites.
-
So; mikeman.nasa.gov hasn't been to space either & thus has no 1st-hand evidence for anything he says on the subject.
This is like pulling teeth...
Anyhow; one more down.
Next!
Anyone else here been to space?
-
So; mikeman.nasa.gov hasn't been to space either & thus has no 1st-hand evidence for anything he says on the subject.
This is like pulling teeth...
Anyhow; one more down.
Next!
Anyone else here been to space?
Only 536 people have been to space and there are over 7,000,000,000 people in the (round) world. There are other ways to know that space exists other then being there, you can freaking SEE IT! Have you ever been to a cloud? How do you know they exist? Because you can see them when you look up in the sky.
-
Okay, I think mikeman's had enough for now.
Poor lad, probably time to stop eh?
Besides which, I'm tired & need my kip, what with the life & the wife & the job etc.
But don't worry, I'll return soon to find out if any of you have been to space yet.
So get busy space-cadets...
Remember; you need to be Special to go to space, so work hard at that.
Until then: Keep dreaming!
-
Anyone else here been to space?
Not many have. You keep repeating it; is there a point to this question?
Despite your protestations, it's not necessary to have been to a place to know a lot abut it. Your inability to learn from others is not everyone's problem. Sorry.
-
Another post full of blah & fail from Alpha2omega.
We've already established you haven't been to space so, errm...
Goodnight!
Happy space-dreams to you all.
-
Another post full of blah & fail from Alpha2omega.
We've already established you haven't been to space so, errm...
Goodnight!
Happy space-dreams to you all.
And we've already established that you haven't been out of your Mom's basement so, errm....
-
Besides which, I'm tired & need my kip, what with the life & the wife & the job etc.
But don't worry, I'll return soon to find out if any of you have been to space yet.
I'm sorry, but you must be truly ignorant of statistics and large numbers. Do you seriously think that someone who has been an astronaut is likely to be amongst the handful of round earthers posting here? And you do understand that there's another 7 billion people out there that have never travelled to space? Or maybe you do not LOL.
Whatever, yours is a nonsensical question. I may as well ask you if you have ever dived to the bottom (depth = 11km) of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean. Obviously I know beforehand your answer will be "no" but that doesn't sanction me claiming that others have not. In fact James Cameron, Jacques Piccard, and Lt Don Walsh have all made the descent.
So; do you accept the depth of the Marianas Trench as being 11km or not? And if you don't, have you been there yourself to disprove it?
-
Okay, I think mikeman's had enough for now.
Poor lad, probably time to stop eh?
Besides which, I'm tired & need my kip, what with the life & the wife & the job etc.
But don't worry, I'll return soon to find out if any of you have been to space yet.
So get busy space-cadets...
Remember; you need to be Special to go to space, so work hard at that.
Until then: Keep dreaming!
You don't need to be special to go to space, it's not like space travel is being restricted to the public. Space travel is REALLY expensive and the average person can't make enough money in his or her lifetime to buy a space craft capable of reaching orbit. There are companies like Virgin Galactic which bring civilians into a sub orbit and other companies like SpaceX will bring you into orbit, it's very expensive but the option is still there. Many space agencies including NASA will launch satellites into orbit commercially, and those satellites are often made by universities and companies. There is no way NASA could fake so much data, they would need hundreds of supercomputers and thousands of employees working around the clock to produce terabytes of fake data every day without ever making a single mistake because that mistake would be caught by the millions of scientists analyzing the data.
Astronauts for NASA are chosen because they have skills that NASA needs them for, they are trained for a few years and they generally go into space a few times because training new astronauts is expensive. It's all economics, why spend time and money when you don't have to.
There have actually already been a few space tourists who were just civilians who paid space agencies to bring them into space. Space tourism is a rapidly growing industry and the fact that it exists is yet another proof that space travel is real.
-
Papa Legba, have you ever been to Australia?
I haven't. Should I conclude it doesn't exist, or that it's impossible to get there?
-
Anyone else here been to space?
Not many have. You keep repeating it; is there a point to this question?
Despite your protestations, it's not necessary to have been to a place to know a lot abut it. Your inability to learn from others is not everyone's problem. Sorry.
Another post full of blah & fail from Alpha2omega.
We've already established you haven't been to space so, errm...
Goodnight!
Happy space-dreams to you all.
I, and others, answered your direct question, but you refuse to answer mine, so, errm...
This evasion must mean there is no point to your question, or you would have answered it. Why do you keep asking it, especially when you ignore the answers you don't like, anyway?
-
Richard Branson makes Billions of dollars, and is actively trying to reach space.... but cannot get higher than a 100-200,000 feet. Don't you think that is odd?
This Branson space glider with a fireworks engine Virgin Galaxy is really a joke.
No, your constant attempts to trivialize and belittle space travel makes you a joke.
It must be carried by an airplane to say 10 000 m altitude, where it is dropped off and starts to glide - like a sail plane. Time to start the engine. The engine is just a solid fuel fireworks that burns for 90 seconds and in that time the pilot shall manually steer the glider from horizontal flight to vertically straight up flight into space at 100 000 m altitude. Doesn't appear difficult.
Actually, the rocket is a hybrid motor using solid propellant and a liquid oxidizer.
And then the glider space craft drops back to Earth and hits atmosphere at increasing speed and it is time to manually brake the thing. If it is possible, nobody knows, incl. any pilot or Branson. I assume the Virgin Galaxy will go into an uncontrolled spin or just break up. It cannot possibly land again.
Nope. SpaceShip2 uses a feathered reentry system that stabilizes the craft during the relatively low speed reentry.
The only test flight so far ended in disaster with the space craft breaking apart going up.
Actually, SpaceShip2 underwent 54 test flights, most of them unpowered. The accident occurred on the 4th powered test flight (the first with the new solid propellent mix).
Apparently hundreds of people have bought expensive tickets for a flight. I can recommend less expensive suicide methods.
How many of these less expensive suicide methods have you personally tested?
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
-
The only test flight so far ended in disaster with the space craft breaking apart going up.
Actually, SpaceShip2 underwent 54 test flights, most of them unpowered. The accident occurred on the 4th powered test flight (the first with the new solid propellent mix).
Let's agree that SS2 has never been in space and any tests (sic) so far has been at low speeds at low altitudes ... and you wonder what they are testing there? That SS2 can glide in air?
The engine has only solid fuel for 70 seconds and can thus only provide power for that short time. If it can be stopped and restarted is not clear ... and you wonder why it should have that capacity. To avoid colliding with other space ships?
The SS2 cannot be steered or brake in space! The brake and steering only works at say <20 000 m altitude but there is no guarantee that SS2 is stable then. The speed may then be >1000 m/s and SS2 has never been tested at that speed.
It seems the whole thing is a Branson toy to impress boys and girls believing in human space travel.
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
I have answered this twice already, I am seriously considering blocking you so I don't have to see you spam this thread with that same question despite being given multiple answers.
-
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And if you have never been to Australia/any location in the world, you have no direct evidence of what happens there. Should you then conclude it is impossible to reach?
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Have you been to Australia yet?
-
Papa Legba, have you ever been to Australia?
I haven't. Should I conclude it doesn't exist, or that it's impossible to get there?
Are you an expert on Australia, assuming it does exist? Would the real experts be the ones who actually live in Australia and explore it?
As papa said: how many of you have been to space. He just wants to know how many experts there is, who aren't just spouting hot air and expertise with no back up.
I've had a good laugh at the frenzy some people went into to try and backup the space crap. ;D
Someone asks a question and all hell breaks loose. Why in the hell would people like Mike and co go into such a spasm over space and all that.
Funny as hell to read. Papa asks a simple question and it's meltdown city. ;D
-
Are you an expert on Australia, assuming it does exist? Would the real experts be the ones who actually live in Australia and explore it?
So, are you saying that you must be an expert on Australia in order to say it is possible to get there?
-
So what happens to the bodies in space, do they decompose or because of the vacuum they become cryovaced?
-
Papa Legba, have you ever been to Australia?
I haven't. Should I conclude it doesn't exist, or that it's impossible to get there?
Are you an expert on Australia, assuming it does exist? Would the real experts be the ones who actually live in Australia and explore it?
As papa said: how many of you have been to space. He just wants to know how many experts there is, who aren't just spouting hot air and expertise with no back up.
I've had a good laugh at the frenzy some people went into to try and backup the space crap. ;D
Someone asks a question and all hell breaks loose. Why in the hell would people like Mike and co go into such a spasm over space and all that.
Funny as hell to read. Papa asks a simple question and it's meltdown city. ;D
It is pretty reasonable, what Jane is doing.
Papa is claiming that because some people haven't been to space, that they cant say anything about it.
She took space, and substituted Australia.
This is an example of how idiotic papa's premise is.
BTW- I haven't been to space, and don't claim any special knowledge of such.
-
So what happens to the bodies in space, do they decompose or because of the vacuum they become cryovaced?
What bodies in space?
-
The only test flight so far ended in disaster with the space craft breaking apart going up.
Actually, SpaceShip2 underwent 54 test flights, most of them unpowered. The accident occurred on the 4th powered test flight (the first with the new solid propellent mix).
Let's agree that SS2 has never been in space and any tests (sic) so far has been at low speeds at low altitudes ... and you wonder what they are testing there? That SS2 can glide in air?
Yes. Seeing as commercial aircraft must undergo rigorous flight testing before being approved to carry passengers, I'd say it's quite prudent to test SS2's flight characteristics in unpowered, as well as powered modes.
The engine has only solid fuel for 70 seconds and can thus only provide power for that short time. If it can be stopped and restarted is not clear ... and you wonder why it should have that capacity. To avoid colliding with other space ships?
I don't recall anyone claiming that the rocket motor could be restarted. It can, however, be stopped early for safety reasons if necessary.
The SS2 cannot be steered or brake in space!
SS2 basically follows a parabolic ballistic trajectory. Steering and/or braking while briefly in space isn't really necessary.
The brake and steering only works at say <20 000 m altitude but there is no guarantee that SS2 is stable then. The speed may then be >1000 m/s and SS2 has never been tested at that speed.
That's why SS2 was conducting powered flight tests. Please try to keep up, will you?
It seems the whole thing is a Branson toy to impress boys and girls believing in human space travel.
Why shouldn't a quick ballistic trip to 100km high be possible? What technical reasons can you think of that should make such a venture impossible?
-
I have been to space, how many times must I tell you?
-
To: Rama Set.
You also say you are the forum daddy; how many times must I disbelieve you?
To: Bijane.
Australia is not space.
To: All space cadets.
Space is not a graveyard; I think you'll find the fatalities you mention all occurred either on the way up to, or return from, space.
Lovely, floaty, suspiciously Heaven-like space!
But enough of that; has anyone here been to space yet?
Anyone have first-hand experience of, or evidence for, space travel?
You know; the kind of thing that you'd need if you were, say, a witness in a trial & didn't want your testimony to be thrown out as being hearsay?
-
It seems the whole thing is a Branson toy to impress boys and girls believing in human space travel.
Why shouldn't a quick ballistic trip to 100km high be possible? What technical reasons can you think of that should make such a venture impossible?
Thanks for asking. It seems a future trip is as follows:
The Branson fully loaded 9 tons space craft SS2 is carried by another plane to altitude 15 000 m, where it is dropped off and glides horizontally at say 100 m/s. The rocket engine is started and burns for 70 seconds. During that short time course is manually changed from horizontal to vertical. After 70 seconds at altitude say 55 000 m and speed say 1100 m/s (acceleration 1.7 g) the engine cuts out (no more fuel) and the SS2, mass now 5 tons - you have burnt 4 tons of solid fuel - continues upwards at reduced speed to an altitude say 100 000 m or more (you are in space!!!) where speed becomes zero. And then SS2 drops down again free fall. MaybeSS2 drops with aft end first - nobody knows, the pilots cannot steer it - and after a while SS2 enters thicker air at increased velocity - soon 1100 m/s - where SS2 will start to spin or rotate around itself and all aboard gets airsick or is killed. I doubt the pilots can handle it. It is suggested there are some braking system that can stop a mass of 5 tons at 1100 m/s, but if it works is not known. I doubt it. That's why I think it is not possible to visit space without getting killed.
According Branson SS2 will start to glide as a sail plane, when entering the atmosphere again, but I doubt it.
-
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And if you have never been to Australia/any location in the world, you have no direct evidence of what happens there. Should you then conclude it is impossible to reach?
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Have you been to Australia yet?
I live in Australia, does that count? Also I've seen a few space cadets over the years. :)
-
To: Bijane, Rayzor & all other confused space-cadets.
I'll say it again, but slower this time to help you understand;
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
Okay?
Now; have any of you been to space yet?
-
Now; have any of you been to space yet?
i was in space (small affair for a robot). But I didn't look down, so I cannot tell what shape the earth was.
-
It seems the whole thing is a Branson toy to impress boys and girls believing in human space travel.
Why shouldn't a quick ballistic trip to 100km high be possible? What technical reasons can you think of that should make such a venture impossible?
Thanks for asking. It seems a future trip is as follows:
The Branson fully loaded 9 tons space craft SS2 is carried by another plane to altitude 15 000 m, where it is dropped off and glides horizontally at say 100 m/s. The rocket engine is started and burns for 70 seconds. During that short time course is manually changed from horizontal to vertical. After 70 seconds at altitude say 55 000 m and speed say 1100 m/s (acceleration 1.7 g) the engine cuts out (no more fuel) and the SS2, mass now 5 tons - you have burnt 4 tons of solid fuel - continues upwards at reduced speed to an altitude say 100 000 m or more (you are in space!!!) where speed becomes zero. And then SS2 drops down again free fall. MaybeSS2 drops with aft end first - nobody knows, the pilots cannot steer it - and after a while SS2 enters thicker air at increased velocity - soon 1100 m/s - where SS2 will start to spin or rotate around itself and all aboard gets airsick or is killed. I doubt the pilots can handle it. It is suggested there are some braking system that can stop a mass of 5 tons at 1100 m/s, but if it works is not known. I doubt it. That's why I think it is not possible to visit space without getting killed.
According Branson SS2 will start to glide as a sail plane, when entering the atmosphere again, but I doubt it.
The essence of what you said is, "I doubt it, so it is not possible." That makes no sense.
-
I'll say it again, but slower this time to help you understand;
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
Irrelevant. Why is the location of a place you have not been to relevant in its existence or nonexistence? Why would people who say they have been to Australia more believable than those who say they have been to space?
Other than your own incredulity right?
-
To: Bijane, Rayzor & all other confused space-cadets.
I'll say it again, but slower this time to help you understand;
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
Okay?
Now; have any of you been to space yet?
I beg to differ, in Australia we have plenty of space, in fact some parts are nothing but space.
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
We can read just fine, and several have answered your question; what we're complaining about is that you have problems understanding answers to an irrelevant question you keep repeating.
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
You're also slow to grasp that it's not necessary to personally experience something to know a lot about it, so your "point" is moot. Fortunately, most people are not Zetacists and realize it's possible to learn things from others.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
Has anyone claimed there are?
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
Adverts? And, so what if they're happy? They're in an environment few get to experience.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
What do you think that sending dullards and losers into space would accomplish? If you haven't noticed, it's expensive and complicated to do that, so why not spend the money on people who can do worthwhile things?
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Why should anyone else answer? You ignore the responses you don't want to see.
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
To: Bijane, Rayzor & all other confused space-cadets.
I'll say it again, but slower this time to help you understand;
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
Okay?
Yes, we know. You never answered the question, just more bob'n'weave. Have you been to Australia?
-
To: Wall-E.
Yes, cartoon characters are permitted to go to space it seems.
Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Woody Woodpecker & many more have all been.
Yet nobody from this forum has gone.
Though they've given ample evidence that they're quite prepared to lie about it.
So, I (& any neutral readers out there) must conclude that none of their opinions on the subject are in the least bit reliable, accurate or worthwhile.
To: all other space-spammers.
I'm truly sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between Australia (& the ability of the average person to travel there) & outer space.
I just don't know how to help you here.
Look, it's friday; sit back, relax, get a beer, & we'll come back to this later, ok?
Cos you're just making fools of yourselves again & it's becoming a habit.
Have a good weekend, space-dreamers!
-
Have a good weekend, space-dreamers!
Aveagoodweegend too. I'll buy you a beer if you are ever down under, and just for future reference I'm almost positive that Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Woody Woodpecker and others are actually members on this forum.
If it wasn't them it was someone equally funny.
-
I'm truly sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between Australia (& the ability of the average person to travel there) & outer space.
That's not the point, the point is that you have never been to Australia and you have never been to soace so if you just use the fact that you have never been to space as evidence that space doesn't exist then under that logic Austrailia doesn't exist because you havn't been there.
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
You are a very unfunny troll.
Get some new material.
-
To: Jimmythecrab.
I am not a troll, Mr. Crab, though my funniness or otherwise is a matter of opinion over which I have no control.
Anyhow, welcome to the 'debate'; have YOU been to space?
It's a simple 'yes/no' answer, but judging by the other cranks on here you'll prefer trying to make me jump through a few rhetorical hoops before actually owning up to the truth.
Which will be, inevitably, 'no, I have not been to space'.
But whatever; off you go, Mr. Crab... Do your best.
-
Oh, & mikeman.nasa,gov:
Please, just stop.
You're embarrassing yourself.
It's the weekend; enjoy it ffs!
No-one cares about space, cos no-one ever goes there...
Just drop it ok?
-
Have you been to Australia?
-
You lot really do have an obsession with Australia, don't you?
Whatever; your pathetic attempts at rhetorical trickery won't work.
My knowledge of Australia is not the point here; I don't care if it exists or not & claim no special knowledge of the place.
YOUR knowledge of SPACE is the topic; stick to it.
But you won't, will you?
You'll squirm, bitch-slap, wriggle & do all you can to avoid admitting that none of you have been there & thus your opinion on the subject is worthless.
So: I am forced to repeat myself; has anybody on this forum, bar sock-puppet cartoon characters & liars, actually been to space?
Or have a life, for that matter?
-
To: Bijane.
Australia is not space.
So what?
Your argument is that no one has gone to space, because we personally have not been to space. I am saying that, as you and I personally have not gone to Australia, means it is impossible for anyone to go to Australia.
What, specifically, exempts Australia from your argument? You can't just say they're different; what difference is relevant here?
No, I have not been to space. I don't see why that means I can't hold the view it's possible to go there. You do know there are other ways to gain knowledge, right?
-
Oh, & mikeman.nasa,gov:
Please, just stop.
You're embarrassing yourself.
It's the weekend; enjoy it ffs!
No-one cares about space, cos no-one ever goes there...
Just drop it ok?
I will drop it once you prove it instead of making assertions.
-
Thanks for asking. It seems a future trip is as follows:
The Branson fully loaded 9 tons space craft SS2 is carried by another plane to altitude 15 000 m, where it is dropped off and glides horizontally at say 100 m/s. The rocket engine is started and burns for 70 seconds. During that short time course is manually changed from horizontal to vertical. After 70 seconds at altitude say 55 000 m and speed say 1100 m/s (acceleration 1.7 g) the engine cuts out (no more fuel) and the SS2, mass now 5 tons - you have burnt 4 tons of solid fuel - continues upwards at reduced speed to an altitude say 100 000 m or more (you are in space!!!) where speed becomes zero. And then SS2 drops down again free fall.
So far, so good.
MaybeSS2 drops with aft end first - nobody knows, the pilots cannot steer it - and after a while SS2 enters thicker air at increased velocity - soon 1100 m/s - where SS2 will start to spin or rotate around itself and all aboard gets airsick or is killed. I doubt the pilots can handle it. It is suggested there are some braking system that can stop a mass of 5 tons at 1100 m/s, but if it works is not known. I doubt it. That's why I think it is not possible to visit space without getting killed.
Except you forgot about the feathered reentry system that stabilizes SS2's reentry without any input from the pilots.
(http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef015432673153970c-pi)
According Branson SS2 will start to glide as a sail plane, when entering the atmosphere again, but I doubt it.
Doubts are not valid technical reasons.
-
Anyhow, welcome to the 'debate'; have YOU been to space?
It's a simple 'yes/no' answer, but judging by the other cranks on here you'll prefer trying to make me jump through a few rhetorical hoops before actually owning up to the truth.
Which will be, inevitably, 'no, I have not been to space'.
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit. Whether anyone on this site has ever been to space or not makes not one bit of difference as to the reality of space travel to the more than 500 people that have been to space.
-
To: Bijane.
You have Australia on the brain; see a doctor.
to: mikeman.madman.
Reply to what exactly?
Get some sleep, or get laid, or whatever you need to restore some mental balance.
To: Markjo.
You are just nuts; eating 'fesces'?
Really?
Seriously, kids, I am not here to be your psychotherapist: if you ain't been to space then just butt out, okay?
Please, it's bank holiday bloody weekend; I wanna have some fun.
See you next week; we'll pick it up from there.
-
I'm truly sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between Australia (& the ability of the average person to travel there) & outer space.
Annnnddd, still no answer. The only conclusion is that you have never been to Australia but won't admit it because it ruins your argument.
You lot really do have an obsession with Australia, don't you?
Whatever; your pathetic attempts at rhetorical trickery won't work.
My knowledge of Australia is not the point here; I don't care if it exists or not & claim no special knowledge of the place.
Sure it is. Are you saying Australia doesn't exist since you apparently haven't been there, or that you can't be sure? Whether you care if it exists or not isn't an issue.
YOUR knowledge of SPACE is the topic; stick to it.
Who appointed you boss?
But you won't, will you?
What do you want to know about space? Many here would be happy to answer meaningful questions about it. And, no, it's still not necessary to have visited space to know a lot about it; there are other ways of gathering knowledge.
You'll squirm, bitch-slap, wriggle & do all you can to avoid admitting that none of you have been there & thus your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Speaking of squirming, have you been to Australia? You still haven't answered. A simple yes or no will do, no need for reams of attempted insults and tedium.
If 'no' do you think it exists? Why or why not?
So: I am forced to repeat myself; has anybody on this forum, bar sock-puppet cartoon characters & liars, actually been to space?
Or have a life, for that matter?
No one is forcing you to ask this, so please stop acting so put-upon.
Is your definition of liar anyone who answers 'yes' to your (repeated once again) irrelevant question? How do you know they're lying? Have you met them personally?
Yes, I do have a life. Quite an enjoyable one, thanks. Do you? If ignorance is bliss, your posts here suggest your life must be blissful.
Have a nice weekend. Take a break from the computer for a while. It'll do you some good.
-
to: mikeman.madman.
Reply to what exactly?
Get some sleep, or get laid, or whatever you need to restore some mental balance.
I was just asking for evidence to back up your claims, that's not an indication of insanity, what is an indication of insanity is thinking that evidence is for mad men. No wonder you are a flat earther.
-
Nothing either of you just said makes sense; think before you post.
Please, get a life.
Really; it's getting pitiful now....
-
Except you forgot about the feathered reentry system that stabilizes SS2's reentry without any input from the pilots.
(http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef015432673153970c-pi)
Only problem is that it does not work when you drop backwards. Poor pilots! Watching the sky while they drop down. But no problem! A little later they are dead! And then Bronson can blame them for not braking. Always blame some dead person when things go wrong.
-
Ffs, Heiwa, all the evidence you need that Branson's space-shit is fake is the fact that it allegedly reaches hypersonic velocities yet lands without even a single blister on the sodding paintwork..
But enough of that; has anyone on this forum, bar sockpuppets & cartoon characters, been to space yet?
-
Have you been to Australia yet?
-
Except you forgot about the feathered reentry system that stabilizes SS2's reentry without any input from the pilots.
(http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef015432673153970c-pi)
Only problem is that it does not work when you drop backwards. Poor pilots! Watching the sky while they drop down. But no problem! A little later they are dead! And then Bronson can blame them for not braking. Always blame some dead person when things go wrong.
Really? Feathered back ends seem to work pretty well for badminton shuttlecock's and last I checked airplanes worked. I don't know how you think that that would not work.
-
To: Bijane.
You have Australia on the brain; see a doctor.
I asked a question. Can I expect an answer?
-
To: Bijane.
Either start a new thread asking for the answers you seek, or answer my original question:
Have you been to space?
Really, this is all getting very old.
& neutral observers will see that.
So try another tactic, eh?
-
To: Markjo.
You are just nuts; eating 'fesces'?
Really?
How can you honestly say if something tastes like shit if you don't know what shit tastes like?
Or do you agree that someone doesn't necessarily need to personally experience something in order to have an idea of what it's like?
-
To: Bijane.
Either start a new thread asking for the answers you seek, or answer my original question:
I did answer your question. Now, I'm asking why your question is meaningful.
If you forgot:
"Your argument is that no one has gone to space, because we personally have not been to space. I am saying that, as you and I personally have not gone to Australia, means it is impossible for anyone to go to Australia.
What, specifically, exempts Australia from your argument? You can't just say they're different; what difference is relevant here?"
-
To: Bijane.
If you want to keep making a fool of yourself, then keep comparing Australia to Space.
I assure you that no-one's buying what you are selling.
-
To: Bijane.
If you want to keep making a fool of yourself, then keep comparing Australia to Space.
I assure you that no-one's buying what you are selling.
Actually her argument makes perfect sense, and from the looks of things you are evading it.
-
If you want to keep making a fool of yourself, then keep comparing Australia to Space.
I'm not comparing the two, I'm just applying your argument.
Yet again I ask where, specifically, does the comparison fail?
-
Alright; you've all gone fully mental.
I guess I could expect no better.
None of you have been to space, yet somehow I'm the 'crank' because of.. errm.. something, something AUSTRALIA!!
But that's okay, cos I trust the neutral reader; that's who I write for.
Not full-on maniacs like you.
You're beyond help.
& none of you has been to space.
Never will either...
-
None of you have been to space, yet somehow I'm the 'crank' because of.. errm.. something, something AUSTRALIA!!
You're the crank because your argument can just as easily be used to show it is impossible to go to Australia.
Still waiting to hear why that's not true.
-
All you & your pals are doing is bullying me.
Do you want me to admit that bullying is truth?
That Australia is the same as Space?
You are insane.
And you dig yourself a bigger hole every time you post.
Because none of you have any experience of space travel.
Keep lying; keep making fools of yourself.
the neutral reader will be on my side, I assure you.
You cannot win.
Cos you ain't been to space, have you?
-
All you & your pals are doing is bullying me.
Do you want me to admit that bullying is truth?
That Australia is the same as Space?
If asking a question is bullying, you're just as guilty of it.
I never said that Australia was the same as space, just that your argument applies to it as well. I'm still waiting for a reason why it doesn't. I mean, if it's so different, you should have no problem with answering, right?
-
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
You are truly insane to compare the two,
Nothing can be done with you.
God help you.
Goodnight.
& happy space-dreams.
-
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
You are truly insane to compare the two,
They are both places to which your logic applies. I ask, yet again, what difference specifically prevents your argument applying to Australia as well?
Try to not evade this time. All I want is an actual answer. The fact I've had to ask this multiple times...
-
All you & your pals are doing is bullying me.
Poor baby.
More whining and evasion, still no answer to the question. Have you ever been to Australia? Yes or no?
You may be aware that, because of what you've already said, either answer will undermine your argument, so you think evading and dodging the question will help you avoid looking like a buffoon, but it's too late for that. The best thing you can do now is to simply vanish for a while and hope that this line of discussion will simply disappear and eventually be forgotten. At least that's something you can hope for.
-
Because none of you have any experience of space travel.
So what?
-
Keep eating 'fesces' mjarko;
Keep saying Australia is like Space bijane;
Keep making fools of yourselves;
Keep wasting your lives on nonsense.
Because not one of you has been to 'space' & not one of you has any right to pontificate on the subject.
It couldn't be any simpler; but you just won't see it.
Poor, sad, saps...
Keep dreaming. space-cadets!
-
Keep saying Australia is like Space bijane
Not what I'm saying at all.
If you're not going to answer my question, you could just say so.
-
To: Bijane, Rayzor & all other confused space-cadets.
I'll say it again, but slower this time to help you understand;
Australia.
Is.
Not.
Space.
Okay?
Now; have any of you been to space yet?
I beg to differ, in Australia we have plenty of space, in fact some parts are nothing but space.
Never forget the drop bears
-
Keep eating 'fesces' mjarko;
Keep saying Australia is like Space bijane;
Keep making fools of yourselves;
Keep wasting your lives on nonsense.
Because not one of you has been to 'space' & not one of you has any right to pontificate on the subject.
It couldn't be any simpler; but you just won't see it.
Poor, sad, saps...
Keep dreaming. space-cadets!
Australia is a location which you (and others) have not been to.
Space is a location which you (and others) have not been to.
Round-earthers claim that both of these locations are accessible and explored.
You reject their claims of the second, but not the first.
That is the logical fallacy which BiJane is pointing out.
FYI I haven't been to space, but neither have I been to the US. should I assume that that doesn't exist as well?
-
Nobody on this forum will ever go to space.
Never, ever.
Because you can't.
Because the laws of physics won't allow it.
Would you care to explain exactly which laws of physics will not allow space travel?
-
Nobody on this forum will ever go to space.
Never, ever.
Because you can't.
Because the laws of physics won't allow it.
Would you care to explain exactly which laws of physics will not allow space travel?
Evolution, DUH!!! ::) ;D
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
I will ignore for the moment the numerous, puerile ad hominems that this person posts, and quote this as the most ludicrous, misinformed, illogical comment for the day:
"...the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there".
I suggest that we stop feeding this all too obvious troll, and maybe he will just go away? Fingers crossed LOL.
-
So what happens to the bodies in space, do they decompose or because of the vacuum they become cryovaced?
What bodies in space?
Sorry, my mistake. No one has died in space. Pretty safe environment.
But say they do one day, would they float around and stay fresh because of the vacuum, you know, like a cryoed T bone?
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
I will ignore for the moment the numerous, puerile ad hominems that this person posts, and quote this as the most ludicrous, misinformed, illogical comment for the day:
"...the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there".
I suggest that we stop feeding this all too obvious troll, and maybe he will just go away? Fingers crossed LOL.
ausGeoff, he's not trolling. He's asking a simple question and nobody by Rama has answered.
Only Rama has been to space but he doesn't want to talk about it. Could Rasma be lying or could Rama mean space as in car parking space or something like that?
-
That is ausGeoff, you nailed it.
How are ya Geoff?
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
I will ignore for the moment the numerous, puerile ad hominems that this person posts, and quote this as the most ludicrous, misinformed, illogical comment for the day:
"...the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there".
I suggest that we stop feeding this all too obvious troll, and maybe he will just go away? Fingers crossed LOL.
ausGeoff, he's not trolling. He's asking a simple question and nobody by Rama has answered.
Only Rama has been to space but he doesn't want to talk about it. Could Rasma be lying or could Rama mean space as in car parking space or something like that?
I answered! I admitted that I hadn't FYI. Do I get a medal? No?
-
Could you all stop whining & please learn to read?
As I have already stated, the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there.
And you can stop lying too; there are no dead bodies bobbing around in lovely, floaty space.
The astronauts in nasa's ISS & Moon adverts all seem happy.
& only special, worthy people get to go there.
But enough of that; stick to the point: have any of you been to space yet?
Keep on lying & diverting if you wish; as I said before, it only makes you look even more foolish.
Dream away, space-cadets!
I will ignore for the moment the numerous, puerile ad hominems that this person posts, and quote this as the most ludicrous, misinformed, illogical comment for the day:
"...the point of my question is that if none of you have been to space then you have no direct evidence of anything that supposedly happens up there".
I suggest that we stop feeding this all too obvious troll, and maybe he will just go away? Fingers crossed LOL.
ausGeoff, he's not trolling. He's asking a simple question and nobody by Rama has answered.
Only Rama has been to space but he doesn't want to talk about it. Could Rasma be lying or could Rama mean space as in car parking space or something like that?
I want to answer, but no one asked me any questions.
-
I am being called a troll for asking one simple question.
Meanwhile, the space cadets on this forum have claimed:
* That there are dead people in space,
* That Australia is the same as space (repeatedly & vehemently).
* That eating 'fesces' is somehow relevant to going to space (Markjo; your coprophagia fetish is duly noted. It explains your avatar at any rate).
* That Rama Set is 'the forum daddy'.
* Plus many more inanities & diversions which I can't even be bothered looking back to check up on.
What's more, I have been consistent in my stance throughout; unlike they, who appear to be simply hurling as much mud at me as possible in the hope that something eventually sticks.
So. I ask you: who's acting more like a troll?
They or I?
But whatever; enough of such musings...
Because now I'm here I may as well ask again; have any of you been to space yet?
Do any of you have 1st-hand experience of this thing which you're so very, very certain is real?
You know; the kind of thing you'd need if you were to appear as a witness in court & didn't want your testimony to be thrown out for being merely 'hearsay'?
Because I don't believe any of you have.
And therefore your word on the subject is worthless.
-
Maybe you wouldn't be called a troll if you were to stop foaming at the mouth and explain why first hand experience should be so important to believing that space travel is possible and exactly which laws of physics you think that space travel violates.
-
* That Australia is the same as space (repeatedly & vehemently).
Not one person has said this. In fact, I remember directly saying this is not the case multiple times.
All we're saying is that your logic applies to Australia as well as space. You have also been directly asked for the reason why it does not. We're still waiting on an answer to that.
Australia is different to space. Great, good, got that, always had that. So? It is a place you have not personally been. That is the only trait of space you've brought up: if you're using that to conclude space cannot be reached, you must be concluding the same of Australia.
Seriously, try to answer the question for once. Why does your logic not apply here? What, specifically, is the trait of Australia that exempts it?
-
* That Australia is the same as space (repeatedly & vehemently).
Not one person has said this. In fact, I remember directly saying this is not the case multiple times.
All we're saying is that your logic applies to Australia as well as space. You have also been directly asked for the reason why it does not. We're still waiting on an answer to that.
Australia is different to space. Great, good, got that, always had that. So? It is a place you have not personally been. That is the only trait of space you've brought up: if you're using that to conclude space cannot be reached, you must be concluding the same of Australia.
Seriously, try to answer the question for once. Why does your logic not apply here? What, specifically, is the trait of Australia that exempts it?
Have you been to Australia? Maybe, maybe not.
Can you go there? Of course you can.
Have you been to space? No.
Can you go there? No.
-
Have you been to Australia? Maybe, maybe not.
Can you go there? Of course you can.
Have you been to space? No.
Can you go there? No.
Theoretically, I could: it's just much harder to become an astronaut than it is to buy a plane ticket.
It's also worth pointing out how that's nothing like Papa Legba's argument. He wasn't talking about "Can you..." he repeatedly said "Have you...?"
-
More whining, lies, diversion & laughably pompous comparisons of Australia to space.
You just won't give that one up will you?
No matter how idiotic it makes you look.
And I have answered your question about 'what laws of physics prevent space travel';
Using the methods claimed by NASA: All Of Them.
You really don't know how to read do you?
But your inability to read, or apply high-school science to NASA's special-effects extravaganzas, is not the point here; there are plenty of other space-threads for you to demonstrate your ignorance on.
No; the point is: have you been to space?
Do you have any first-hand witness evidence for any of your space-beliefs?
It's a 'yes/no' answer, so there's no real need for any of your replies to exceed four characters (assuming you know how to spell & punctuate correctly; not a given).
But they will, won't they?
Dealing with religious zealots is always a tiresome business...
-
i wouldn't be too fussed about Papa Legless, he's off on a bank holiday weekend bender. I am a bit curious about his obsession with Australia tho? Probably still shell shocked after being beaten in the World Cup by Bangladesh.
Just to set the record straight, video evidence is admissible in court these days, so in a court of law all the video from the ISS would be admissible, and the hundreds of thousands of photographs and mountains of scientific evidence would be also be admissible. For the opposition, they would probably roll out a few known loonies of the likes of Bart Sibrel, I seriously doubt they would damage their credibility by trotting out any flat earthers, knowing that would make them a laughing stock.
The flat earth society forums seem to be a natural target for trolls, just google "trolling the flat earth society forum" and you will get lots of examples where people have bragged about trolling here.
-
More whining, lies, diversion & laughably pompous comparisons of Australia to space.
You just won't give that one up will you?
No matter how idiotic it makes you look.
And I have answered your question about 'what laws of physics prevent space travel';
Using the methods claimed by NASA: All Of Them.
You really don't know how to read do you?
But your inability to read, or apply high-school science to NASA's special-effects extravaganzas, is not the point here; there are plenty of other space-threads for you to demonstrate your ignorance on.
No; the point is: have you been to space?
Do you have any first-hand witness evidence for any of your space-beliefs?
It's a 'yes/no' answer, so there's no real need for any of your replies to exceed four characters (assuming you know how to spell & punctuate correctly; not a given).
But they will, won't they?
Dealing with religious zealots is always a tiresome business...
Short Answer: No.
Long Answer: No, I haven't been to space. Neither have I been to Scotland, North Korea, Puerto Rico or Chile.
Do the latter places exist? Should I take other people's words for the existence and nature of the latter places?
-
Do you have any first-hand witness evidence for any of your space-beliefs?
Yes.
I have seen the International Space Station fly over head, I have used GPS to find my location (which uses satellites), I have seen the Apollo 11 capsule in the Smithsonian, I have seen a Space Shittle, I have had satellite TV, I have seen weather predictions made with the help of satellites come true, there is a live feed from the International Space Station broadcasting 24/7, and the list goes on and on.
-
Bijane states that theoretically she could go to space.
'Theoretically'; indeed.
So, Bijane; you pop along to the theoretical space-travel agent, buy a theoretical space-ticket, jump on a theoretical rocket, whiz up to the theoretical ISS, have a lovely, floaty time with the happy, smiley theoretical folk up there (& don't forget to look out for all the dead people!), then jump back into your theoretical rocket for a gentle theoretical splashdown, whereupon you can return here to triumphantly vanquish me & banish me from the forum.
Or dress me in an orange jump-suit & behead me, or whatever it is that religious fundamentalists do to heretics these days.
Somehow, I doubt any of the above will be happening any time soon...
Seriously; I don't NEED to troll you - you troll yourselves pretty much every time you post.
And, again, please do learn to read; I asked for 1st-hand witness evidence, i.e. you personally witnessed space travel.
Looking at lights in the sky, crummy videos & junk in museums does not count.
But I'll try to keep it even simpler in future, due to your obvious special needs; so: HAVE. YOU. BEEN. TO. SPACE?
-
No. But I concede other peoples expertise in the area of astrophysics.
-
Bijane states that theoretically she could go to space.
'Theoretically'; indeed.
You are aware of theoretically means, right? If I was so inclined, I could enter training to become an astronaut/cosmonaut and might be able to end up in space. Those people aren't chosen at birth. I just don't have any wish to. Sure, it's harder: never said it wasn't.
And, again, please do learn to read; I asked for 1st-hand witness evidence, i.e. you personally witnessed space travel.
And you've been shown how the lack of it doesn't mean anything. Australia, yet again. I've repeatedly asked you why your logic does not apply there. What trait, specifically, is the problem? How many times do I have to ask you to get an answer? I've answered your question, please answer mine.
-
I am being called a troll for asking one simple question.
Meanwhile, the space cadets on this forum have claimed:
* That there are dead people in space,
* That Australia is the same as space (repeatedly & vehemently).
* That eating 'fesces' is somehow relevant to going to space (Markjo; your coprophagia fetish is duly noted. It explains your avatar at any rate).
* That Rama Set is 'the forum daddy'.
* Plus many more inanities & diversions which I can't even be bothered looking back to check up on.
What's more, I have been consistent in my stance throughout; unlike they, who appear to be simply hurling as much mud at me as possible in the hope that something eventually sticks.
So. I ask you: who's acting more like a troll?
They or I?
But whatever; enough of such musings...
Because now I'm here I may as well ask again; have any of you been to space yet?
Do any of you have 1st-hand experience of this thing which you're so very, very certain is real?
You know; the kind of thing you'd need if you were to appear as a witness in court & didn't want your testimony to be thrown out for being merely 'hearsay'?
Because I don't believe any of you have.
And therefore your word on the subject is worthless.
Has anyone here ever met Papa Legba face to face? So can anyone prove Papa REALLY exists? I think not!
-
And I have answered your question about 'what laws of physics prevent space travel';
Using the methods claimed by NASA: All Of Them.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to humor me and give a few.
You really don't know how to read do you?
But your inability to read, or apply high-school science to NASA's special-effects extravaganzas, is not the point here; there are plenty of other space-threads for you to demonstrate your ignorance on.
What makes you think that high school physics is enough launch a space ship?
No; the point is: have you been to space?
No, but I've never been to Australia either.
Do you have any first-hand witness evidence for any of your space-beliefs?
No, but I don't have any first-hand experience that Australia exists either.
It's a 'yes/no' answer, so there's no real need for any of your replies to exceed four characters (assuming you know how to spell & punctuate correctly; not a given).
But they will, won't they?
Dealing with religious zealots is always a tiresome business...
Yes, almost as tiresome as dealing with atheistic zealots.
-
Looking at lights in the sky, crummy videos & junk in museums does not count.
If you look at the International Space Station with a telescope then you can see it's shape, and videos do prove something if they are transmitted using satellites. My phone can communicate with GPS satellites to figure out it's location and that's impossible unless there are actually satellites orbiting the Earth.
By the way, I have not been to space. That proves nothing though.
-
Imagine the scene in the courtroom:
Prosecutor: 'What evidence do you have for space travel, Mr. Nerdgasm?'
Witness: ' My television works.'
Prosecutor: 'Inconclusive; anything else?'
Witness: 'I see lights in the sky.'
Prosecutor: 'Still inconclusive. Let me rephrase the question; have you been to space?'
Witness: 'Have you been to Australia?'
Prosecutor: 'Irrelevant. Have you been to space?'
Witness: 'Space is like eating faeces.'
Judge (interrupting): 'Will the witness please answer the question?'
Witness: 'HAVE YOU BEEN TO AUSTRALIA???'
Judge: 'Contempt of court! Seven days remand. Bailiff, escort the prisoner to a padded cell.'
Which pretty much sums up all your arguments thus far.
Of course, this is not a courtroom, but I assure you that the neutral readers out there are a form of jury.
And they will not be on your side.
Markjo: please do learn to read: what do you not understand about the word 'all'?
Frankly, you're lucky I choose to respond to you at all after your irrelevant & disgusting coprophagia posts.
They, and your diaper-inspecting animal avatar, say a lot about you.
But enough of all that; has anyone here actually been to space yet?
Except 'theoretically', of course...
-
Here is how I think it would go:
Prosecutor: What proof do you have that space travel is real?
Witness: I can see the International Space Station flying overhead.
Prosecutor: How do you know that that's the International Space Station?
Witness: I can look at it with my telescope and see it's shape, also it could not cover as much ground as it does unless it's traveling 17,000 miles per hour.
Prosecutor: Do you have any other proof?
Witness: I regularly communicate with satellites for TV and GPS, and there are also satellite phones which can work even if there are no cell towers around.
Prosecutor: Is that everything?
Witness: Nope. Rocket launches are public events which anyone can watch and in order for them to be fake you would need to have literally tens of millions of conspirators and that's a conservative estimate. All employees of all space egancues both commercial and government who work with rockets would have to be in on it and also every private contractor who works with space agencies would have to be managed and staffed by conspirators.
Prosecutor: What does this prove?
Witness: The only way to keep a conspiracy going is to let as few people know about it as possible, but what your suggesting is that at least 1 out of every 100 people would be in on the conspiracy, and that's just what's needed to fake space travel excluding those who would need to be conspirators to make everyone believe that the Earth is round if the Earth were flat.
Prosecutor: Well... Ummm... The Earth kind of looks flat.
What conclusion do you think the jury would come to after hearing that?
-
To: mikeman.nasa.gov.
They'd come to the conclusion that you haven't been to space.
Which you've already admitted, remember?
So you have no direct & unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Which you just admitted again in yet another humourless, self-trolling post full of blah & fail.
Keep on making a fool of yourself if you wish; but if it ends up in another childish, foot-stomping, mental breakdown like it did on friday then I will show you no sympathy this time.
Enough of that though; has anybody here actually been to space yet?
Except for liars, or theoretically, or in your dreams?
-
To: mikeman.nasa.gov.
They'd come to the conclusion that you haven't been to space.
Which you've already admitted, remember?
So you have no direct & unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Which you just admitted again in yet another humourless, self-trolling post full of blah & fail.
Keep on making a fool of yourself if you wish; but if it ends up in another childish, foot-stomping, mental breakdown like it did on friday then I will show you no sympathy this time.
Enough of that though; has anybody here actually been to space yet?
Except for liars, or theoretically, or in your dreams?
We've told you many times, nobody here has been to space. You are correct. However, personal verification is not the only way to prove something exists. I've never been to Greenland. How do I know it exists? Because people talk about it, have pictures of it and I see it on TV and other reliable sources. There are many witness reports and in order to fake it hundreds of people would have to be paid off.
Now, replace "Greenland" with "space".
-
To: mikeman.nasa.gov.
They'd come to the conclusion that you haven't been to space.
Which you've already admitted, remember?
So you have no direct & unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Which you just admitted again in yet another humourless, self-trolling post full of blah & fail.
Keep on making a fool of yourself if you wish; but if it ends up in another childish, foot-stomping, mental breakdown like it did on friday then I will show you no sympathy this time.
Enough of that though; has anybody here actually been to space yet?
Except for liars, or theoretically, or in your dreams?
Haven't we shown enough times that the logic you are using is flawed?
All those Australia shenanigans.
By the way, how high would you constitute "space"?
And it is normal for mikeman to be humourless, as he has Aspergers. just to let ya know.
-
Hi Papa Legba! Many of us have answered your question. How long is it going to be before you actually answer mine?
-
Bijane: I'll answer your question when it isn't an irrelevant allusion to a fallacious analogy.
The mere fact that you seem to think that my stating whether or not I have been to Australia will somehow grant you a Great Victory shows how utterly desperate & lost in delusion you are.
But please keep asking me, as every time you do so it undermines your credibility just a little more, makes you look that bit more stupid...
Scroto gaggins: You have shown Nothing, except that you are variously liars, theoretical space travellers & none of you have any 1st-hand experience of space.
Oh, & that Rama Set is 'the forum daddy'.
As for mikeman's aspergers, why should I take the word of one anonymous, unidentifiable internet persona regarding the mental condition of another internet nobody seriously?
Stop fishing for sympathy; you all mean nothing to me, okay? You are a plague on this site & if any of you continue to post nonsense I will continue to point it out.
Fakeworlder: Greenland now? What was wrong with Australia? If you choose to employ silly analogies at least stick to the same one.
So; once more, from the top: have any of you humourless astro-drones been to space yet & thus actually have 1st-hand experience of this thing that you are so adamant is real?
I say you don't & therefore your word on the subject is worthless.
Keep grinding away; keep making fools of yourselves; you cannot win.
Because none of you have been to space.
-
Bijane: I'll answer your question when it isn't an irrelevant allusion to a fallacious analogy.
The mere fact that you seem to think that my stating whether or not I have been to Australia will somehow grant you a Great Victory shows how utterly desperate & lost in delusion you are.
But please keep asking me, as every time you do so it undermines your credibility just a little more, makes you look that bit more stupid...
Scroto gaggins: You have shown Nothing, except that you are variously liars, theoretical space travellers & none of you have any 1st-hand experience of space.
Oh, & that Rama Set is 'the forum daddy'.
As for mikeman's aspergers, why should I take the word of one anonymous, unidentifiable internet persona regarding the mental condition of another internet nobody seriously?
Stop fishing for sympathy; you all mean nothing to me, okay? You are a plague on this site & if any of you continue to post nonsense I will continue to point it out.
Fakeworlder: Greenland now? What was wrong with Australia? If you choose to employ silly analogies at least stick to the same one.
So; once more, from the top: have any of you humourless astro-drones been to space yet & thus actually have 1st-hand experience of this thing that you are so adamant is real?
I say you don't & therefore your word on the subject is worthless.
Keep grinding away; keep making fools of yourselves; you cannot win.
Because none of you have been to space.
But will you acknowledge the fact that we have shown your logic to be flawed?
i.e. That saying because one hasn't been to a location, then one cannot claim any knowledge whatsoever.
Is that correct?
Because we have shown that when we insert Australia, for example, as the location unvisited, that the logic is unsound. Why should this not be the same with the location and accessibility of space?
-
Bijane: I'll answer your question when it isn't an irrelevant allusion to a fallacious analogy.
The mere fact that you seem to think that my stating whether or not I have been to Australia will somehow grant you a Great Victory shows how utterly desperate & lost in delusion you are.
But please keep asking me, as every time you do so it undermines your credibility just a little more, makes you look that bit more stupid...
Scroto gaggins: You have shown Nothing, except that you are variously liars, theoretical space travellers & none of you have any 1st-hand experience of space.
Oh, & that Rama Set is 'the forum daddy'.
As for mikeman's aspergers, why should I take the word of one anonymous, unidentifiable internet persona regarding the mental condition of another internet nobody seriously?
Stop fishing for sympathy; you all mean nothing to me, okay? You are a plague on this site & if any of you continue to post nonsense I will continue to point it out.
Fakeworlder: Greenland now? What was wrong with Australia? If you choose to employ silly analogies at least stick to the same one.
So; once more, from the top: have any of you humourless astro-drones been to space yet & thus actually have 1st-hand experience of this thing that you are so adamant is real?
I say you don't & therefore your word on the subject is worthless.
Keep grinding away; keep making fools of yourselves; you cannot win.
Because none of you have been to space.
I chose Greenland since I doubt anyone here has been there, therefore it is a better analogy than Australia.
The reason we keep using the analogies is to show YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. You can not decide that space does not exist simply because we have not been there. Here is a list of evidence space exists:
1. Rocket launches are public events, where do the rockets go if not to space?
2. I have personally seen the ISS and a number of different satellites with a telescope.
3. I have observed various planets with a telescope.
4. I PERSONALLY saw the meteorite come down in Russia. Please explain that.
5. There is no problem with the laws of physics that don't allow space to exist.
I can come up with some more evidence if you want.
-
Markjo: please do learn to read: what do you not understand about the word 'all'?
If you're saying that space flight violates all laws of physics, then why don't you start by explaining just how it violates each of Newton's 3 laws of motion? I remind you that there is a difference between claiming something and explaining something.
-
Markjo: please do learn to read: what do you not understand about the word 'all'?
If you're saying that space flight violates all laws of physics, then why don't you start by explaining just how it violates each of Newton's 3 laws of motion? I remind you that there is a difference between claiming something and explaining something.
And if you didn't mean that, start by explaining how it violates ANY laws of physics.
-
It has become more than obvious by now that PAPA LEGBA is nothing more than a troll with far too much time on his hands. I suggest people just ignore his puerile posts and nonsensical pseudo-logic, and hopefully he will just go away and avoid embarrassing himself even further.
And why is it that the moderators don't ban intellectually-challenged people who have absolutely nothing positive to contribute to these forums, and whose sole purpose is to insult peoples' intelligence and/or starting flame wars? Do not the moderators care?
-
It has become more than obvious by now that PAPA LEGBA is nothing more than a troll with far too much time on his hands. I suggest people just ignore his puerile posts and nonsensical pseudo-logic, and hopefully he will just go away and avoid embarrassing himself even further.
He's the one who comes across as the stubborn dolt in this "discussion". The best thing that could happen for him would be for his "argument" to simply be forgotten. For that to happen, he has to move on. Every time he stubbornly repeats the same nonsense, it's right back front and center for all to see and most to laugh at.
And why is it that the moderators don't ban intellectually-challenged people who have absolutely nothing positive to contribute to these forums, and whose sole purpose is to insult peoples' intelligence and/or starting flame wars? Do not the moderators care?
This is the Flat Earth Society. Its target audience is intellectually-challenged people and those who pretend to be for the fun of it. If you ban these guys, no one would promote the rather strange notion that the Earth is flat, and there would be no ignorance, flawed logic, and poor math for the rest of us to point out. Sometimes these are obvious, sometimes hard to see immediately, but always there, which makes participation fun and sometimes educational.
-
Bijane: I'll answer your question when it isn't an irrelevant allusion to a fallacious analogy.
The mere fact that you seem to think that my stating whether or not I have been to Australia will somehow grant you a Great Victory shows how utterly desperate & lost in delusion you are.
But please keep asking me, as every time you do so it undermines your credibility just a little more, makes you look that bit more stupid...
Actually I've been asking why, specifically, you're rejecting the analogy as irrelevant. Have been for a while.
-
To: bijane'
Yes, and you can keep asking; tappet answered you already, as did I, but you chose to ignore us, demonstrating yet again your reading comprehension issues & general bumbling idiocy.
To: everyone else.
You seem to be under the impression that this is some form of 'debate'; it is not.
It is a massacre.
You know, after what I was told about mikeman.nasa.gov - & with me being such a sympatico guy - I've been researching Asperger's syndrome...
And judging by the symptoms I'd say you've ALL got it.
But wtf is a 'hugbox'?
Do any of you own one?
Anyhoo, enough of that; anyone popped up to space while I was gone? Don't tell me you all wasted a beautiful bank holiday monday spewing out ignorant, pompous posts on a forum you don't like & you're not welcome on?
Some might consider that trolling... It's certainly a tragic waste of your life at any rate!
But don't worry, I won't report you to the moderators; cos no-one likes a tattle-tale do they?
Hey, ho; bedtime for me. In view of your now clearly stated 'special needs' I'll repeat my question again, but veeery slowly this time so you can understand:
HAVE.
ANY.
OF.
YOU.
BEEN.
TO.
SPACE?
YES?
OR.
NO?
Oh, & ZennerOne/ausGeoff - LOL!
-
To: bijane'
Yes, and you can keep asking; tappet answered you already, as did I, but you chose to ignore us, demonstrating yet again your reading comprehension issues & general bumbling idiocy.
Tappet answered in a way which undercuts your point, so if you want to go with that answer, feel free, but you'll need to stop repeating yourself. You know your question's been answered, right?
You have never answered. You've just blithely handwaved and "Australia isn't space!" Great, I never claimed it was. What, specifically, makes not having gone to Australia less of an issue than not having gone to space?
-
Bijane: you are comedy gold.
Now go to bed.
-
Hey, ho; bedtime for me. In view of your now clearly stated 'special needs' I'll repeat my question again, but veeery slowly this time so you can understand:
HAVE.
ANY.
OF.
YOU.
BEEN.
TO.
SPACE?
YES?
OR.
NO?
WHAT.
DOES.
IT.
MATTER?
-
To: bijane'
Yes, and you can keep asking; tappet answered you already, as did I, but you chose to ignore us, demonstrating yet again your reading comprehension issues & general bumbling idiocy.
To: everyone else.
You seem to be under the impression that this is some form of 'debate'; it is not.
It is a massacre.
You know, after what I was told about mikeman.nasa.gov - & with me being such a sympatico guy - I've been researching Asperger's syndrome...
And judging by the symptoms I'd say you've ALL got it.
But wtf is a 'hugbox'?
Do any of you own one?
Anyhoo, enough of that; anyone popped up to space while I was gone? Don't tell me you all wasted a beautiful bank holiday monday spewing out ignorant, pompous posts on a forum you don't like & you're not welcome on?
Some might consider that trolling... It's certainly a tragic waste of your life at any rate!
But don't worry, I won't report you to the moderators; cos no-one likes a tattle-tale do they?
Hey, ho; bedtime for me. In view of your now clearly stated 'special needs' I'll repeat my question again, but veeery slowly this time so you can understand:
HAVE.
ANY.
OF.
YOU.
BEEN.
TO.
SPACE?
YES?
OR.
NO?
Oh, & ZennerOne/ausGeoff - LOL!
Jesus Christ you are one stubborn idiot.
This is indeed a massacre, we have proven your points useless many times and you convieniently ignored my proof of space.
We have proved space exists and none of us have been there.
-
Bijane: you are comedy gold.
No answer then? Ok.
Now go to bed.
Apparently even time zones are outside yoru understanding.
-
We have proved space exists and none of us have been there.
Your name says it all.
-
Bijane: I couldn't answer your post because it was gibberish; reading it was like looking at a semantic car-crash.
You really are unable to tell the difference between Words & Reality, aren't you?
& why the hell should I care enough about you to find out what time-zone you inhabit?
Or believe you about anything for that matter?
But then, extreme self-absorption is a symptom of aspergers isn't it?
Now get back in your hugbox (I googled it - & LOL!!) until your next hilarious self-trolling session.
I gotta go to work now, but while I'm here I may as well ask if any of you mob of dunces have been to space yet?
Cos if you ain't then you've no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Just hearsay, assumption, supposition & opinion... None of which are worth a damn.
-
Bijane: I couldn't answer your post because it was gibberish; reading it was like looking at a semantic car-crash.
You really are unable to tell the difference between Words & Reality, aren't you?
& why the hell should I care enough about you to find out what time-zone you inhabit?
Or believe you about anything for that matter?
But then, extreme self-absorption is a symptom of aspergers isn't it?
Now get back in your hugbox (I googled it - & LOL!!) until your next hilarious self-trolling session.
I gotta go to work now, but while I'm here I may as well ask if any of you mob of dunces have been to space yet?
Cos if you ain't then you've no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Just hearsay, assumption, supposition & opinion... None of which are worth a damn.
Have fun scrubbing toilets!
-
We have proved space exists and none of us have been there.
Your name says it all.
I'm not sure if you're arguing against me, my point was that we have conclusive proof that space exists which did not involve is going there
Papa legba, you still haven't answered my evidence. I will take it that you are admitting space exists.
Also, 1 shred of evidence that space doesn't exist? Such as provably false pictures or a law of physics space would break?
-
I may as well ask if any of you mob of dunces have been to space yet?
Cos if you ain't then you've no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Just hearsay, assumption, supposition & opinion... None of which are worth a damn.
So if that's the only question that's required to determine whether or not we can tell anything about a place, my question about Australia is still looking pretty relevant.
Any reason why it's not? Still waiting...
-
I apologise in advance for posting this comment again, but it needs repeating.
It has become apparent now that PAPA LEGBA is nothing more than a very persistent TROLL with far too much time on his hands. If we all simply ignore his childish posts and abject irrationality, then hopefully he will just go away to avoid further making a fool of himself.
And why haven't the moderators banned this kiddy, who has nothing relevant to contribute to the thread, and whose sole purpose is to insult everybody else and disrupt the forum? Am I correct in saying that the moderators do not care?
-
I apologise in advance for posting this comment again, but it needs repeating.
It has become apparent now that PAPA LEGBA ausGeoff is nothing more than a very persistent TROLL with far too much time on his hands. If we all simply ignore his childish posts and abject irrationality, then hopefully he will just go away to avoid further making a fool of himself.
And why haven't the moderators banned this kiddy, who has nothing relevant to contribute to the thread, and whose sole purpose is to insult everybody else and disrupt the forum? Am I correct in saying that the moderators do not care?
Fixed.
-
I apologise in advance for posting this comment again, but it needs repeating.
It has become apparent now that PAPA LEGBA is nothing more than a very persistent TROLL with far too much time on his hands. If we all simply ignore his childish posts and abject irrationality, then hopefully he will just go away to avoid further making a fool of himself.
And why haven't the moderators banned this kiddy, who has nothing relevant to contribute to the thread, and whose sole purpose is to insult everybody else and disrupt the forum? Am I correct in saying that the moderators do not care?
Geoffrey, stop making it your life's goal to have everyone banned from a forum that you totally disagree with.
Papa asked a very pertinent question.
None of you have been to space apart from Rama and he doesn't want to talk about it.
Now because none of you , except for Rama, have been to space, it means that your reliance on pictures and text books, plus word of mouth, as all you have in terms of expertise.
Bringing up Australia is neither here nor there because if you haven't been to Australia then you have no expertise over that.
All you people are doing is living in a fantasy world that was created for you using words and pictures/video. No different to what Hollywood creates for the ever willing fantasy viewer.
I await Rama set to tell us all about his space exploits if he's up to it.
-
Bringing up Australia is neither here nor there because if you haven't been to Australia then you have no expertise over that.
The problem with that statement is that you still accept various things about Australia, that you refuse to accept about space. For example: it's possible to go there.
-
Bringing up Australia is neither here nor there because if you haven't been to Australia then you have no expertise over that.
The problem with that statement is that you still accept various things about Australia, that you refuse to accept about space. For example: it's possible to go there.
But if I'd never been there I couldn't profess to be an expert on it or know anything about it physically. I'd be relying on seconds hand info.
The other thing is, you can go to a place called Australia right now and alnd on an area that states it. You won't know it's on a globe but at least you will see a portion of what is Australia.
Now get in a rocket and go to space. What's your chances?
If you are not naive, you will accept your chances are zero. You may believe space exists but you have no way of knowing for sure. You have never seen anything at all that proves beyond reasonable doubt that space exists.
-
But if I'd never been there I couldn't profess to be an expert on it or know anything about it physically. I'd be relying on seconds hand info.
Just as you are for most things. You're relying on second hand info that if you tie yourself to a weight and jump in a river, you'll die: you've never done that, you've never spoken to anyone after they've done that. For all you know it might give you superpowers: you're relying on second and maybe even third hand info of people who've studied that.
The other thing is, you can go to a place called Australia right now and alnd on an area that states it. You won't know it's on a globe but at least you will see a portion of what is Australia.
Now get in a rocket and go to space. What's your chances?
I could apparently do that (though maybe I'm just drugged with hallucinogens, or dropped off in a desert, or killed. We have only the second-hand info of people who claim to have gone to Australia to say that won't happen). I could also change degrees and study to become an astronaut: maybe emigrate. People aren't born to serve NASA, they seek employment there just like they do anywhere else.
You have never seen anything at all that proves beyond reasonable doubt that space exists.
What is your definition of 'reasonable doubt'?
-
I gotta go to work now, but while I'm here I may as well ask if any of you mob of dunces have been to space yet?
Cos if you ain't then you've no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Just hearsay, assumption, supposition & opinion... None of which are worth a damn.
Why do you think that personal experience is the best way of gathering evidence? What's wrong with taking the word of people or probes who have been to space? I've never been to Antarctica, but people who have say that it's th*rking cold there and I take their word for it.
-
But if I'd never been there I couldn't profess to be an expert on it or know anything about it physically. I'd be relying on seconds hand info.
Just as you are for most things. You're relying on second hand info that if you tie yourself to a weight and jump in a river, you'll die: you've never done that, you've never spoken to anyone after they've done that. For all you know it might give you superpowers: you're relying on second and maybe even third hand info of people who've studied that.
The other thing is, you can go to a place called Australia right now and alnd on an area that states it. You won't know it's on a globe but at least you will see a portion of what is Australia.
Now get in a rocket and go to space. What's your chances?
I could apparently do that (though maybe I'm just drugged with hallucinogens, or dropped off in a desert, or killed. We have only the second-hand info of people who claim to have gone to Australia to say that won't happen). I could also change degrees and study to become an astronaut: maybe emigrate. People aren't born to serve NASA, they seek employment there just like they do anywhere else.
You have never seen anything at all that proves beyond reasonable doubt that space exists.
What is your definition of 'reasonable doubt'?
Reasonable doubt would be seeing something reasonable to do with space. Things like watching an astronaut get into a rocket and take off. Being in a waiting helicopter for the touchdown of a soyuz capsule, then opening it up to see astronauts in it. You know...stuff like that.
-
I gotta go to work now, but while I'm here I may as well ask if any of you mob of dunces have been to space yet?
Cos if you ain't then you've no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Just hearsay, assumption, supposition & opinion... None of which are worth a damn.
Why do you think that personal experience is the best way of gathering evidence? What's wrong with taking the word of people or probes who have been to space? I've never been to Antarctica, but people who have say that it's th*rking cold there and I take their word for it.
It's cold on many places on Earth but it doesn't mean it's Antarctica.
-
Seriously people, if I was a loyal space fan and Nasa supporter through the years I would seriously be pissed off at the lack of progress in 50 years of operation.
They so EASILY did these amazing things 50 years ago, but the common person you and me, can't even hop in our space ship and travel to the moon. Where the heck is a Moon base dammit?
Why the heck aren't there private space industries shipping things in space and building space stations and restaurants like the freakin Jetsons? This is ridiculous.....
Sure they can travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 60s in 72 hours using a calculator... sure they can... but you can't travel 100,000 feet in 2015.
Where the hell is my lunar lander? Why can't I just take off and float around so easily in space?
Give me a break...
Look guys they're living in SPACE! ;D
(http://#ws)
-
Seriously people, if I was a loyal space fan and Nasa supporter through the years I would seriously be pissed off at the lack of progress in 50 years of operation.
They so EASILY did these amazing things 50 years ago, but the common person you and me, can't even hop in our space ship and travel to the moon. Where the heck is a Moon base dammit?
Why the heck aren't there private space industries shipping things in space and building space stations and restaurants like the freakin Jetsons? This is ridiculous.....
Sure they can travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 60s in 72 hours using a calculator... sure they can... but you can't travel 100,000 feet in 2015.
Where the hell is my lunar lander? Why can't I just take off and float around so easily in space?
Give me a break...
Look guys they're living in SPACE! ;D
(http://#ws)
No progress? What do you call the asteroid redirect mission and the manned Mars mission that are planned to happen in the next 29 years?
There actually are space tourism industries and there are even some that do things like build and sell small space stations. Space tourism is a new industry and it's growing fast.
You talk about the Apollo missions as if they were easy, but it took a world power in a Cold War many years to make it happen. Just look at a Saturn V, the things are bigger then most sky scrapers. Do you honestly think that civilians can afford to buy something like that?
-
Reasonable doubt would be seeing something reasonable to do with space. Things like watching an astronaut get into a rocket and take off. Being in a waiting helicopter for the touchdown of a soyuz capsule, then opening it up to see astronauts in it. You know...stuff like that.
I've never watched anyone get into a plane bound for Australia, or watched a plane from Australia land and see people come out. Should I then conclude that it would be reasonable for me to doubt that people can go to Australia?
Also, an individual example is not a definition. What criteria does 'reasonable doubt' meet?
-
Reasonable doubt would be seeing something reasonable to do with space. Things like watching an astronaut get into a rocket and take off. Being in a waiting helicopter for the touchdown of a soyuz capsule, then opening it up to see astronauts in it. You know...stuff like that.
I've never watched anyone get into a plane bound for Australia, or watched a plane from Australia land and see people come out. Should I then conclude that it would be reasonable for me to doubt that people can go to Australia?
Also, an individual example is not a definition. What criteria does 'reasonable doubt' meet?
You know what common sense is. You know what reasonable doubt is or even reasonable acceptance. It's all there for you to ponder but for some strange reason you decide to accept stuff that over the years, makes less and less logical sense, as in space travel.
It's gone backwards. Now let me put this to you in a me to you basis as if we were sat face to face in a chair, alone over a drink, logically putting the world to rights.
You think it's sensible and logical to shut down a shuttle after all this time that takes 7 people into space (allegedly) and has suffered very little in terms of disaster compared to success that can comfotably carry 7 astronot's as well as dock and supply a space station than glide back to Earth...in favour of going back to the old Apollo type landing of a cone...not into the sea this time but to smash into the land somewhere barren using a parachute and a supposed detonator underneath a discarded heat shield that arrests the parachute fall for only 3 cramped to death astronot's.
You think this is going forwards? you think this is sensible and makes sense? you have no mind to question it all and say, " hang on a minute here...something's wrong."
You just blindly accept it all being above board.
You don't really need to answer this, I know what's coming and I can't be arsed to argue it. All I'll say is, if that's your attitude, then carry on but it's all there in your face as to how frigging stupid those people at the top think the gullible public are.
They are just taking the piss out of you and you smile and ask for more nonsense. ::)
-
You know what common sense is. You know what reasonable doubt is or even reasonable acceptance. It's all there for you to ponder but for some strange reason you decide to accept stuff that over the years, makes less and less logical sense, as in space travel.
I know what it is, I'm wondering if you do, as your definition seems to clearly be different to mine. Personally I think it is reasonable to trust what people say if a) what they say is corroborated, b) if they have no proven reason to lie, and c) if they are experts unlikely to be mistaken. As you don't seem to agree, this is why I asked.
You think this is going forwards? you think this is sensible and makes sense? you have no mind to question it all and say, " hang on a minute here...something's wrong."
You just blindly accept it all being above board.
Well, I think things meant for different purposes will need to be very different.
You don't really need to answer this, I know what's coming and I can't be arsed to argue it. All I'll say is, if that's your attitude, then carry on but it's all there in your face as to how frigging stupid those people at the top think the gullible public are.
Or maybe you're the one who's being stupid here. If there s a conspiracy, I'm pretty sure the people at the top would actually put some thought into it rather than have it so simple that unqualified randoms can see through it.
-
It's 2015 and you haven't even been to Australia
-
To: tappet, sceptimatic & Iwitness.
Thank you for showing that there are sensible people on this forum.
To: everyone else.
I was going to write a long post answering your various responses.
But then I thought: 'Nah; why waste your time on a bunch of autistic robot meat-puppets?'
Like I've said, any sane adult who thinks that repeatedly shouting 'AUSTRALIA!' will prove space travel is real is too far gone to help.
So I'll just say instead: 'STFU & get back in your hugboxes!'
Cos you ain't been to space so you got no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for anything you claim about the silly damn place.
You THINK you do; but you DON'T.
& no amount of lies, diversion & bed-wetting denial will change that.
Once again I ask; in the half-day since I last posted, have any of you been to space?
Time is passing inexorably & your lives are dribbling away whilst you make lame, indignant posts on a forum you claim to despise; yet you just can't seem to make that final leap to SPACE can you?
Ever get the feeling you've been had?
-
Seriously people, if I was a loyal space fan and Nasa supporter through the years I would seriously be pissed off at the lack of progress in 50 years of operation.
This is exactly why newcomers like SpaceX are trying to change the game by making a recoverable first stage booster.
They so EASILY did these amazing things 50 years ago, but the common person you and me, can't even hop in our space ship and travel to the moon. Where the heck is a Moon base dammit?
Who said that space travel is easy? Seriously, who in the aerospace industry ever claimed that getting to space, let alone the moon, is easy?
Why the heck aren't there private space industries shipping things in space and building space stations and restaurants like the freakin Jetsons? This is ridiculous.....
Well, at least one company is working towards that end:
http://bigelowaerospace.com/ (http://bigelowaerospace.com/)
Sure they can travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 60s in 72 hours using a calculator... sure they can... but you can't travel 100,000 feet in 2015.
That depends on which "they" you're referring to.
Where the hell is my lunar lander? Why can't I just take off and float around so easily in space?
Where is your private jet? How's the view from your personal submarine? I bet you don't even own a tank.
Give me a break...
Look guys they're living in SPACE! ;D
(http://#ws)
I'm sorry, but were you trying to make a point?
-
Markjo: I bet your hugbox looks like a Victorian sewage pipe... But hey, we all got our foibles, ain't we?
You been to space yet then?
75 years after the primitive V2 supposedly first reached the edge of it?
Nah, course not; keep dreaming, sucker.
-
Like I've said, any sane adult who thinks that repeatedly shouting 'AUSTRALIA!' will prove space travel is real is too far gone to help.
That might be true if that's what the Australia argument was about. It isn't and you're refuse to see it.
Cos you ain't been to space so you got no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for anything you claim about the silly damn place.
Why does someone need to personally go to space in order to gain unambiguous empirical evidence? Why are unmanned probes not good enough? Why isn't a professional astronaut's word good enough?
Ever get the feeling you've been had?
Ever get the feeling that you might be the one who's wrong?
-
Markjo: I bet your hugbox looks like a Victorian sewer.. But hey, we all got our foibles, ain't we?
You been to space yet then?
&5 years after the primitive V2 supposedly first reached the edge of it?
Nah, course not; keep dreaming, sucker.
I never claimed to have gone to space. I don't need to in order to know what's out there. That's why we have a space program.
Now. would you care to answer some of my questions?
-
Like I've said, any sane adult who thinks that repeatedly shouting 'AUSTRALIA!' will prove space travel is real is too far gone to help.
Hasn't happened once.
Still waiting for why your argument doesn't apply to Australia as much as it does to space.
-
markjo:
1: Wrong.
2: Wronger.
3: REALLY Wrong.
Is it your job to be my own personal coprophagic 'shadow idiot', Markjo?
Trying to drown out my posts in a sea of 'fesces' & get the last word in, no matter how droolingly inane?
Is that how you think you'll win this 'debate'?
Rather than by, say, ACTUALLY GOING TO SPACE YOURSELF?
Pathetic... just STFU & get back in your faeces-encrusted hugbox ok?
Oh, & have you been to space yet?
Bijane: stop spamming your failed analogy; the autism is strong in you.
So STFU & get back in your theoretical Australian hugbox, ok?
& have you been to space yet either? Tick, tick, tick... Time flies but no space for you!
-
Seriously people, if I was a loyal space fan and Nasa supporter through the years I would seriously be pissed off at the lack of progress in 50 years of operation.
I am pissed off.
Progress requires talent, hard work, money, and, not least of all, daring; talented hard workers we got plenty of, but, unfortunately, not the money and daring to carry out really expensive (because it's really difficult) and dangerous (because there are lots of things that can go fatally wrong) manned interplanetary travel[nb]Consider travel to the Moon "interplanetary" in this context.[/nb]. Unless there's short-term profit to be made, money requires popular support, and the popular support for expensive and daring interplanetary manned space missions is lacking because there's not an immediate economic (or military) payoff and we've become, IMO, way too risk-averse.
They so EASILY[citation needed] did these amazing things 50 years ago, but the common person you and me, can't even hop in our space ship and travel to the moon. Where the heck is a Moon base dammit?
If you have or can raise the money needed for the hardware and manpower, go for it! Have you even investigated how much it would cost? If you're waiting for someone else to pay for it, then quit complaining. Have you checked to see if someone would stop you? If not, then quit complaining.
Why the heck aren't there private space industries shipping things in space and building space stations and restaurants like the freakin Jetsons? This is ridiculous.....
When there's a profit potential worth the risk there will be private industries operating in space. Until then, not so much. If you see an opportunity and can put together a convincing[nb]Learning to write coherently would be a start, or hire someone who can.[/nb] business plan, go for it!
You may not know it, but the Jetsons were a cartoon that was set in the 2060s (100 years after the series was made), not a freakin' documentary. It was intended for entertainment.
Comments like this are ridiculous.
Sure they can travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 60s in 72 hours using a calculator... sure they can... but you can't travel 100,000 feet in 2015.
I just got back from a trip where I traveled 1,800 miles (9,504,000 feet). That's 95 times farther than you claim is not possible.
I know, I know... that's not what you meant[nb]You will want to avoid mistakes like this if you write a business plan, though. Sloppy writing as well as sloppy thinking scares off investors.[/nb]. But what's with the 100,000-ft height limit you seem to imagine exists now?
What's with the continual remarks about taking a calculator along to the Moon? You may be too young to realize it, but lightweight electronic calculators became available only after planning and equipment design for the Apollo moon missions was settled, and weight and space were at a premium aboard those craft. There may have been a slide rule or two, though. Is this what you were referring to? Back in the days of Apollo people used them to make the sort of calculations we do on calculators and inexpensive computers now.
Where the hell is my lunar lander? Why can't I just take off and float around so easily in space?
Because it's not easy. Whining and carrying on doesn't change that; talent, money, and hard work can. So stop whining and carrying on and start doing something useful.
Give me a break...
Your own actions are the only ones you can control. Why don't you give us one? Thanks!
Look guys they're living in SPACE! ;D
(http://#ws)
Nice hair. I watched that until the inane editorial interruptions got too annoying (3 or 4 of them by the third minute was enough). Spaceflight is pretty cool, but we could be doing so much more if we had pursued it more diligently.
-
Alpha2omega: You are a pompous ass. You ain't been to space & have no right whatsoever to speak so authoritatively on a subject you only know from books & google.
Bad alpha2omega! Hugbox - now!
Of course, I'm only writing this to amuse myself & to see exactly how long it takes for another spam-post to appear in order to drown my own out...
But while I'm here I'll ask again: have any of you space-cranks actually been to space yet?
Do any of you have 1st-hand experience of the subject which alpha2omega oh-so-neatly just demonstrated you DO all claim to be such great experts on?
Well, space AND Australia...
God, you're gullible aren't you?
-
Bijane: stop spamming your failed analogy; the autism is strong in you.
I'd be happy to if you'd actually respond. Any time now. You can't just say it's failed, why is it failed? What trait, specifically, makes the two differ?
Or if it's fine to just assert:
Papa Legba: stop spamming your failed question; the autism is strong in you.
-
Is that how you think you'll win this 'debate'?
No, because what you are doing is in no way, shape or form, anything remotely resembling a debate. You're just ranting and raving. Honestly, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been moved to AR yet.
-
Alpha2omega: You are a pompous ass.
Than kew! Than kew vurry much!
This reminds me of a song (http://)
Oh, Lord, it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
Can't wait to look in the mirror
I get better looking each day
To know me is to love me
Must be a hell of a man
Oh, lord, it's hard to be humble
But I'm doing the best that I can...
He even looks like me when I was younger, only not quite as good. I'm much better looking now since there have been a lot more days since that was made.
You ain't been to space
Well, no, not yet. I already told you that, though, so no news here. I have been to Australia. Have you? Amazingly, we were able to plan out a road trip starting in Sydney and ending in Adelaide (those are cities we counted on being in "Australia") before actually visiting the place. What happened? The route was very much like we expected (but somewhat slower to drive; you do learn some things by being there) - and we hadn't even been there yet while making plans!! Those cities (even the airports!) were there, too, right where they were supposed to be!!
Did Australia exist before I went there? Does it not exist because you haven't? Would it exist even if I hadn't? I have no direct evidence, according to you, but odds are it did, does, and would! Can you believe that? Wow! Something I hadn't experienced up front and personal might actually exist despite that huge misfortune. Who'd a thunk it? Certainly not you.
Quite frankly, I'll go with the odds rather than your rather limited imagination. Thanks for offering your thoughts, though. I think.
& have no right whatsoever[citation needed]
& you have what authority to say what my rights are? And you call me pompous!
to speak so authoritatively on a subject you only know from books & google.
Do you have any specific objections about what I have spoken about? If it pisses you off for some reason (nobody cares about that) that I said something doesn't matter; anything I provide stands on its merits and not any "authority" I might claim. Do you have a technical objection to any technical information provided? Whether the source was from books, other sources[nb]Google searches just locate information (and it's darn good at it), the search engine doesn't actually produce it - you may not realize this. You can thank me later for this tidbit.[/nb], or personal observations - can you rebut the specific information? If not, tough.
Or, has this forum officially become a 100% fact-free zone, and I really don't have a right to say anything that might be technically correct. If so I must have missed the message. Can you provide a link?
Bad alpha2omega! Hugbox - now!
OK now this is getting really weird. Are you into kinky sex or something? Do you have any friends in real life? I can kind of see why you might not.
Of course, I'm only writing this to amuse myself
Roger, Captain Obvious. Most of us are here for entertainment. Some participants promote facts. "Flat earthers", on the other hand, try to challenge facts; some are quite thought-provoking, some are, or become, tedious. It's all good, though. No one makes us stay here.
& to see exactly how long it takes for another spam-post to appear in order to drown my own out...
You're recognizing to your own post as the spam it is. Very good! That's the first step. Maybe we can get somewhere now.
But while I'm here I'll ask again: have any of you space-cranks actually been to space yet?
Do any of you have 1st-hand experience of the subject which alpha2omega oh-so-neatly just demonstrated you DO all claim to be such great experts on?
I, for one, have plenty of first-hand experience with objects in space, so yes. Others do, too. Amazingly, my own observations are entirely consistent with other well-documented and well-understood conclusions about space, too.
Well, space AND Australia...
Yes to both.
God, you're gullible aren't you?
Well, maybe. Am I wrong and Australia doesn't really exist because you haven't been there or didn't exist before I visited? Will it exist (and validate my own experience) if you ever do experience it first-hand? Does your presence somehow conjure Australians (or anyone else) into existence as you meet them personally? Does space not exist because you (and, according to you, I) haven't been there to experience it personally?
And you call me a pompous ass.
-
Well, another few hours have passed & still no-one here has gone to space yet...
And, rather than do something about it, they prefer to offer up yet more demonstrations of their inability to read, write or think clearly.
Or to differentiate between Words & Reality, or Theory & Fact.
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
Obviously not, sadly.
So, as you've proven yourselves incapable of learning anything by conventional reasoning I'll just have to keep using Operant Conditioning to get it into your thick skulls:
Have any of you been to space yet?
Yes or No?
Do any of you have direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like up there?
Because if you haven't then your word on the subject is worthless.
Now crawl back out of your filthy hugboxes & prove me wrong.
Or just stick to spamming about Australia & demonstrate your ocd & autism yet more graphically to the neutral readers, all of whom will by now have looked up 'false analogy' & be well aware of how lame your spazzed-out tomfoolery is.
Keep dreaming, space-suckers; I'll be back soon to check up on your space-progress!
I'm off to scrub toilets now; whilst there's people like Markjo in the world there'll always be plenty of work for a good 'fesces' removal operative...
-
In 2015 Civilians (every day folk) still cannot go to two places that proves flat earth. Space and Antarctica. Why well because both don't exist. Space is not filled with ball planets and billions of suns and Antarctica is not a continent at the bottom of the globe. Rather earth is an infinite plane. This universe is called earth. Its that simple. So of course there is never gonna be any spaceships or nothing.
-
In 2015 Civilians (every day folk) still cannot go to two places that proves flat earth. Space and Antarctica. Why well because both don't exist. Space is not filled with ball planets and billions of suns and Antarctica is not a continent at the bottom of the globe. Rather earth is an infinite plane. This universe is called earth. Its that simple. So of course there is never gonna be any spaceships or nothing.
Civilians can go to space, either with a home made unmanned probe or for a few million £. However anyone can go to Casey station in Antarctica.
We also have evidence both places exist: photographic evidence, ability to travel there and we can see the ISS.
Papa; we can go to space. With unmanned probes and rockets. I can get you videos when I send my own balloon in a year or so.
Now, we have done better than the Germans. We have manned probes that reach the moon, a bit too expensive for your or me. But we can buy an unmanned probe for $13000 easily that reaches edge of space.
The reason we haven't made any progress is because we are trying to get to places faster, more efficiently, carrying larger payloads and we are trying to build space stations and expand tourism.
Now, if space doesn't exist, explain ISS and meteors.
-
Or just stick to spamming about Australia & demonstrate your ocd & autism yet more graphically to the neutral readers, all of whom will by now have looked up 'false analogy' & be well aware of how lame your spazzed-out tomfoolery is.
You know you can't just call something a false analogy, right?
You have to explain why, on the crucial issues, it doesn't work. Still waiting...
-
We also have evidence
Papa; we can go to space.
Now, we have done better than the Germans.
We have manned probes that reach the moon,
But we can buy an unmanned probe
The reason we haven't made any progress
we are trying to get to places faster,
we are trying to build space stations and expand tourism.
See here is the problem, you are not really any part of we, If you believe I am wrong please explain your role and tell us who the other we's are that you are working on these projects with.
You would not be just parroting would you?
-
A few ways it could go really:
-If he is America then his tax dollars are finding NASA, which makes him a stakeholder in the organization.
-We could also refer to the collection of human's of which he is a part and feels pride in our collective accomplishments of which space travel is one.
-
In 2015 Civilians (every day folk) still cannot go to two places that proves flat earth. Space and Antarctica.
Did you know that 7 civilians (very rich every day folk) have paid Russia several million dollars to go into space? One of them even did it twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists)
Did you also know that there is a segment of the tourism industry that specializes in Antarctic tourism?
https://www.gadventures.com/travel-styles/cruising/expedition-cruises/antarctica/?phone_code=NA_PPC_1&gclid=CNaCoqCbrcUCFS9o7AodWRIAJQ (https://www.gadventures.com/travel-styles/cruising/expedition-cruises/antarctica/?phone_code=NA_PPC_1&gclid=CNaCoqCbrcUCFS9o7AodWRIAJQ)
http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights (http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights)
http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/ski-south-pole%E2%80%94hercules (http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/ski-south-pole%E2%80%94hercules)
If you're up to it, you can even run a marathon in Antarctica:
http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/ski-south-pole%E2%80%94hercules (http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/ski-south-pole%E2%80%94hercules)
So, please stop telling bald faced lies about not being able to go to space or Antarctica.
-
In 2015 Civilians (every day folk) still cannot go to two places that proves flat earth. Space and Antarctica. Why well because both don't exist.
Nope. Wrong on both counts. Most of the astronauts now are civilians, and I was a civilian when I went to Antarctica.
Which reminds me...
Hey, Papa:
Since I've been to Antarctica, does that mean it exists for everybody, or does it exist only for people who have set foot there, and only they can know anything about it? What about those who have flown over it but didn't land? I want to know what you think.
Since several hundred people have been to space, does that mean space exists, but only for them, and only they can know anything about it?
Space is not filled with ball planets and billions of suns and Antarctica is not a continent at the bottom of the globe. Rather earth is an infinite plane. This universe is called earth. Its that simple. So of course there is never gonna be any spaceships or nothing.
So how do sunsets work on this universe? If it's simple, can you explain?
-
We also have evidence
Papa; we can go to space.
Now, we have done better than the Germans.
We have manned probes that reach the moon,
But we can buy an unmanned probe
The reason we haven't made any progress
we are trying to get to places faster,
we are trying to build space stations and expand tourism.
See here is the problem, you are not really any part of we, If you believe I am wrong please explain your role and tell us who the other we's are that you are working on these projects with.
You would not be just parroting would you?
I'm sorry i was quite ambiguous.
Now, we usually meant the human race in general (I am not American), however unmanned probes I mean civilians.
-
(http://) Here you go even George Orwell believed in flat earth. Nothing exists without consciousness not even the earth or the universe. Call them whatever you like; The Annunaki, the Illuminatti, the Watchers, Gods, whatever name you wanna use but yes they try to control the mind and they downloaded this ball earth reality into your consciousness.
Of course people that are very rich can go to so called space (up) These people are no longer civilians. They are members of Masonic organizations and secret societies sworn to secrecy. Let poor people to space then we can talk. Yes its true that not all Astronauts are rich, but once you sign a contract with NASA and same thing with Russian space programs, you no longer a civilian. You sworn to secrecy and you do what they say. Stop the lies about Antarctica. Some of you claim you been there. You have never crossed the south pole and ended up on the other side. When you do that let's talk
-
(http://) Here you go even George Orwell believed in flat earth. Nothing exists without consciousness not even the earth or the universe. Call them whatever you like; The Annunaki, the Illuminatti, the Watchers, Gods, whatever name you wanna use but yes they try to control the mind and they downloaded this ball earth reality into your consciousness.
Of course people that are very rich can go to so called space (up) These people are no longer civilians.
At what point are they not considered civilians anymore? Making 100,000 grand a year? 1,000,000 a year? What?
They are members of Masonic organizations and secret societies sworn to secrecy.
So once you make enough money, do they send you a membership card in the mail?
Let poor people to space then we can talk. Yes its true that not all Astronauts are rich,
OK, so since not all astronauts are rich, there goes your argument about only rich people getting to space.
but once you sign a contract with NASA and same thing with Russian space programs, you no longer a civilian. You sworn to secrecy and you do what they say. Stop the lies about Antarctica. Some of you claim you been there. You have never crossed the south pole and ended up on the other side. When you do that let's talk
And have you been to Australia? If the answer is no, then what make traveling to Australia possible, but travelling to space impossible? If the answer is yes, how do you know you were in Australia? You are just relying on what you are being told.
-
you arguing semantics now and just being wordy. Astronauts who are not rich are recruits from military or other agencies. They don't pick them from slums or local neighborhoods. These are trained individuals and sworn to secrecy. At what point are you no longer a civilian? At the point when they decide to bring you in. Most elites happen to be wealthy. Status comes with money. Your membership in illuminatti usually comes with money. Two are interralated what part of it you don't understand? Australia exists cause its a continent that has been explored and we have cities and towns there. Antarctica was never explored was never populated, was never colonized and south pole was never crossed so that one ends up on the other side.
-
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
Obviously not, sadly.
Hey, finally something new from Papa!
Odd? Not really if you think about it at all.
What does strike me as odd is that you profess to know anything about this. Were you in the bureaucracy of the German government or the German military during WWII? Yes or no? If not, how can you know anything about what V2s cost? Have you personally seen a V2 in flight? Yes or no? If no, how can you be sure real ones even existed?
Thanks in advance for clearing this up!
-
Call them whatever you like; The Annunaki, the Illuminatti, the Watchers, Gods, whatever name you wanna use
No Nazi UFOs any more?
Of course people that are very rich can go to so called space (up) These people are no longer civilians. They are members of Masonic organizations and secret societies sworn to secrecy.
Because obviously someone promising not to say something means they won't say something. The history of the world is full of people completely able to keep their mouths shut, and to keep things secret, from Nixon to Snowden to...
-
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
I don't know where you got this 13,000 dollar figure, the price of the V2 in 1944 per unit is estimated to be roughly 100,000 DM, which is somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 in 1944. Which is between $670,000 to $1.01 million when adjusted for inflation..
Since they were rather small, had zero ability to keep a human alive (the most expensive bits typically go there) and had a very rudimentary guidance system and virtually no computer parts AND only brought the rocket to the very edge of space, no this doesn't change anything.
All I see is another flat earther that cant even get the most simple facts they try to use to prove their point correct.
-
To: tappet.
Yes; you get it.
To: Mjarko.
You describe yourself as a 'content nazi'.
When I google 'content dictionary meaning' the very first definition I get is: 'in a state of peaceful happiness'.
Thus, you not only openly admit you are a 'happy nazi', but boast of the fact.
Of course you will quibble about it; however I shall leave it up to the neutral reader to judge your sincerity on the matter.
And it gets worse for you...
I was curious about your obsession with coprophagia & diaper-inspecting cartoon animals, as well as your suspicious reluctance to respond to my posts on the same; so I did a little research on the subject.
I discovered a comic devoted to the subject called 'Incontinent Student Bodies'; it would be inappropriate of me to make a link to this eye-meltingly vile 'artwork', but I cannot prevent the neutral reader from googling it.
Be warned though; it is not for the weak-stomached.
I also discovered the words 'furfag', 'furry' & 'yiffing', the definitions of which, and their damning implications for Mjarkjo, are equally disturbing.
Best of all, I discovered the words 'BAWWWWW!' & 'BAWtism', which I shall immediately incorporate into my vocabulary as they are especially useful for dealing with those who post on this thread.
Anyhow;I'll just let all that sink in for a while, as those who follow my lead are bound to be more than a little shell-shocked by what they find...
And I'll get back to my operant conditioning program; because if it works on dogs & pigeons then surely it'll work on fundy autists too?
Thus: Have any of you been to space?
Because if you have not, then you have no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
And therefore your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Oh, & Bijane & everyone else: BAWWWWW! STFU & get back in your analogous BAWtist hugboxes!(citation unnecessary)
-
Thus: Have any of you been to space?
Because if you have not, then you have no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
And therefore your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Ditto for Australia, and likely several houses on your street. Never been in them? Must be impossible to go through the doorway.
Oh, & Bijane & everyone else: BAWWWWW! STFU & get back in your analogous BAWtist hugboxes!(citation unnecessary)
I'd be happy to shut up if you'd say why the analogy doesn't hold. Any time now.
-
Aha! Lemmiwinks: I see we have a new contender!
Been skulking around, waiting for your moment have you?
& I guess you think the V2 rocket is your Big Chance for a Grand Entrance eh?
Good for you, Autie; but just STFU with your googled wiki-spam minutiae on the German rocket program - on which you are in reality no more expert than I - & answer me this:
HAVE YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
YES OR NO?
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE NOT THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS PERSONAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE.
AND THUS YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
& if you won't answer then back in your lurkers hugbox you must go...
Bijane: Stop blaming me for your own reading comprehension difficulties.
Take some responsibility ffs; it's not my fault you are 'special'.
Back to your Australian hugbox now, before you do yourself an injury.
-
Bijane: Stop blaming me for your own reading comprehension difficulties.
That'd be a great response if you'd actually answered. You haven't. You gestured towards Tappet, whose answer completely undercuts your point, and evaded multiple times. It's almost impressive.
Still waiting. Have fun wasting everyone's time with a meaningless question.
-
Bijane: LOL!
You REALLY need that hugbox RIGHT NOW!
Comedy gold as ever...
-
Comedy gold as ever...
I know you are, but what am I?
An answer would be great, any time.
-
Aha! Lemmiwinks: I see we have a new contender!
Been skulking around, waiting for your moment have you?
& I guess you think the V2 rocket is your Big Chance for a Grand Entrance eh?
Good for you, Autie; but just STFU with your googled wiki-spam minutiae on the German rocket program - on which you are in reality no more expert than I - & answer me this:
HAVE YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
YES OR NO?
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE NOT THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS PERSONAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE.
AND THUS YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
& if you won't answer then back in your lurkers hugbox you must go...
Bijane: Stop blaming me for your own reading comprehension difficulties.
Take some responsibility ffs; it's not my fault you are 'special'.
Back to your Australian hugbox now, before you do yourself an injury.
Yeah, I have been lurking around for the last 1,800 posts waiting to make my grand entrance.
Very perceptive of you.
Anyways, nice to see when your point is crushed you just sidestep and move on to a new point.
Have you ever been to Djibouti in the horn of Africa?
Does that mean it doesn't exist now?
-
To: Mjarko.
You describe yourself as a 'content nazi'.
When I google 'content dictionary meaning' the very first definition I get is: 'in a state of peaceful happiness'.
Thus, you not only openly admit you are a 'happy nazi', but boast of the fact.
Of course you will quibble about it; however I shall leave it up to the neutral reader to judge your sincerity on the matter.
What makes you think that the very first definition is the one that I had in mind?
And it gets worse for you...
I was curious about your obsession with coprophagia & diaper-inspecting cartoon animals, as well as your suspicious reluctance to respond to my posts on the same; so I did a little research on the subject.
I discovered a comic devoted to the subject called 'Incontinent Student Bodies'; it would be inappropriate of me to make a link to this eye-meltingly vile 'artwork', but I cannot prevent the neutral reader from googling it.
Be warned though; it is not for the weak-stomached.
I also discovered the words 'furfag', 'furry' & 'yiffing', the definitions of which, and their damning implications for Mjarkjo, are equally disturbing.
Best of all, I discovered the words 'BAWWWWW!' & 'BAWtism', which I shall immediately incorporate into my vocabulary as they are especially useful for dealing with those who post on this thread.
Anyhow;I'll just let all that sink in for a while, as those who follow my lead are bound to be more than a little shell-shocked by what they find...
Wow. You are so insightful. Maybe you should have tried Googling Bloom County or Outland as well.
And I'll get back to my operant conditioning program; because if it works on dogs & pigeons then surely it'll work on fundy autists too?
Thus: Have any of you been to space?
No, I have never been to space. I never claimed that I did, so I'm not sure why you keep asking.
Because if you have not, then you have no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
By that same reasoning, I have no "DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" of what Australia is like either. What's your point?
-
Aha! Lemmiwinks: I see we have a new contender!
Been skulking around, waiting for your moment have you?
& I guess you think the V2 rocket is your Big Chance for a Grand Entrance eh?
Good for you, Autie; but just STFU with your googled wiki-spam minutiae on the German rocket program - on which you are in reality no more expert than I - & answer me this:
HAVE YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
YES OR NO?
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE NOT THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS PERSONAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE.
AND THUS YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
& if you won't answer then back in your lurkers hugbox you must go...
Bijane: Stop blaming me for your own reading comprehension difficulties.
Take some responsibility ffs; it's not my fault you are 'special'.
Back to your Australian hugbox now, before you do yourself an injury.
Since you bring up the V2 and worthless opinions again,
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
Obviously not, sadly.
You must have missed or are unwilling to answer the earlier question about how you know this. Maybe phrasing it in the way you do will help you understand the question.
HAVE YOU BEEN TO NAZI GERMANY?
YES OR NO?
BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE NOT THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS PERSONAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT WENT ON.
AND, ACCORDING TO YOU, YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
A simple yes or no answer to this would be appreciated. We're waiting.
-
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
I don't know where you got this 13,000 dollar figure, the price of the V2 in 1944 per unit is estimated to be roughly 100,000 DM, which is somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 in 1944. Which is between $670,000 to $1.01 million when adjusted for inflation..
Since they were rather small, had zero ability to keep a human alive (the most expensive bits typically go there) and had a very rudimentary guidance system and virtually no computer parts AND only brought the rocket to the very edge of space, no this doesn't change anything.
All I see is another flat earther that cant even get the most simple facts they try to use to prove their point correct.
Let us not forget that the Nazis used slave labor for much of the assembly work. Why pay people when you have slaves?
-
The Germans were churning out V2 rockets 70 years ago for $13,000 a pop; they could allegedly carry a 1-ton payload to the edge of space.
With modern materials their performance would be vastly improved.
Yet you're nowhere near owning something similar; do you not think that just a little bit odd?
I don't know where you got this 13,000 dollar figure, the price of the V2 in 1944 per unit is estimated to be roughly 100,000 DM, which is somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 in 1944. Which is between $670,000 to $1.01 million when adjusted for inflation..
Since they were rather small, had zero ability to keep a human alive (the most expensive bits typically go there) and had a very rudimentary guidance system and virtually no computer parts AND only brought the rocket to the very edge of space, no this doesn't change anything.
All I see is another flat earther that cant even get the most simple facts they try to use to prove their point correct.
Let us not forget that the Nazis used slave labor for much of the assembly work. Why pay people when you have slaves?
Good lord you're right, besides R&D and testing all the labor for the V2 was slave labor, the price of 100,000 DM is probably too small by half if they were paying a living wage to the number of people needed per rocket assembled.
-
Let us not forget that the Nazis used slave labor for much of the assembly work. Why pay people when you have slaves?
Good lord you're right, besides R&D and testing all the labor for the V2 was slave labor, the price of 100,000 DM is probably too small by half if they were paying a living wage to the number of people needed per rocket assembled.
I still wonder why "Papa" claims to know details about this given his professed attitude about second-source information? Was he typing up the invoices, or preparing (or signing!) the checks to pay for those things?
-
In 2015 Civilians (every day folk) still cannot go to two places that proves flat earth. Space and Antarctica. Why well because both don't exist. Space is not filled with ball planets and billions of suns and Antarctica is not a continent at the bottom of the globe.
I just saw proof that Antarctica DOES exist!
(http://)
-
I'm glad that you're all bringing the existence of the V2 into question; it was no more than another big, dumb barrage missile & it's good to see you're learning to think for yourselves.
Now how about starting on the rest of the rocketry nonsense you've been fed?
But nah; you won't do that will you? Because your brains are broken.
Yet another 24 hours have passed since I last posted & I wonder how much of your happy-nazi self-congratulatory mutual masturbation & humourless robotic waffle has actually got you any closer to going to space?
Because if you haven't been there, then you really do have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for its existence.
And your word on the subject is worthless.
But keep spamming your false Australia analogy if you want, like a dog returning to is own vomit; keep safe & snug in your foetid, diaper-strewn hugboxes, propping up each other's delusions in a gleeful autistic circle-jerk; cos no matter what, you just ain't going to space.
Never gonna happen... But you just can't see it, can you?
Keep dreaming, space-suckers!
-
Technically, we do own the International Space Station. As taxpayers. It is owned by governments that are all run by the people.
Democratic republics ftw.
-
Well then demand a tour of the damn thing then.
As a taxpayer.
Think you'll get it?
While you're waiting, I'll continue the re-inforcement:
Have any of you been to space?
If not you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your word on the subject is worthless.
Goodnight, idiots.
-
Doesn't it look strange to you this forum full of round earthers bored idiots who are paid to say what they say like mikeman the youngster(yea sure) who knows a lot of mathematics so he can bring some profit when he paid to say whay he say
he is a liar from the first grade a liarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
I don't care what any of them are or what their motivations are; none of them have been to space, so they have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for a single word they say on the subject.
That's my message & I shall repeat it until it sinks in.
B.F. Skinner & all that, you know?
-
Doesn't it look strange to you this forum full of round earthers bored idiots who are paid to say what they say like mikeman the youngster(yea sure) who knows a lot of mathematics so he can bring some profit when he paid to say whay he say
he is a liar from the first grade a liarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yeah. No one in their right mind would spend any time on a forum like this, defending a globe by just being a simple passer by. It makes no logical sense for them to defend it like crazy. Unless they are paid to do it.
The Mikeman (starman) carry on, telling everyone he's a 17 year old scientific genius Mormon just makes you sit back and laugh. ;D
-
So your word on the subject is worthless.
If that's how it works, your word on everything you have not personally experienced is worthless.
As you are not me, you have not experienced my views, so your word on my views (and by extension, REer views) is also worthless.
-
I'm glad that you're all bringing the existence of the V2 into question; it was no more than another big, dumb barrage missile & it's good to see you're learning to think for yourselves.
Now how about starting on the rest of the rocketry nonsense you've been fed?
But nah; you won't do that will you? Because you're brains are broken.
Yet another 24 hours have passed since I last posted & I wonder how much of your happy-nazi self-congratulatory mutual masturbation & humourless robotic waffle has actually got you any closer to going to space?
Because if you haven't been there, then you really do have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for its existence.
And your word on the subject is worthless.
But keep spamming your false Australia analogy if you want, like a dog returning to is own vomit; keep safe & snug in your foetid, diaper-strewn hugboxes, propping up each other's delusions in a gleeful autistic circle-jerk; cos no matter what, you just ain't going to space.
Never gonna happen... But you just can't see it, can you?
Keep dreaming, space-suckers!
Yes, because that makes perfect sense. All the tax-payers should demand a tour, of course!
Actually, I'm quite satisfied that the people who go are some of the top-performing people from different backgrounds. If I had the ambitions as a child to go to space, I could've. I'm also thrilled that NASA shares as much as they do, and the astronauts spend nearly all of their time to make our lives down here better.
Do you want to get involved if you don't believe me??
Schools around the country are always coming up with science experiments to be performed on the space station. They package them and then see them carried out.
You can get involved, too.
-
Well then demand a tour of the damn thing then.
As a taxpayer.
Think you'll get it?
While you're waiting, I'll continue the re-inforcement:
Have any of you been to space?
If not you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your word on the subject is worthless.
Goodnight, idiots.
Your reminders have not been falling on deaf ears, you may have noticed. What has happened though is that a logical inconsistency in your position has been pointed out which you are either unwilling or incapable of addressing. Which is it?
-
Doesn't it look strange to you this forum full of round earthers bored idiots who are paid to say what they say like mikeman the youngster(yea sure) who knows a lot of mathematics so he can bring some profit when he paid to say whay he say
he is a liar from the first grade a liarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yeah. No one in their right mind would spend any time on a forum like this, defending a globe by just being a simple passer by. It makes no logical sense for them to defend it like crazy. Unless they are paid to do it.
The Mikeman (starman) carry on, telling everyone he's a 17 year old scientific genius Mormon just makes you sit back and laugh. ;D
HAHAHAHAHAHA i laughed alot, mikeman is a liar and obsessed with his lies.
-
Doesn't it look strange to you this forum full of round earthers bored idiots who are paid to say what they say like mikeman the youngster(yea sure) who knows a lot of mathematics so he can bring some profit when he paid to say whay he say
he is a liar from the first grade a liarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yeah. No one in their right mind would spend any time on a forum like this, defending a globe by just being a simple passer by. It makes no logical sense for them to defend it like crazy. Unless they are paid to do it.
The Mikeman (starman) carry on, telling everyone he's a 17 year old scientific genius Mormon just makes you sit back and laugh. ;D
HAHAHAHAHAHA i laughed alot, mikeman is a liar and obsessed with his lies.
I am here because I like science, philosophy, debating and trolling. Where else can you get it all under one roof?
-
Bijane: I love how you always give me a good laugh before bedtime; I'm not even gonna give you a dig for your nincompoop-ery this time, or mention hugboxes...
No, wait, I just did!
Ah, whatever; goodnight, whatever bloody time-zone you're in...
P.S. Rama Set & Flatorange - BAWWWW! Stfu & get back in YOUR hugboxes. Words are not the same as Reality, painful as it may seem to all the fantasists out there.
-
Bijane: I love how you always give me a good laugh before bedtime; I'm not even gonna give you a dig for your nincompoop-ery this time, or mention hugboxes...
Or respond to a point made against you ever, apparently.
-
I am not here to 'respond'.
I told you this already.
Please, please, do learn to read! & write, & think, etc. etc...
Now stop keeping me from kip & just STFU & get back in your goddamn hugbox, ok?!?
-
Doesn't it look strange to you this forum full of round earthers bored idiots who are paid to say what they say like mikeman the youngster(yea sure) who knows a lot of mathematics so he can bring some profit when he paid to say whay he say
he is a liar from the first grade a liarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yeah. No one in their right mind would spend any time on a forum like this, defending a globe by just being a simple passer by. It makes no logical sense for them to defend it like crazy. Unless they are paid to do it.
The Mikeman (starman) carry on, telling everyone he's a 17 year old scientific genius Mormon just makes you sit back and laugh. ;D
HAHAHAHAHAHA i laughed alot, mikeman is a liar and obsessed with his lies.
I am here because I like science, philosophy, debating and trolling. Where else can you get it all under one roof?
Yea yea you are surely talented liar,there are physics forum go there and trolling with all the other liars.
-
I am not here to 'respond'.
That much is clear.
-
I'm glad that you're all bringing the existence of the V2 into question; it was no more than another big, dumb barrage missile & it's good to see you're learning to think for yourselves.
Now how about starting on the rest of the rocketry nonsense you've been fed?
But nah; you won't do that will you? Because your brains are broken.
Please show me where anyone brought the existence of the V2 into question.
Thanks!
-
I'm glad that you're all bringing the existence of the V2 into question; it was no more than another big, dumb barrage missile
Have you ever seen a V2?
If not you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your word on the subject is worthless.
-
I am not here to 'respond' [because I have no response that makes sense].
Clarification added. This is what you're saying, whether you realize it or not.
Most people who take a position think they can defend their ideas. If you're not even going to try there's not much point in continuing.
-
Fun thing to do:
1: Look up definition of 'false analogy'.
2: Read.
3: STFU.
4: Crawl back to tear-stained hugbox.
I'm sure that, when you write your posts, you consider them to be tiny masterpieces of logic, wit, clarity & concision.
Yet when I read them I only hear the sound of dogs barking at a noise they cannot comprehend.
I only mentioned the V2 because I felt duty-bound to respect iWitness's original thread title; but of course my point fell on deaf ears as you are all incapable of independent thought & consider wiki-spam the same as wisdom.
In reality I couldn't care less if the V2 was real or not & I won't get bogged down in discussing the minutiae of the useless thing; my point was that none of you have been on one, or any other rocket for that matter.
A point you avoided in your subsequent desperate, BAWgasmic attempts to 'win' the 'debate'.
Why?
Brain-damage.
Hence, I will return to my operant conditioning program; a well-known treatment for persistently offensive autistic behaviour.
Have any of you been to space?
If not, you have NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
& thus your word on the subject is worthless.
Dream on, space-acolytes.
-
Have any of you been to space?
If not, you have NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
& thus your word on the subject is worthless.
Dream on, space-acolytes.
You keep repeating that as if it has any value. This can take a turn to the Australia Thread, or me asking if the USA exists as I have not been there.
If you believe you are the center of a Trueman show then I will understand your view that no-one can be trusted.
Your options are to either
A) Trust no-one
B) Trust everyone
or
C) Somewhere in between.
Your statement
Have any of you been to space?
If not, you have NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
& thus your word on the subject is worthless.
Is clearly point A) trust no-one. Therefore you are fixed in a position where you cant be reasoned with. I dont actually understand why you are here then.
For you the world is only as large as your eyes can see.
-
LOL!
Is your entire world made of non-sequitors?
Cos your post was.
No wonder you lot are so vulnerable to accepting other people's Fantasies as Reality.
You know damn well why I am here; if you don't then you're even more pitiful than I thought.
Now; have you been to space?
Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Answer the question or stfu & get back in your fantasy hugbox.
-
Now; have you been to space?
Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Legba, Why are you so angry?
Only about 500 people have been in orbit around the earth so you know that I have most probably not. But I still could one day.
My opinion, as anyone else's has as much value as the people who listen to it, you however seem very intent on squashing opposing views. I dont understand why, as it destroys dialog making this forum pointless, the reason I asked why you where here.
Your options are to either
A) Trust no-one
B) Trust everyone
or
C) Somewhere in between.
I asked that to find out where you get your source of information from.
If you choose A which you seem to have. Then you have dramatically limited the amount of information you are capable of using. Essentially reading any bit of information is a waste as the Author could/is lying.
Choosing B is just as bad as you open yourself up to abuse and ignorance of the world. This is the view you believe all RE have.
Choosing C is the most difficult path as you need to sift through information and use what makes the most sense to you based on the other information, It requires trust and skepticism to be effective.
-
Now; have you been to space?
Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So your opinion on the subject is worthless.
At last count, I think this is the TWELFTH time I have read virtually the same comments from this more than obvious troll. His desperation is actually becoming quite humourous as he apparently thinks that if he repeats some bizarre postulate over and over again it becomes valid by repetition. What also makes this so funny is that he himself has never travelled to space, and yet he virtually demands that everybody else has to before they can offer any considered scientific opinion.
His understanding of even basic logic is woefully inadequate - he has NO idea of how to mount a convincing debate other than posting an endless tirade of ad hominem attacks. Still, his juvenile responses no doubt give us all a good laugh, and you have to give at least kudos to someone who can make you laugh. After all, the guy who originally played Bozo the Clown - Vance DeBar Colvig - was a multi-millionaire. Maybe PAPA LEGBA is hoping for similar success LOL.
-
Swolf: why are you so boring?
The rest of your post is more of the same old lame old blah & fail that all you space-drones seem so very fond of; for example, define 'somewhere inbetween' please.
Of course, I'll completely ignore your pointless tl;dr answer & just ask you if you've been to space again...
But at least it'll give you something to do whilst waiting for your whizz-o sci-fi space-travel adventures to finally begin.
Space! The Final Front...oh! You haven't been there.
Long ago, in a Galaxy far, far awaaait a minute! You haven't been there either!
Get the picture yet, space-suckers?
P.S. ZennerOne/ausGeoff: LOL! Again...
-
Fun thing to do:
1: Look up definition of 'false analogy'.
2: Read.
You know you can't just insist something's a false analogy, right? You actually have to say why it is. Which you apparently cannot, so...
Ah well. Have fun.
-
Bijane; as is well-known, the problem with all analogies is that - when debated at length - the end result is always a reductio ad absurdum.
Which is why the statement 'all analogies are false' is popular with those more interested in getting to the point than in interminable waffle.
Now; either you DO know this, & are trying to entice me into said drawn-out & fruitless debate.
OR you are too ignorant to be aware of the above facts.
Either way, it doesn't look good for you does it?
So; keep puffing your 'Australia is the same as Space' twaddle if you like. I'll let the neutral reader decide its worth, because I absolutely refuse to entertain your continued delusions/chicanery.
Back to your my-little-pony hugbox now, til you've recovered enough for your next session of humiliating self-trolling.
Definitely more re-inforcement required for all you sociopaths!
So: Have any of you been to space?
If not, you have no DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what it's like.
So your opinion on the subject is worthless.
Bye, Jane!
-
So; keep puffing your 'Australia is the same as Space' twaddle if you like.
Given absolutely nothing I've said even comes close to saying that...
All I'm doing is applying your logic. It's not even an analogy: it's just another application of what you're saying. If there is a specific reason why your logic fails to apply once we move beyond space, you can feel free to share that any time.
I'm going to go have a unicorn ride now. They exist where I live. You have not been here, so you have no direct, unambiguous, empirical evidence otherwise, so your opinion is worthless.
-
LOL!!!
Not even bedtime yet & the comedy gold's already begun!
Butthurt much, B.J?(citation unecessary)
Ah well, there's always your trusty hugbox eh?
Better luck next time...
-
Better luck next time...
Yep, one of these times you might actually try to answer. Or not.
-
Bijane: BAWWWWW!
I just did answer you ffs, both thoroughly & conclusively.
But as you've already made it tiresomely clear that you prefer to blame your reading comprehension difficulties & cognitive dysfunction on others, rather than accept responsibility for them & try to improve them (a typical trait of Aspergers sufferers), it's not surprising that you prefer to simply ignore that answer & demand another one more fitting to your wretched nonsensical world-view.
Well, you won't get it, you egomaniacal loon, so just STFU & get back in your unicorn-horned hugbox, okay?
& only come back out when you have been to bloody space...
Because if you have not been to space, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like & your word on the subject is worthless.
Operant conditioning; it works on dogs & pigeons, but you arrogant narcissistic broke-brained boneheads seem immune to any & all treatment...
-
Bijane: BAWWWWW!
I just did answer you ffs, both thoroughly & conclusively.
But as you've already made it tiresomely clear that you prefer to blame your reading comprehension difficulties & cognitive dysfunction on others, rather than accept responsibility for them & try to improve them (a typical trait of Aspergers sufferers), it's not surprising that you prefer to simply ignore that answer & demand another one more fitting to your wretched nonsensical world-view.
Well, you won't get it, you egomaniacal loon, so just STFU & get back in your unicorn-horned hugbox, okay?
& only come back out when you have been to bloody space...
Because if you have not been to space, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like & your word on the subject is worthless.
Operant conditioning; it works on dogs & pigeons, but you arrogant narcissistic broke-brained boneheads seem immune to any & all treatment...
Question: Is is possible for someones word on any subject to be worth anything if they have no direct, unambiguous, empirical evidence for said objects properties?
Sorry for the lack of possessive apostrophes, I was never any good at knowing where to put them.
-
Because if you have not been to space, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like & your word on the subject is worthless.
What makes you think that human senses are the best or only method for gathering "direct, unambiguous empirical evidence"? If I put a bunch of scientific instruments on a rocket and launch it into space, is that not a valid method of gathering "direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like" out there?
-
Bijane: BAWWWWW!
I just did answer you ffs, both thoroughly & conclusively.
You are aware saying something doesn't make it true, right?
Don't you get bored of repeating the same old irrelevant question? It's definitely boring to read.
-
If it's so boring then stop reading it & stop replying to it; believe me, your illiterate, self-contradictory incoherence will not be missed.
Now get back to being Queen Of The Retards on your rinky-dink Australia-themed Papa Legba tribute thread & stop playing with the big boys. Because it's eye-wateringly obvious to everyone that you're out of your league here.
Bye, Jane!
-
Oh, & 'happy fascist' coprophage weirdo BAWtist Markjo & hobbit-bothering weirdo BAWtist Scrotalsac; just STFU & get back in your revolting, diaper-festooned hugboxes.
Cos I'm done with your off-topic pestering for the day; I've told you repeatedly that I won't get bogged down in minutiae & you two are the very definition of the word.
Goodnight, buffoons; see you tomorrow, when I'll expect to see a bit more progress in your space-travelling aspirations...
Or the operant conditioning will continue.
-
If it's so boring then stop reading it & stop replying to it; believe me, your illiterate, self-contradictory incoherence will not be missed.
I've got time. Just waiting for you to be interesting. You were entertaining when you came up with the notion in the first place, I'm just hoping you end up entertaining together.
Now get back to being Queen Of The Retards on your rinky-dink Australia-themed Papa Legba tribute thread
Don't flatter yourself, the thread has very little to do with you.
Have you been to Australia yet?
-
Have you been to Australia yet?
I like this question :)
-
Oh, & 'happy fascist' coprophage weirdo BAWtist Markjo & hobbit-bothering weirdo BAWtist Scrotalsac; just STFU & get back in your revolting, diaper-festooned hugboxes.
Cos I'm done with your off-topic pestering for the day; I've told you repeatedly that I won't get bogged down in minutiae & you two are the very definition of the word.
Asking you to clarify your stance on the collection "direct, unambiguous empirical evidence" is hardly minutiae. It goes to the very core of your "argument".
-
Australia doesn't exist as I have never been there, and flights to Australia are also fake, as I have never been on one. So drop it Jane! Jeeze.
However, Papa, you ever been Djibouti yet? Does it mean this small poor African nation does not exist?
Have you eaten Shark Fin soup? Does that mean it does not exist?
Have you seen an atom personally? If not then does that mean atoms do not exist?
Wait, I got one.
Have you seen direct proof with your own eyes and held in your own hands evidence that there is a conspiracy involving spaceflight?
Your logic only works when applied as you want it applied, but screws you when applied to your own stupidity.
-
but screws you when applied to your own stupidity.
But have you ever been as stupid as Papa? Therefore, since you have no unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like to be that stupid, his level of stupidity cannot be reached.
-
but screws you when applied to your own stupidity.
But have you ever been as stupid as Papa? Therefore, since you have no unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like to be that stupid, his level of stupidity cannot be reached.
(https://abekoby.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-inception-1e95d2.jpg)
-
Bijane: BAWWWWW!
I just did answer you ffs, both thoroughly & conclusively.
But as you've already made it tiresomely clear that you prefer to blame your reading comprehension difficulties & cognitive dysfunction on others, rather than accept responsibility for them & try to improve them (a typical trait of Aspergers sufferers), it's not surprising that you prefer to simply ignore that answer & demand another one more fitting to your wretched nonsensical world-view.
Well, you won't get it, you egomaniacal loon, so just STFU & get back in your unicorn-horned hugbox, okay?
& only come back out when you have been to bloody space...
Because if you have not been to space, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like & your word on the subject is worthless.
Operant conditioning; it works on dogs & pigeons, but you arrogant narcissistic broke-brained boneheads seem immune to any & all treatment...
I haven't followed the entire thread or engaged with you before, Papa Legba, but you are of course entirely correct.
Any dictionary:
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Good luck explaining that to some of the trolls we have to put up with on this site. They'll just keep claiming that "six hundred people have empirical evidence of space travel." They'll then show you photos of someone else's empirical evidence. It's pretty sad.
-
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Good luck explaining that to some of the trolls we have to put up with on this site. They'll just keep claiming that "six hundred people have empirical evidence of space travel." They'll then show you photos of someone else's empirical evidence. It's pretty sad.
Please point out where in that definition it refers to personal observation or experimentation.
Have you been to Australia yet?
-
Wow!
Quite the impressive circle-jerk of full-bore autism, sock-puppetry, shit-posts & TOTAL FAIL piling up while you think I'm away (I lied; just as you lot habitually do).
But as nobody reads your posts anyway, except myself - & then only to find the most lulzy parts - it's all bit of a waste of time.
Still; while the cat's away, the aspie mice will creep out of their squalid hugboxes to play...
& will any of it get you one single inch closer to your beloved 'space'?
Nope.
So long, space-suckers!
P.S. Thanks, Legion; you clearly get it too.
Bijane: STFU & get back in your utterly discredited analogical hugbox. You. Are. Done.
-
Bijane: STFU & get back in your utterly discredited analogical hugbox. We. Are. Done.
So you haven't been to Australia yet?
-
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Good luck explaining that to some of the trolls we have to put up with on this site. They'll just keep claiming that "six hundred people have empirical evidence of space travel." They'll then show you photos of someone else's empirical evidence. It's pretty sad.
Please point out where in that definition it refers to personal observation or experimentation.
Have you been to Australia yet?
If you can't observe something, or perform an experiment, how can it be empirical?
In my house, gravity is reversed. if I drop something, it lands on the ceiling. Do you believe my empirical evidence? Everyone who has been to my house experiences the same thing. Is that empirical evidence that you can use?
-
Bijane: yet again, your reading comprehension issues are leading you into self-mockery.
I have already comprehensively dismissed any relevance your Australia analogy might have to the topic; whether I have been there or not is irrelevant.
I have also repeatedly told you that it is not my fault that you are mentally disadvantaged & that blaming others for your own shortcomings, rather than addressing them yourself, is the sign of a narcissistic personality disorder, if not outright physical brain-damage.
I am sorry that you cannot understand this, but that is often the nature of people with neurological impairment.
So I respectfully ask you to just STFU & get back to your lonely, mental-case, fail-troll hugbox asap.
You really will feel better there; play with your unicorn's horn or summat, okay?
-
If you can't observe something, or perform an experiment, how can it be empirical?
Because it could come from a source I trust: again, point to where in the definition of empirical evidence it required a personal experiment. If you don't trust anyone to ever tell you the truth, I honestly don't know how you live.
In my house, gravity is reversed. if I drop something, it lands on the ceiling. Do you believe my empirical evidence? Everyone who has been to my house experiences the same thing. Is that empirical evidence that you can use?
I have empirical evidence which would firmly contradict that: and you are not a source I trust.
Bijane: yet again, your reading comprehension issues are leading you into self-mockery.
I have already comprehensively dismissed any relevance your Australia analogy might have to the topic; whether I have been there or not is irrelevant.
And your space travel question has firmly been shown to be irrelevant, meaningless and a waste of time, and you keep asking it. So:
Have you been to Australia yet?
-
If you can't observe something, or perform an experiment, how can it be empirical?
Because it could come from a source I trust: again, point to where in the definition of empirical evidence it required a personal experiment. If you don't trust anyone to ever tell you the truth, I honestly don't know how you live.
In my house, gravity is reversed. if I drop something, it lands on the ceiling. Do you believe my empirical evidence? Everyone who has been to my house experiences the same thing. Is that empirical evidence that you can use?
I have empirical evidence which would firmly contradict that: and you are not a source I trust.
You have empirical evidence of how gravity behaves in my house? That is sickening.
Why do you not trust me? When have I lied?
-
You have empirical evidence of how gravity behaves in my house? That is sickening.
I know how gravity behaves, I see no reason to suppose a special exception for you.
Why do you not trust me? When have I lied?
There are other reasons to distrust a source. Context, accountability, bias for starters.
-
You have empirical evidence of how gravity behaves in my house? That is sickening.
I know how gravity behaves, I see no reason to suppose a special exception for you.
I have presented empirical evidence.
There are other reasons to distrust a source. Context, accountability, bias for starters.
That does not explain why you do not trust me. Empirical evidence can rely on trust, can it not?
-
That does not explain why you not trust me. Empirical evidence can rely on trust, can it not?
Give me a reason to think you're serious and to suppose a special exception to something that has more empirical evidence than your proposal.
-
That does not explain why you not trust me. Empirical evidence can rely on trust, can it not?
Give me a reason to think you're serious and to suppose a special exception to something that has more empirical evidence than your proposal.
How do you know the space adventurers are serious? I've seen quite a few TV dramas that appear very realistic in their presentation. Murders happen. Murders are solved, all in a very serious manner. Are they real?
-
How do you know the space adventurers are serious? I've seen quite a few TV dramas that appear very realistic in their presentation. Murders happen. Murders are solved, all in a very serious manner. Are they real?
Well for starters, TV dramas admit to be fake.
I have no reason to distrust space companies, and they have more than validated their claims. I've seen the ISS, reaped the rewards of the science they lead, seen images and videos far in advance of what could be faked at the time they were released, and good old context also comes forward.
A claim made that could be denied by several hundred people, from an organization that (if lying) would have purposefully jeopardized itself, is a world away from a claim made from a random person on an internet forum where trolls frequent, made solely to prove a point.
-
That does not explain why you not trust me. Empirical evidence can rely on trust, can it not?
Give me a reason to think you're serious and to suppose a special exception to something that has more empirical evidence than your proposal.
How do you know the space adventurers are serious? I've seen quite a few TV dramas that appear very realistic in their presentation. Murders happen. Murders are solved, all in a very serious manner. Are they real?
Legion, you been to Djibouti? China? Russia?
Do those places exist? Please show me empirical evidence they do.
Thank you.
-
How do you know the space adventurers are serious? I've seen quite a few TV dramas that appear very realistic in their presentation. Murders happen. Murders are solved, all in a very serious manner. Are they real?
Well for starters, TV dramas admit to be fake.
I have no reason to distrust space companies, and they have more than validated their claims. I've seen the ISS, reaped the rewards of the science they lead, seen images and videos far in advance of what could be faked at the time they were released, and good old context also comes forward.
A claim made that could be denied by several hundred people, from an organization that (if lying) would have purposefully jeopardized itself, is a world away from a claim made from a random person on an internet forum where trolls frequent, made solely to prove a point.
So, if they didn't admit to being fictional (or known to be that by convention), then they are assumed to be true. Interesting.
I'll watch TV in a new light now. Thanks.
Edit: Your "empirical" evidence about seeing the ISS are worthless to me. As are your beliefs about what technology is capable of.
-
Bijane: my question has NOT been shown to be irrelevant, meaningless & a waste of time; all that has been shown is just how desperate you space-cadets are to make that out to be the case.
& the only way you had to do so was with a crappy analogy to Australia.
Which I destroyed several posts ago.
Does your autism give you an excuse for being a shameless liar now too?
But what can you expect from extreme narcissist sociopaths though?
Time for more reinforcement before you scuttle off back to your rat-hole hugboxes:
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
Oh, & Lemmiwinks - you can stfu & get back in your liars collective false-analogy sock-puppet hugbox too.
-
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO CHINA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
-
Fair enough.
Now go create a thread about China, eh?
Make even more of a fool of yourselves with your false analogies, which compare two things that do not share similar properties.
For example; China is ON & PART OF the earth, whereas SPACE is, well, pretty much the exact opposite...
Add that to the fact that all analogies will eventually break down into a reductio ad absurdum if argued over at length & you have a recipe for massive fail.
Which is probably what you want, as you seem to have no interest in 'truth' per se; just preventing other people discussing or discovering it.
Nice work, aspie; that hugbox must get lonely & frustrating... guess you need to vent somehow.
All the same, you can still stfu & get back into it... & take your FAILED analogy with you.
-
Fair enough.
Now go create a thread about China, eh?
Make even more of a fool of yourselves with your false analogies, which compare two things that do not share similar properties.
For example; China is ON & PART OF the earth, whereas SPACE is, well, pretty much the exact opposite...
Add that to the fact that all analogies will eventually break down into a reductio ad absurdum if argued over at length & you have a recipe for massive fail.
Which is probably what you want, as you seem to have no interest in 'truth' per se; just preventing other people discussing or discovering it.
Nice work, aspie; that hugbox must get lonely & frustrating... guess you need to vent somehow.
All the same, you can still stfu & get back into it... & take your FAILED analogy with you.
Mate, you just keep hammering these fools. Good work!
-
So, if they didn't admit to being fictional (or known to be that by convention), then they are assumed to be true. Interesting.
I'll watch TV in a new light now. Thanks.
Not even close to what I said. Try again.
-
So, if they didn't admit to being fictional (or known to be that by convention), then they are assumed to be true. Interesting.
NASA in fact claims to do things for real so I am not sure why you bizarre guilty by omission argument is being made.
I'll watch TV in a new light now. Thanks.
Good for you.
Edit: Your "empirical" evidence about seeing the ISS are worthless to me. As are your beliefs about what technology is capable of.
Good thing your so bold opinion isn't worth much even on these fora.
[/quote]
-
Bijane: my question has NOT been shown to be irrelevant, meaningless & a waste of time; all that has been shown is just how desperate you space-cadets are to make that out to be the case.
& the only way you had to do so was with a crappy analogy to Australia.
Which I destroyed several posts ago.
my analogy has NOT been shown to be irrelevant, meaningless & a waste of time; all that has been shown is just how desperate you Australia-cadets are to make that out to be the case.
Have you been to Australia yet?
For example; China is ON & PART OF the earth, whereas SPACE is, well, pretty much the exact opposite...
Why does that stop your logic holding?
-
Fair enough.
Now go create a thread about China, eh?
Make even more of a fool of yourselves with your false analogies, which compare two things that do not share similar properties.
For example; China is ON & PART OF the earth, whereas SPACE is, well, pretty much the exact opposite...
Add that to the fact that all analogies will eventually break down into a reductio ad absurdum if argued over at length & you have a recipe for massive fail.
Which is probably what you want, as you seem to have no interest in 'truth' per se; just preventing other people discussing or discovering it.
Nice work, aspie; that hugbox must get lonely & frustrating... guess you need to vent somehow.
All the same, you can still stfu & get back into it... & take your FAILED analogy with you.
Papa, I have three honest questions, and sorry in advance for pestering you.
Q1. Does your direct, unambiguous, empirical evidence model apply to everything that one has not personally experienced?
Because thats where i think Jane and Lemmi are going with their Australia analogy.
Q2. When, if ever, can someone's word on a subject mean anything if they haven't directly experienced it?
Q3. What are the differences between Australia/China/Djibouti and space in this model?
Because apparently the Karman line is what separates the earth from space, and that is only 100 km up.
I think it is probably further to go to get to Australia/China/Djibouti than it is to get to space.
Again, sorry to pester you, but you are going to reply anyway, so I thought I might ask a few questions.
BTW- What is a "hugbox"? I have never come across that term before.
-
Legion, tappet & I both told these BAWtists the same thing many posts ago; but they just lie & say we didn't.
What can you do? You can't debate with liars.
That's why I don't bother & just hammer home my point while sending up every stupid thing they say.
So it's good that they say a LOT of stupid things eh?
Like bijane just now; b.j. dear, you do realise that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery don't you?
It also shows a total lack of imagination; but then that's par for the course with you is it not?
Along with lying, idiocy, narcissism, illiteracy, lack of humour or logic & absence of all self-awareness & social skills.
But you still got your good old hugbox ain't you?
So STFU & get back into the goddamned thing & stop making a complete buffon of your sad, lonely self.
& scrotalsac; if you're now trying to say that space IS part of the earth then you can just STFU & crawl back into your hobbit-hole hugbox too... Reductio ad absurdum here we come!!!
You lot'll try anything won't you... Pathetic!
& STILL none of you have been to space, you utter, utter losers.
-
Legion, tappet & I both told these BAWtists the same thing many posts ago; but they just lie & say we didn't.
What can you do? You can't debate with liars.
That's why I don't bother & just hammer home my point while sending up every stupid thing they say.
So it's good that they say a LOT of stupid things eh?
Like bijane just now; b.j. dear, you do realise that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery don't you?
It also shows a total lack of imagination; but then that's par for the course with you is it not?
Along with lying, idiocy, narcissism, illiteracy, lack of humour or logic & absence of all self-awareness & social skills.
But you still got your good old hugbox ain't you?
So STFU & get back into the goddamned thing & stop making a complete buffon of your sad, lonely self.
& scrotalsac; if you're now trying to say that space IS part of the earth then you can just STFU & crawl back into your hobbit-hole hugbox too... Reductio ad absurdum here we come!!!
You lot'll try anything won't you... Pathetic!
& STILL none of you have been to space, you utter, utter losers.
HAVE YOU BEEN TO CHINA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
-
So; mikeman.nasa.gov hasn't been to space either & thus has no 1st-hand evidence for anything he says on the subject.
This is like pulling teeth...
Anyhow; one more down.
Next!
Anyone else here been to space?
Have you PERSONALLY seen the ice wall to know its existence? How about the Sahara desert? Ever been to the deepest mine in the world? Ever seen a panda in the wild? Nope. FAKEFAKEFAKEFAKE.
-
What icewall? What pandas? What desert, you cranks?
Wtf you banging on about now?
& wtf's China got to do with it too; how many times do your piss-poor analogies have to be smashed before you give up on em?
It's like last friday again isn't it? You're all off on a mentalist foot-stamping & bed-wetting spree cos you can't handle being pwned so badly.
Lordy, Lordy... Sucks to be you don't it?
The truth is not in you, & you're so bent & twisted you have to screw your trousers on in the mornings.
& it gets worse: COS NONE OF YOU HAVE BEEN TO SPACE EITHER HAVE YOU?
Just Star Trek conventions & Comicon... LOL!!!
Keeeeeeeep on dreeeeeeeaming, space-believers; SOME day it'll happen... Won't it?
ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!!
So long, space-mugs... Australia - LMAO!!!!
-
What icewall? What pandas? What desert, you cranks?
Wtf you banging on about now?
& wtf's China got to do with it too; how many times do your piss-poor analogies have to be smashed before you give up on em?
It's like last friday again isn't it? You're all off on a mentalist foot-stamping & bed-wetting spree cos you can't handle being pwned so badly.
Lordy, Lordy... Sucks to be you don't it?
The truth is not in you, & you're so bent & twisted you have to screw your trousers on in the mornings.
& it gets worse: COS NONE OF YOU HAVE BEEN TO SPACE EITHER HAVE YOU?
Just Star Trek conventions & Comicon... LOL!!!
Keeeeeeeep on dreeeeeeeaming, space-believers; SOME day it'll happen... Won't it?
ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!!
So long, space-mugs... Australia - LMAO!!!!
OLOLO, you stupid! How does space have anything to do with personal experience! ROFL! You wanktanker!
ROFLCOPTR!!!11
Anyway, I see its been 24 hours and you still haven't responded! I guess its because I am right!?? Can't believe you can even put your shurts on in the morning!! LOLOLOLoLoLoLLOO
Again:
HAVE YOU BEEN TO CHINA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
-
Lemmiwinks: it's amusing when I do it, but sounds super-lame coming from you; that's the problem with bad imitations.
They're just meh... Especially from autists.
You're beaten & out of arguments; I understand your pain.
But it's still funny!
See you at comicon, geek-boy... LOL!!!
-
Lemmiwinks: it's amusing when I do it, but sounds super-lame coming from you; that's the problem with bad imitations.
They're just meh... Especially from autists.
You're beaten & out of arguments; I understand your pain.
But it's still funny!
See you at comicon, geek-boy... LOL!!!
LOLOL! NURD! UR NURD! NERD VRGIN WITH ACNE!
ROFLCOPTR!!1
HAVE YOU BEEN TO CHINA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
-
I really hate you. DEBATE WITH US USING SCIENTIFIC FACTS OF KINDLY GO AWAY. The sheer amount of morons/trolls here makes me glad we can merge the sites.
Oh, and about the autism joke, I want to find you and break your nose.
-
Misero: BAWWWWWW!!! Do you imagine I care what you think of me, or what you'd like to do to me? I've already stated that you are all NOTHING to me.
Got it?
And after last night's little shitpost rampage & lie-fest from you lot, don't you EVER dare call ME a 'troll' or tell ME how to 'debate'.
Now just tell us if you've gone to bloody space or sling your hook, BAWtie-boy.
Or call the mods; go running to daddy, little child...
But hang on, Rama Set's the forum daddy ain't he?
LOL!!!
You lot got NOTHING; your piss-poor Australia analogy is busted, despite your instant attempts at reductio ad absurdum; your attempt to quibble over what constitutes evidence is risible (like you can't just google it; you googled the cost of a bloody V2 fast enough didn't you? Cos you're ALL experts on space ain't you? LMAO!!!); your credibility is in tatters...
You're finished, the lot of you...
And STILL none of you seem to have actually been to space...
So you're in dire need of another dose of operant conditioning.
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
But then again, I'd say last night's spazzed-out meltdown showed your word on pretty much EVERY subject isn't worth squat.
Now limp back out of your tramps-nest hugboxes & prove me wrong.
See you, space-tards!
-
I have not been to China.
The tv told me years ago there were too many people and they are running out of room so they should only have one kid.
I believed this.
Then recently the tv showed me "Wild China" Mountains, animals, forests and not a bloody person in sight, WTF.
So, I do not know what is true, I have not been there.
With no experience of China I will not be telling anybody what it is like.
You see, people think that I know fuck nothing, but in fact I know fuck all!
-
Indeed, tappet; you get it.
Legion gets it.
iWitness gets it.
Sceptimatic gets it.
The rest of these clods? No chance.
Btw, Misero; you wrote: 'DEBATE WITH US USING SCIENTIFIC FACTS OF KINDLY GO AWAY...'
Care to translate that for us, Mr. Scientist?
I take it Linguistics is not your speciality... though you're clearly 'special' in another way.
-
I have not been to China.
The tv told me years ago there were too many people and they are running out of room so they should only have one kid.
I believed this.
Then recently the tv showed me "Wild China" Mountains, animals, forests and not a bloody person in sight, WTF.
So, I do not know what is true, I have not been there.
With no experience of China I will not be telling anybody what it is like.
You see, people think that I know fuck nothing, but in fact I know fuck all!
You bring up a good point tappet. Have a read of this re. television (if you haven't yet):
http://onthewing.org/user/Ev_Four%20Arguments%20for%20Eliminating%20Television.pdf (http://onthewing.org/user/Ev_Four%20Arguments%20for%20Eliminating%20Television.pdf)
-
Indeed, Legion.
And let's not forget that the use of False Analogy is also a favourite tactic in Advertising, as well as in other forms of Propaganda & general Indoctrination.
Take note, space-drones... maybe you'll finally wise up a bit?
-
Misero: BAWWWWWW!!! Do you imagine I care what you think of me, or what you'd like to do to me? I've already stated that you are all NOTHING to me.
Got it?
And after last night's little shitpost rampage & lie-fest from you lot, don't you EVER dare call ME a 'troll' or tell ME how to 'debate'.
Now just tell us if you've gone to bloody space or sling your hook, BAWtie-boy.
Or call the mods; go running to daddy, little child...
But hang on, Rama Set's the forum daddy ain't he?
LOL!!!
You lot got NOTHING; your piss-poor Australia analogy is busted, despite your instant attempts at reductio ad absurdum; your attempt to quibble over what constitutes evidence is risible (like you can't just google it; you googled the cost of a bloody V2 fast enough didn't you? Cos you're ALL experts on space ain't you? LMAO!!!); your credibility is in tatters...
You're finished, the lot of you...
And STILL none of you seem to have actually been to space...
So you're in dire need of another dose of operant conditioning.
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
But then again, I'd say last night's spazzed-out meltdown showed your word on pretty much EVERY subject isn't worth squat.
Now limp back out of your tramps-nest hugboxes & prove me wrong.
See you, space-tards!
I believe you are attributing my actions to Misero. This is incorrect. Some may have joined in the festivities, but since the admins are rather absent here, my goal was to get the racist troll to leave, I hope my actions were not in vain.
On a side note, If you would take Misero's word for it if he had went into space, why not take an astronaut's word for his/her experiences? Why do all the thousands of videos and photos from space have to be faked, yet if one still image of a video when the camera distorts the image to look either concave or flat is the "real" thing? Why do you lot have such a problem understanding your size in relation to the Earth? That is the entire crux of the thing anyway, you do not understand science, so you do not trust it, you cannot reason beyond the simplest things around you, yet you insist that everyone else is stupid. Why must all science be thrown out? Why can't you lot come up with a map? Wait I will answer that one. Because every time you try to, it doesn't work with reality. If you try to get it to work with the path of the sun, then distances are completely wrong, if you try to get it to work with distances then something else breaks. No flat Earth map can explain the Southern hemisphere, Southern circumpolar stars and Northern circumpolar stars at the same time, no amount of misstating light refraction can explain sunsets, or the stars dropping below the horizon. None of the explanations about how ships sink below the horizons work for flat Earth ideas either. The perspective argument is completely broken, as most of you have no clue as to how light really works. So you cling onto your little fantasy, thinking you are being cute by always either derailing a thread or bringing out strawman tactics, etc. Your main sources of experimental data that you love to bring out disagrees with itself and other sources. Odd how we need to make so many assumptions to get flat Earth to even work worth 1% of reality. The only real argument you really have is "it looks flat". Sorry this will not do as an explanation.
Challenge me if you wish, I know you will. I am expecting one in particular to say exactly what I think he will, and I will begin my pupet master routine with him as well.
-
So have you been to Australia yet?
-
Mikey T Lovzballs:
What makes you think I believe the Earth is flat?
I have never stated such a thing.
Nor does the fact that I am posting on a Flat-earth forum & disagree with all the space-believers here prove I believe the Earth is flat either; Legion does the same, yet he is not a 'flat-earther'.
So; what makes you think I believe the Earth to be flat?
& Bijane: start your own thread on the subject... Oh, you already have. & it's rubbish.
So get back there, via a quick stint in your hugbox.
-
Ok, new question:
Have you been to NASA yet?
If you have not, you have no direct, unambiguous, empirical evidence for what it is like there, so your opinion on the subject is worthless.
-
Mikey T Lovzballs:
What makes you think I believe the Earth is flat?
I have never stated such a thing.
Nor does the fact that I am posting on a Flat-earth forum & disagree with all the space-believers here prove I believe the Earth is flat either; Legion does the same, yet he is not a 'flat-earther'.
So; what makes you think I believe the Earth to be flat?
& Bijane: start your own thread on the subject... Oh, you already have. & it's rubbish.
So get back there, via a quick stint in your hugbox.
Can you please answer my questions?
The question being: does this model of empirical evidence and personal experience apply to all subjects one has not personally experienced?
Its a pretty simple question, so don't get all snarky at me please.
-
-----------------------
I believe you are attributing my actions to Misero. This is incorrect. Some may have joined in the festivities, but since the admins are rather absent here, my goal was to get the racist troll to leave, I hope my actions were not in vain.
On a side note, If you would take Misero's word for it if he had went into space, why not take an astronaut's word for his/her experiences? Why do all the thousands of videos and photos from space have to be faked, yet if one still image of a video when the camera distorts the image to look either concave or flat is the "real" thing? Why do you lot have such a problem understanding your size in relation to the Earth? That is the entire crux of the thing anyway, you do not understand science, so you do not trust it, you cannot reason beyond the simplest things around you, yet you insist that everyone else is stupid. Why must all science be thrown out? Why can't you lot come up with a map? Wait I will answer that one. Because every time you try to, it doesn't work with reality. If you try to get it to work with the path of the sun, then distances are completely wrong, if you try to get it to work with distances then something else breaks. No flat Earth map can explain the Southern hemisphere, Southern circumpolar stars and Northern circumpolar stars at the same time, no amount of misstating light refraction can explain sunsets, or the stars dropping below the horizon. None of the explanations about how ships sink below the horizons work for flat Earth ideas either. The perspective argument is completely broken, as most of you have no clue as to how light really works. So you cling onto your little fantasy, thinking you are being cute by always either derailing a thread or bringing out strawman tactics, etc. Your main sources of experimental data that you love to bring out disagrees with itself and other sources. Odd how we need to make so many assumptions to get flat Earth to even work worth 1% of reality. The only real argument you really have is "it looks flat". Sorry this will not do as an explanation.
Challenge me if you wish, I know you will. I am expecting one in particular to say exactly what I think he will, and I will begin my pupet master routine with him as well.
[/quote]
Fantastic incite into the way conspiracy theorists minds work, Mikey. It doesn't matter what it is, NASA, 911, FE, Vaccines, Fluoride in the water, anything Heiwa says, it all boils down to that.
-
The mind of a conspiracy theorist lines up exactly with this:
"Humans like to make all of their problems into a single thing they can fight, and not treat it as the complex web of problems that it is."
-
The mind of a conspiracy theorist lines up exactly with this:
"Humans like to make all of their problems into a single thing they can fight, and not treat it as the complex web of problems that it is."
Can't argue with that.
-
The mind of a conspiracy theorist lines up exactly with this:
"Humans like to make all of their problems into a single thing they can fight, and not treat it as the complex web of problems that it is."
What an idiotic thing to write.
1. Have you studied the mind of a conspiracy theorist? If so, which one(s)?
2. Who are you quoting? Quotation marks indicate the words are not yours, so the source should be provided.
3. What is the evidence/reasoning behind this conclusion?
-
Why do you think there is a conspiracy out to get you and all other people knowing the truth? And I got that quote from a children's show called Steven Universe. (To put it in context, they were talking about a man who thinks snake people rule the world). Another one:
"Humans lead short, unimportant lives, so they personify their problems to give the illusion of making some sort of difference"
-
Misero wrote: 'I got that quote from a children's show...'
LOL!!!
Says it all really...
1 Corinthians 13:11. Read it; maybe you'll learn something.
Though somehow I doubt it.
-
Indeed, Legion.
And let's not forget that the use of False Analogy is also a favourite tactic in Advertising, as well as in other forms of Propaganda & general Indoctrination.
What about your use of the false dichotomy? You keep insisting that personal experience is the only way to gather "DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE". In fact, personal experience is often very ambiguous and biased. Human senses are very easy to fool and are not very quantitative. After all, without looking at a barometer, can you tell me what the air pressure is in millibars where you're at right now?
-
1 Corinthians 13:11. Read it; maybe you'll learn something.
Though somehow I doubt it.
When somebody quotes from the Bible in any scientific debate, it inevitably indicates two things:
Their knowledge of the sciences is very limited, particularly with regard to astrophysics and geophysics.
They seriously believe millennial-old myths and fairy stories about demons and wizards, and so-called miracles.
There is NO place in science for religion, as science relies on empirical evidence for its tenets, and not fantastical stories written by ignorant camel-jockeys thousands of years ago. An old, heavy Bible does make a good doorstop though LOL.
-
Mikey T Lovzballs:
What makes you think I believe the Earth is flat?
I have never stated such a thing.
Nor does the fact that I am posting on a Flat-earth forum & disagree with all the space-believers here prove I believe the Earth is flat either; Legion does the same, yet he is not a 'flat-earther'.
So; what makes you think I believe the Earth to be flat?
& Bijane: start your own thread on the subject... Oh, you already have. & it's rubbish.
So get back there, via a quick stint in your hugbox.
Papa Legless, still trolling I see, was your bank holiday weekend a bust?
If you don't think the earth is flat, why does your avatar have "In your heart you know it's flat" proudly proclaimed for all to see?
So if that's not what you really think, then that makes you a shill ( in the true sense of the word ).
While we are talking about shills, it seems that the meaning of the word is in the process of changing, from someone who pretends to be on your side while secretly undermining you, to just a generic derogatory term.
I think you might be trying to qualify for both versions.
-
1 Corinthians 13:11. Read it; maybe you'll learn something.
Though somehow I doubt it.
When somebody quotes from the Bible in any scientific debate, it inevitably indicates two things:
Their knowledge of the sciences is very limited, particularly with regard to astrophysics and geophysics.
They seriously believe millennial-old myths and fairy stories about demons and wizards, and so-called miracles.
There is NO place in science for religion, as science relies on empirical evidence for its tenets, and not fantastical stories written by ignorant camel-jockeys thousands of years ago. An old, heavy Bible does make a good doorstop though LOL.
This thread was started by someone with deep religious convictions. What you think constitutes evidence is irrelevant. If people want to quote religious text and you don't like it, I suggest you go and troll somewhere else.
-
This thread was started by someone with deep religious convictions.
I don't really care how "deep" anybody's religious "convictions" are. (In fact, the deeper they are the more likely are their opinions to be biassed.) Anybody who relies on religious dogma is wasting their time, and others', because by accepting the fantasy of religion they automatically (and probably inadvertently) preclude many of the scientific tenets that have been unequivocally proven by EVERY scientist in the world over a period of centuries. There is not one single scientist in the world today that accepts any shape other than spherical for our planet. Also, the mere fact that the OP has such deep religious convictions makes him a very poor candidate for debating astrophysics and geophysics, as he (presumably) thinks the planet is only 6,000 years old, and everything was created by some omniscient and omnipotent "god". Which of course is an absurd belief in the 21st century.
What you think constitutes evidence is irrelevant. If people want to quote religious text and you don't like it, I suggest you go and troll somewhere else.
Not so. What constitutes evidence is critical in any debate. I do not merely "think" I have presented evidence; I have actually done so. If your defence of your religious buddy amounts to nothing more than telling me to go elsewhere, then you obviously have very little ammunition in your flat earth armoury. Or are you so arrogant that you think you can memberate this forum?
Presumably - having responded so aggressively - you too accept the Bible as a factual document?
-
Misero wrote: 'I got that quote from a children's show...'
LOL!!!
Says it all really...
1 Corinthians 13:11. Read it; maybe you'll learn something.
Though somehow I doubt it.
So 1 Corinthians 13:11 says;"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
That tells me one should grow up and stop thinking everyone else is stupid (a childish way of thinking) and realize that the world doesn't work through magic, conspiracies and imagination. It tells me that, although it my be easier to stay childish, you have to give them up ("put away" implies work) to become an adult.
As for quoting a children's show, truth is truth, no matter where you find it.
-
The usual massive, stinking, dump of assumption, non-sequiturs & fail from all of you (Legion excepted).
You really are all stupid, aren't you?
Rayzor seems to think he has solid proof that I'm a 'flat-earther'; anyone agree with him?
Happy fascist coprophage markjo seems to think he has any credibility left on this thread whatsoever.
& as for Dame Edna/ausGeoff: LOL!
Nice try, you bottom-feeding shitehawk.
But this is NOT a 'scientific debate'; & if I quote the bible it is because I thought it relevant to Misero's piss-poor post.
Being educated, I can quote a lot of sources - none of which I necessarily agree with totally - but any of which I may deem relevant at a particular time.
You know this very well; but being a parasitic, dishonest, scumbag you couldn't but help from leaping in to twist my words, could you?
Luckily, everybody here already hates you, so I don't need to add much extra persuasion for em to see you for the truly loathsome, non-entitical, lying windbag that you are.
Pathetic... As ever.
Good luck with the space travel; how's that going btw?
LOL!!!
-
Well?
Come on, smart-asses...
Rayzor appears to have caught me with my pants down; wanna line up behind him?
Also; it's funny how Jolly Nazi coprophage Markjo was calling me an 'atheist fundamentalist' a few posts back, yet now I'm suddenly a Bible-Basher, isn't it?
Flip-flopping is a sign of Liars, Trolls & bedrock madmen; but none of you fit those categories do you?
Enough of that though; any of you agree with Rayzor?
I'll give you a while to confer, you cowardly dogs, before I kick your sorry asses yet again...
Though one of you may have wooshed up to space & back in that time, thus rendering the kicking moot...
Yet somehow I doubt it... LOL!!!
-
So have you been to Australia yet?
-
But this is NOT a 'scientific debate';
Well duh. Your refusal to answer any questions put to you and constant ranting has made that quite clear.
Also; it's funny how Jolly Nazi coprophage Markjo was calling me an 'atheist fundamentalist' a few posts back, yet now I'm suddenly a Bible-Basher, isn't it?
Umm... No. I never said any of that.
BTW, I think that you might be confusing "Bible-Basher" and "Bible-Thumper".
-
No, happy fascist markjo; YOUR vile coprophage postings made it clear this was NOT a scientific debate!
& yes you did; but lying must be second nature to you by now, after your umpteen thousand posts here, so no surprise there.
But anyway; do you agree with Rayzor, incontinent student buddy?
Or do you prefer to sit on the fence, in your sodden, reeking diapers?
& bijane; do I hear a butthurt mouse?
-
Simple question: I say that I have never stated I am a flat-earther; Rayzor claims to have proof that I am lying.
Who is right?
Me?
Or Rayzor?
When you've got far enough out of your squalid hugboxes to reach your keyboards & sort out which of your sock-puppets are supposed to say what, then let me know.
Til then, so long space-suckers!
-
So, I'll admit I was possible incorrect about your flat Earth ideas. Yet with the way you spew insults and complement the other flat Earth trolls, and your avatar statement, you do smell of it.
So for now I will not expect flat Earth arguments from you, I see that you are in fact trolling.
So explain, without insulting comments, what you want to say you believe in. (I can almost promise you will not do this simple thing)
Let's get your beliefs right out there on the table. (This will prove you are not a troll and remove some of your troll tactics if you are)
-
& bijane; do I hear a butthurt mouse?
Why would I be hurt that you've never been to Australia?
-
& bijane; do I hear a butthurt mouse?
Why would I be hurt that you've never been to Australia?
Are you female?
-
So, I'll admit I was possible incorrect about your flat Earth ideas. Yet with the way you spew insults and complement the other flat Earth trolls, and your avatar statement, you do smell of it.
Your hatred toward FEers is obvious.
Something is not quite right. Maybe you should leave this forum and go chill for a while, maybe go mow the lawn or something.
At the very least ask yourself what you are doing here.
-
So, I'll admit I was possible incorrect about your flat Earth ideas. Yet with the way you spew insults and complement the other flat Earth trolls, and your avatar statement, you do smell of it.
Your hatred toward FEers is obvious.
Something is not quite right. Maybe you should leave this forum and go chill for a while, maybe go mow the lawn or something.
At the very least ask yourself what you are doing here.
Mikey, you should also acknowledge that as this is the Flat Earth Society forum, a flat earther cannot, by definition, be a troll. If you can't see that, then you are lost.
-
Mikey, you should also acknowledge that as this is the Flat Earth Society forum, a flat earther cannot, by definition, be a troll.
Incorrect. The Urban Dictionary defines a troll as "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument." Many here who claim to be FE'ers most certainly fit this definition.
-
You've also called me a flat-earther, happy fascist markjo; as have several other of your drooling brethren throughout this thread.
& how is my asking a bunch of sneering toss-pots who hang round where they're not welcome, stinking the place out with their space-bullshit, whether any of em have actually BEEN to the place they're so fond of mocking anyone who dares doubt their second-hand knowledge of, in any way, shape or form 'trolling'?
It's more like a public service.
Kinda like scrubbing toilets; which was one of the first insults you lot threw my way, that you now wet your pants about getting back ten-fold...
Hypocrisy being yet another of your manifold failings, along with cowardice.
This is your lot's biggest problem: you bang on about 'science' & 'logic' & 'evidence' but none of you even know how to read.
Don't agree? Then read the thread again... Oh, wait - you can't!
Alternatively, just join rayzor in claiming the statement 'in your heart you know it's flat' proves that I think the earth is flat; how do you think that'll work out for you?
Idiots...
& mikey t illiterate; you can just S.T.F.U & get back in your bluster-filled, cat-piss-reeking hugbox; you joined this thread with some tl;dr wank-athon about how you were going to be 'the puppet master' & fell flat on your face at the very first step - LOL!!!
You're just another transparent clown like bijane, so don't tell me what I am or what to do, you pompous slack-jawed popinjay.
MY beliefs are neither here nor there; YOUR fairy-tale beliefs are the issue here, so stick to the topic or GTF out & spam another thread with your random blah & fail.
& the topic is: 'what is your personal experience of space travel?' Go on, mikey tl;dr - answer us; then you can go into your 'puppet-master' routine...
I'm sure it'll be a masterpiece of genius & cunning.
-
Simple question: I say that I have never stated I am a flat-earther; Rayzor claims to have proof that I am lying.
Papa Legless, maybe you should read that post again, we all agree that you are a troll. What is undecided is whether or not you qualify as a shill.
I have a cunning plan to find out the truth... a plan so cunning it would get Baldrick to give up turnips.. sidles up casually to the Legless Papa, and whispers innocently ...
Papa Legless, do you think the earth is flat?
-
You've also called me a flat-earther, happy fascist markjo;
If I have, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing a relevant citation. Otherwise, take your incessant trolling to AR.
-
Wait a second.
How do we know Papa Legba exists?
We don't have any empirical evidence for his existence. All we have is some forum account that could easily be a bot. He does constantly repeat statements.
-
Markjo: You want ME to give a 'citation'? For the gibberish that YOU spouted on a Flat Earth internet forum?
LMAO!!! You are beyond parody...
But you did say it; thus demonstrating that you also have memory problems to add to your multiple other handicaps, official bed-wetter & happy fascist coprophage markjo.
Neutral readers are welcome to trawl through all the non-posts you've made on this thread to find where you lump me in with the flat-earthers; I prefer not to waste my time.
Or do a single goddamn thing that a bowel-movement-fetishist nazi internet non-entity demands of me for that matter.
Fact is that you have not been to space; you have no 1st-hand experience of this thing you are so expert on.
Thus, your word on the subject is worthless.
Dream on, sewer-sucking space-drone!
& ellimist: Yawn! If I don't exist then stop talking to me; you will not be missed...
-
Markjo: You want ME to give a 'citation'? For the gibberish that YOU spouted on a Flat Earth internet forum?
Yes. I want you to support a claim that you made with some evidence.
-
Rayzor: you already claim to have proved that I am a 'flat-earther'; so why do you now ask me if I am?
Is it because you were wrong?
Because you can not read?
You're just another drone-bot who's credibility is shot.
& also, amazingly, has not been to space...
Yaaaaawn!!!
Like fish in a barrel...
& markjo; let me explain: shut up.
Any neutral reading this thread will by now know - beyond all doubt - that nothing you write is worth reading.
I only read it myself so that I can pick the best bits to mock you with.
So STFU, get back in your unspeakably decorated hugbox & keep bleating for 'citations' from there...
-
Rayzor: you already claim to have proved that I am a 'flat-earther'; so why do you now ask me if I am?
Ok, you're a flat agnostic troll.
If you insist on trolling, at least learn to do it properly, all you are doing is spewing out random insults and exposing us poor innocents to your weird fetish for excrement.
Trolling done properly, has an element of humor and entertainment, and your efforts so far show little imagination and variety, even the insults are getting repetitive.
Lift your game Papa Leghorn,
-
& markjo; let me explain: shut up.
Any neutral reading this thread will by now know - beyond all doubt - that nothing you write is worth reading.
I only read it myself so that I can pick the best bits to mock you with.
So STFU, get back in your unspeakably decorated hugbox & keep bleating for 'citations' from there...
So you admit that can't prove that I ever referred to you as a FE'er (or pretty much anything else that you say)? Good to know.
-
So, I'll admit I was possible incorrect about your flat Earth ideas. Yet with the way you spew insults and complement the other flat Earth trolls, and your avatar statement, you do smell of it.
Your hatred toward FEers is obvious.
Something is not quite right. Maybe you should leave this forum and go chill for a while, maybe go mow the lawn or something.
At the very least ask yourself what you are doing here.
I can assuredly tell you that my initial reasons for being here were in fact to find out why. But in my time here I have seen enough to make me understand what this place really is for most of the posters here. It is not for discussion of possible flat Earth ideas. I am only giving back a small portion of what I have received here when trying to refute some of your nonsense. So you do not like my new attitude towards your? I can sit here and try to explain things and am called a liar, a shill, stupid, all manner of things, but when I do start to act in defense of myself it is too strong for you then. I see the weak mindedness of so many here, and only pressure those who seem to have the shittiest of attitudes towards others. Is it my fault I can easily make you dance for me? I can post certain things and know what your response is going to be before you do. It has added a new level of fun to the board watching certain people squirm. If they learn a lesson and start actually discussing things again, am I not doing the forum a benefit? Or do you wish to continue to just be the laughing stock of the flat Earth believers? The place where the trolls who just want to argue go. The place where only a very select few actually believe the flat earth stuff they are posting about. I only ask that you defend your positions, if you cannot, do not make them public. On that note, Do you see me attacking people like th3rm0 who will at least discuss things without resorting to insulting behavior? I haven't even messed with you tappet. Yet. I have yet to see anyone refute anything I have posted, there have been some straw man tactics, and some general hand waving, but nothing that comes close to a rebuttal. So the forum became boring to me, and I have now decided to start highlighting a little of the BS I see, all while making my little puppets dance when I wish them to. There is no hatred in my heart for any of you. So do not think that your accusations affect me at all.
Papa, I asked for a clarification on what you believe. Your initial response is not what I asked. You do however do a nice troll dance when I instruct you to. Let's see more of your insulting ways little puppet. Dance again.
Legion, saying that a flat Earth supporter cannot be a troll is a misstating of the definition of the term. So you are saying that anyone who agrees with you cannot be a troll then? Yes it is the flat Earth society, sorta, but when you open your doors to debate and the ones claiming to support your claims are doing nothing but making your entire idea stupid and throwing insults around just to get the discussion into an argument then they are trolls. The weak minded response to anything you cannot refute is to go to insults. This is what I see here.
So no I do not think I will go away tappet.
-
Markjo: No, I didn't admit that; yet again you show your utter inability to read.
Unsurprising, from someone who doesn't even know what the word 'ALL' means...
You know, for a while there, happy-fascist markjo, I thought you were to be my new source of comedy gold, now that bijane has retreated into her mouse-hole Australian hugbox; but everything you write really is too empty, insipid & tedious even for that.
What exactly is your point then?
Rayzor: Let me explain to you too: shut up.
& also learn to read.
But enough of all that; this thread is not about you.
It's about me. And I've decided it's now time for another operant conditioning session.
Now, I realise that operant conditioning works best in conjunction with some form of reward/punishment regime; sadly for you, though, I'm all out of Carrots...
So you'll just have to keep settling for the Stick.
Anyhow: IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT & UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Oh, & Mikey T L;dr - tl;dr, 'puppet-master'.
-
So, I'll admit I was possible incorrect about your flat Earth ideas. Yet with the way you spew insults and complement the other flat Earth trolls, and your avatar statement, you do smell of it.
Your hatred toward FEers is obvious.
Something is not quite right. Maybe you should leave this forum and go chill for a while, maybe go mow the lawn or something.
At the very least ask yourself what you are doing here.
I can assuredly tell you that my initial reasons for being here were in fact to find out why. But in my time here I have seen enough to make me understand what this place really is for most of the posters here. It is not for discussion of possible flat Earth ideas. I am only giving back a small portion of what I have received here when trying to refute some of your nonsense. So you do not like my new attitude towards your? I can sit here and try to explain things and am called a liar, a shill, stupid, all manner of things, but when I do start to act in defense of myself it is too strong for you then. I see the weak mindedness of so many here, and only pressure those who seem to have the shittiest of attitudes towards others. Is it my fault I can easily make you dance for me? I can post certain things and know what your response is going to be before you do. It has added a new level of fun to the board watching certain people squirm. If they learn a lesson and start actually discussing things again, am I not doing the forum a benefit? Or do you wish to continue to just be the laughing stock of the flat Earth believers? The place where the trolls who just want to argue go. The place where only a very select few actually believe the flat earth stuff they are posting about. I only ask that you defend your positions, if you cannot, do not make them public. On that note, Do you see me attacking people like th3rm0 who will at least discuss things without resorting to insulting behavior? I haven't even messed with you tappet. Yet. I have yet to see anyone refute anything I have posted, there have been some straw man tactics, and some general hand waving, but nothing that comes close to a rebuttal. So the forum became boring to me, and I have now decided to start highlighting a little of the BS I see, all while making my little puppets dance when I wish them to. There is no hatred in my heart for any of you. So do not think that your accusations affect me at all.
Papa, I asked for a clarification on what you believe. Your initial response is not what I asked. You do however do a nice troll dance when I instruct you to. Let's see more of your insulting ways little puppet. Dance again.
Legion, saying that a flat Earth supporter cannot be a troll is a misstating of the definition of the term. So you are saying that anyone who agrees with you cannot be a troll then? Yes it is the flat Earth society, sorta, but when you open your doors to debate and the ones claiming to support your claims are doing nothing but making your entire idea stupid and throwing insults around just to get the discussion into an argument then they are trolls. The weak minded response to anything you cannot refute is to go to insults. This is what I see here.
So no I do not think I will go away tappet.
Nek minute !
-
So have you been to NASA yet?
If not you have no direct, unambiguous evidence for what they do, and your opinion on the subject is worthless.
-
Yay! Calamity Jane is back & brought the Comedy Gold with her!
How, exactly, do I 'go to NASA', little mouse?
It is an Organisation, not a Place.
If you'd said 'go to NASA H.Q.' or similar I may have understood you; but how can I go to an abstract, uncentralised entity?
Does visiting their shonky website count? If so, I've already been.
& it was shit.
Every single time you post, your foot ends up in your mouth; it is priceless.
-
Yay! Calamity Jane is back & brought the Comedy Gold with her!
How, exactly, do I 'go to NASA', little mouse?
It is an Organisation, not a Place.
If you'd said 'go to NASA H.Q.' or similar I may have understood you; but how can I go to an abstract, uncentralised entity?
Does visiting their shonky website count? If so, I've already been.
& it was shit.
Every single time you post, your foot ends up in your mouth; it is priceless.
Can you please answer my question?
Is personally experiencing something the only way one can gain knowledge of it?
-
Yep, you're definitely incapable of understanding what's being said. Otherwise you'd have actually answered the questions posed to you by multiple people, multiple times.
-
Wait a second.
How do we know Papa Legba exists?
We don't have any empirical evidence for his existence. All we have is some forum account that could easily be a bot. He does constantly repeat statements.
I asked the same thing several pages back. Got no responce out of Papa Legba. Serious evidence of being a bot!
-
Wait a second.
How do we know Papa Legba exists?
We don't have any empirical evidence for his existence. All we have is some forum account that could easily be a bot. He does constantly repeat statements.
I asked the same thing several pages back. Got no responce out of Papa Legba. Serious evidence of being a bot!
Interesting theory, is Papa Legless a bot? First impression I would have to say no, a bot would be smarter. No programmer would release a bot that can only generate insults and no intelligent content.
My money would be on a 14 year old who has borrowed his big sisters laptop.
-
Wait a second.
How do we know Papa Legba exists?
We don't have any empirical evidence for his existence. All we have is some forum account that could easily be a bot. He does constantly repeat statements.
I asked the same thing several pages back. Got no responce out of Papa Legba. Serious evidence of being a bot!
Interesting theory, is Papa Legless a bot? First impression I would have to say no, a bot would be smarter. No programmer would release a bot that can only generate insults and no intelligent content.
My money would be on a 14 year old who has borrowed his big sisters laptop.
Yeah, your probably right about Bot Theory. Sisters laptpo? It has merit.
-
Do I detect the sound of BAWtism?
Doglover et al: If you think me a 'bot', then stop responding to me; as I have stated before, none of you will be missed.
Calamity Jane: I think the neutral reader knows exactly which one of us is 'incapable of understanding what's being said'. As I have repeatedly stated, the fact that you do not like the answer I give you does not entitle you to a different one.
Narcissism much?
As for the question of whether personally experiencing something is the only way to gain knowledge of it; sounds like a good way to bog someone down in minutiae to me...
Tell you what; why don't you start a thread on the subject & I'll respond there, if I choose.
Oh! You have.
& I haven't.
No; this thread is for the topic of whether or not you have been to space, thus gaining you direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Answer, or do not answer; it makes no difference to me.
-
Do I detect the sound of BAWtism?
Doglover et al: If you think me a 'bot', then stop responding to me; as I have stated before, none of you will be missed.
Calamity Jane: I think the neutral reader knows exactly which one of us is 'incapable of understanding what's being said'. As I have repeatedly stated, the fact that you do not like the answer I give you does not entitle you to a different one.
Narcissism much?
As for the question of whether personally experiencing something is the only way to gain knowledge of it; sounds like a good way to bog someone down in minutiae to me...
Tell you what; why don't you start a thread on the subject & I'll respond there, if I choose.
Oh! You have.
& I haven't.
No; this thread is for the topic of whether or not you have been to space, thus gaining you direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Answer, or do not answer; it makes no difference to me.
The depth of your delusion is astounding.
-
LOL!!!
You talk of the depth of MY delusions???
That's priceless, coming from a 29-contentless-posts, obvious-butthurt-sock-puppet-is-obvious, anonymous internet non-being!
& you talk about me being a bot...
Nice try, kid, but I told you before; you're out of your league.
Back to your snot-&-resentful-tears-filled hugbox now; better luck next time.
-
LOL!!!
You talk of the depth of MY delusions???
That's priceless, coming from a 29-contentless-posts, obvious-butthurt-sock-puppet-is-obvious, anonymous internet non-being!
& you talk about me being a bot...
Nice try, kid, but I told you before; you're out of your league.
Back to your snot-&-resentful-tears-filled hugbox now; better luck next time.
So I assume you have not been to Australia, have you. How bout NASA?
-
As for the question of whether personally experiencing something is the only way to gain knowledge of it; sounds like a good way to bog someone down in minutiae to me...
No. It goes to the validity of your repeated assertion that:
IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT & UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Answer, or do not answer; it makes no difference to me.
If it makes no difference, then why do you keep asking?
-
IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO NASA THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT & UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
-
Markjo: No, I didn't admit that; yet again you show your utter inability to read.
Unsurprising, from someone who doesn't even know what the word 'ALL' means...
You know, for a while there, happy-fascist markjo, I thought you were to be my new source of comedy gold, now that bijane has retreated into her mouse-hole Australian hugbox; but everything you write really is too empty, insipid & tedious even for that.
What exactly is your point then?
Rayzor: Let me explain to you too: shut up.
& also learn to read.
But enough of all that; this thread is not about you.
It's about me. And I've decided it's now time for another operant conditioning session.
Now, I realise that operant conditioning works best in conjunction with some form of reward/punishment regime; sadly for you, though, I'm all out of Carrots...
So you'll just have to keep settling for the Stick.
Anyhow: IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT & UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Oh, & Mikey T L;dr - tl;dr, 'puppet-master'.
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN PAPA LEGBA THEN YOU HAVE NO DIRECT & UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HE EXISTS.
THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS[/b]
-
Bijane: I answered you; now STFU.
Markjo: You too, Nazi grinder-man; now STFU.
Doglover: LOL! Also, STFU.
Ellimist: Who are you replying to, then? Plus, STFU.
I asked if any of you have been to space.
It's a 'yes' or 'no' question, not a goddamn philosophical treatise.
No matter how much you try to make it so.
Cos if you AIN'T actually BEEN to space, then you CAN NOT state with any certainty what it's like.
A child can see this; but you lot? No chance.
Why?
I don't care.
That's your problem, not mine.
Now get on with enjoying your usual sock-puppet shit-post shout-down.
-
Okay, no.
Now, let's use this analogy on something terrestrial.
Do you think, that due to the fact that you specifically have not observed an elephant washing itself in person, only in photos and videos, you should assume that the videos and photos of those elephants are entirely false?
If you cannot answer this simple yes/no question, you are not worth my time.
-
Cos if you AIN'T actually BEEN to space (Australia, NASA, the corner store for that matter) then you CAN NOT state with any certainty what it's like.
A child can see this; but you lot? No chance.
Why?
I don't care.
That's your problem, not mine.
Now get on with enjoying your usual sock-puppet shit-post shout-down.
-
Misero & Doglover: LOL! + fail = you.
Now carry on with your self-trolling & shit-posting...
The operant conditioning will continue when you've all shot your wads & calmed down.
-
Misero & Doglover: LOL! + fail = you.
Now carry on with your self-trolling & shit-posting...
The operant conditioning will continue when you've all shot your wads & calmed down.
Can you ever do anything but sling insults and foul language?
You seem at least intelligent enough to have a vocabulary consisting of multisyllabic words. Why don't you put some of it to work, along with a modicum of reason, and see where your argument about empirical evidence of space fails?
-
I asked if any of you have been to space.
It's a 'yes' or 'no' question, not a goddamn philosophical treatise.
No, I haven't been to space. However, over 500 other people and countless satellites and probes have been to space.
Cos if you AIN'T actually BEEN to space, then you CAN NOT state with any certainty what it's like.
You're right, I can't say from my own personal experience what space is like. However, I can learn from other people's experiences. Why can't you?
-
Bijane: I answered you; now STFU.
Nope, as per usual you just evade.
And you keep asking your questions even when it's been answered, so I'm going to keep asking.
Have you been to NASA yet?
-
Markjo: tb;dr (Too Boring; Didn't Read).
Get a new avatar, motto, persona, style, brain, etc, etc, & maybe I'll start to bother with you...
But after seeing you've dribbled twenty-seven THOUSAND insipid posts of utterly rigid, mind-numbing, strait-jacketed tedium & social/mental conformity on this site already I very much doubt you'll ever change.
So let's agree to disagree, okay, hippety-skippety Nazi markjo?
Plus, you really messed up with your offensive 'fesces' eating posts, kiddo; I'll not forget them in a hurry.
Just fyi, you know?
Bijane: (LOL!+fail) x BAWWWW! = you. Divided by Comedy Gold, on occasion.
See you both in the morning for your therapy.
-
Papa Legba, TFES welcomes spirited debate within its discussion boards. There are rules guiding these discussions and members are encouraged to read them.
When the moderators determine members post in a manner that goes against the stated rules, we can issue warnings and bans according to how a given member responds to the warnings.
Please keep board rules in mind as you continue to participate here at TFES.
Much appreciated.
-
Have you been to NASA yet?
-
Papa, if you make an argument solely rooted in fallacious reasoning, it is bound to collapse.
Making semantic arguments and personally attacking people won't get you very far.
-
Papa, if you make an argument solely rooted in fallacious reasoning, it is bound to collapse.
Making semantic arguments and personally attacking people won't get you very far.
Thanks for "crossing the floor" on this.
-
Papa, if you make an argument solely rooted in fallacious reasoning, it is bound to collapse.
Making semantic arguments and personally attacking people won't get you very far.
Thanks for "crossing the floor" on this.
Huh?
I'm assuming that was a sarcastic remark.
I thought we were friends.
-
Papa, if you make an argument solely rooted in fallacious reasoning, it is bound to collapse.
Making semantic arguments and personally attacking people won't get you very far.
Thanks for "crossing the floor" on this.
Huh?
I'm assuming that was a sarcastic remark.
I thought we were friends.
Not sarcastic. In the upper fora, usually FEers do not stick up for REers and vice versa is all; so thanks. Now just say "you are welcome", before this gets too bromantic.
-
Markjo: tb;dr (Too Boring; Didn't Read).
Then why do you ask the same question over and over if the answer is too boring?
-
Papa, if you make an argument solely rooted in fallacious reasoning, it is bound to collapse.
Making semantic arguments and personally attacking people won't get you very far.
Thanks for "crossing the floor" on this.
Huh?
I'm assuming that was a sarcastic remark.
I thought we were friends.
Not sarcastic. In the upper fora, usually FEers do not stick up for REers and vice versa is all; so thanks. Now just say "you are welcome", before this gets too bromantic.
I don't take kindly to people making us look bad as a group.
You're welcome.
I love you.
-
The proposition: 'IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHAT IT IS LIKE & THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS ULTIMATELY WORTHLESS' is not an example of 'fallacious reasoning'; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
One that the space-Cultists here have a very hard time accepting, it seems...
Further; I do not accept that I have been making you 'look bad as a group'; I have been making the fools among you look even more foolish & the humourless among you look even more humourless.
Everybody else has been having a good old laugh.
I remind you that I was not the first to use crude language or base insults on this thread; I have merely given as good as I received, simply done in a more inventive & eloquent manner.
The space-Cultists sowed the wind; they cannot then complain when they reap the whirlwind.
As for my using semantic trickery, again, this was a weapon first used against my simple proposition by the Cultists; yet, again, they complain when I turn it round, sharpen it & use it against them.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Not once have I called the mods, even when ganged up on, abused & told to eat 'fesces' by mobs of obvious sock-puppets; yet the Cultists appear to call the mods on my every post.
'Appeal to authority' much?
Attempted censorship much?
So: ban me if you wish; it matters not to me, for I have already won this 'debate'. The depths which the Cultists have had to plumb in order to try & stifle my voice is as damning a testimony as I could wish for.
Because, of course, the undeniable Truth is that not a single one of them has actually been to space.
& their word on the subject has no more validity than that of a new-born child.
-
I have already won this 'debate'.
You aren't debating. If you were, you would make a constructive reply to questions posed of you. You are pontificating. No one wins in pontification.
-
The proposition: 'IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHAT IT IS LIKE & THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS ULTIMATELY WORTHLESS' is not an example of 'fallacious reasoning'; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
One that the space-Cultists here have a very hard time accepting, it seems...
Not true in any respect, Just because you don't accept that space is real, doesn't mean anyone else has to buy into your narrow view of reality.
Ok, you may now resume your ranting and somewhat obscene fixation with excrement.
-
Further; I do not accept that I have been making you 'look bad as a group'; I have been making the fools among you look even more foolish & the humourless among you look even more humourless.
Trust me, you have been.
-
The proposition: 'IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHAT IT IS LIKE & THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS ULTIMATELY WORTHLESS' is not an example of 'fallacious reasoning'; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
And yet you refuse to explain why one can not learn about the conditions in space from other sources. Why is that?
One that the space-Cultists here have a very hard time accepting, it seems...
And one that you have a very hard time defending, it seems.
-
If I watch a football match, am I allowed an opinion on the performance of the teams? Or do you have to actually play in the game to have an opinion?
-
The proposition: 'IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHAT IT IS LIKE & THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS ULTIMATELY WORTHLESS' is not an example of 'fallacious reasoning'; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
One that the space-Cultists here have a very hard time accepting, it seems...
Further; I do not accept that I have been making you 'look bad as a group'; I have been making the fools among you look even more foolish & the humourless among you look even more humourless.
Everybody else has been having a good old laugh.
I remind you that I was not the first to use crude language or base insults on this thread; I have merely given as good as I received, simply done in a more inventive & eloquent manner.
The space-Cultists sowed the wind; they cannot then complain when they reap the whirlwind.
As for my using semantic trickery, again, this was a weapon first used against my simple proposition by the Cultists; yet, again, they complain when I turn it round, sharpen it & use it against them.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Not once have I called the mods, even when ganged up on, abused & told to eat 'fesces' by mobs of obvious sock-puppets; yet the Cultists appear to call the mods on my every post.
'Appeal to authority' much?
Attempted censorship much?
So: ban me if you wish; it matters not to me, for I have already won this 'debate'. The depths which the Cultists have had to plumb in order to try & stifle my voice is as damning a testimony as I could wish for.
Because, of course, the undeniable Truth is that not a single one of them has actually been to space.
& their word on the subject has no more validity than that of a new-born child.
Oh dear. This lunatic is worse than JRoweSkeptic, iWitness, legion, and sceptimatic all rolled into one entity. And to think I was banned for a simple comment in the Q&A forum with NO PM warning LOL.
I'm amazed my favourite nemesis jroa hasn't yet banned this guy. ;D
-
The proposition: 'IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHAT IT IS LIKE & THEREFORE YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS ULTIMATELY WORTHLESS' is not an example of 'fallacious reasoning'; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
One that the space-Cultists here have a very hard time accepting, it seems...
Further; I do not accept that I have been making you 'look bad as a group'; I have been making the fools among you look even more foolish & the humourless among you look even more humourless.
Everybody else has been having a good old laugh.
I remind you that I was not the first to use crude language or base insults on this thread; I have merely given as good as I received, simply done in a more inventive & eloquent manner.
The space-Cultists sowed the wind; they cannot then complain when they reap the whirlwind.
As for my using semantic trickery, again, this was a weapon first used against my simple proposition by the Cultists; yet, again, they complain when I turn it round, sharpen it & use it against them.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Not once have I called the mods, even when ganged up on, abused & told to eat 'fesces' by mobs of obvious sock-puppets; yet the Cultists appear to call the mods on my every post.
'Appeal to authority' much?
Attempted censorship much?
So: ban me if you wish; it matters not to me, for I have already won this 'debate'. The depths which the Cultists have had to plumb in order to try & stifle my voice is as damning a testimony as I could wish for.
Because, of course, the undeniable Truth is that not a single one of them has actually been to space.
& their word on the subject has no more validity than that of a new-born child.
Oh dear. This lunatic is worse than JRoweSkeptic, iWitness, legion, and sceptimatic all rolled into one entity. And to think I was banned for a simple comment in the Q&A forum with NO PM warning LOL.
I'm amazed my favourite nemesis jroa hasn't yet banned this guy. ;D
If they start banning people like Papa, then this site isn't worth a toss, is it, leaving dipshit's like you still here. ;D
-
If they start banning people like Papa, then this site isn't worth a toss, is it, leaving dipshit's like you still here. ;D
Perhaps if people like Papa were to behave in a civil manner, then there wouldn't need to be any talk of banning people like him.
-
If they start banning people like Papa, then this site isn't worth a toss, is it, leaving dipshit's like you still here.
LOL... I see one can still rely on poor old sceptimatic to insert an off-topic personal insult into a thread whenever it's necessary. The guy still can't come up with any half-articulate responses that address the OP. And I was sure when I was last here that he'd been permanently banned? Sadly that's apparently not the case.
And I see that sceptimatic is still defending all the whack-jobs that've sprung up on these forums like mushrooms in Spring. Birds of a feather etc? ;D
-
If they start banning people like Papa, then this site isn't worth a toss, is it, leaving dipshit's like you still here.
LOL... I see one can still rely on poor old sceptimatic to insert an off-topic personal insult into a thread whenever it's necessary. The guy still can't come up with any half-articulate responses that address the OP. And I was sure when I was last here that he'd been permanently banned? Sadly that's apparently not the case.
And I see that sceptimatic is still defending all the whack-jobs that've sprung up on these forums like mushrooms in Spring. Birds of a feather etc? ;D
You're welcome to this site Geoffrey. You win. Your shillery as well as your mates are allowed. Your constant screaming from bans have been allowed.
I'll be posting the odd thing from time to time and to be honest, I think most alternative thinkers are fed up of this site now due to shit like you being allowed to infest it.
It's such a shame. Think yourself lucky I'm not a mod on here because your posts would be constantly toyed with and my bias towards people like you would be full on. ;D
-
Hello ausGeoff LOL. (who also LOL. posts using the LOL. sock-puppet ZennerOne LOL. So that ban you keep LOL. whinging about was real effective wasn't it? LOL.).
Care to tell us LOL. if YOU have been to space? LOL.
This should be LOL.
LOL.
-
Hello ausGeoff LOL. (who also LOL. posts using the LOL. sock-puppet ZennerOne LOL. So that ban you keep LOL. whinging about was real effective wasn't it? LOL.).
Care to tell us LOL. if YOU have been to space? LOL.
This should be LOL.
LOL.
You just managed to be more obnoxious than Geoff. Well done, that takes some doing.
-
LOL.
-
Oh great. geoffrey is back. Amused to hear you got banned. Not amused to discover it was only temporarily.
-
Yeah, Legion; that's a good point.
On second thoughts, ausGeoff - DON'T tell us if you've been to space or not.
Nobody cares.
-
Yeah, Legion; that's a good point.
On second thoughts, ausGeoff - DON'T tell us if you've been to space or not.
Nobody cares.
He might have been to space, and therefore has unambiguous, empirical evidence for what it is like.
And you just shushed him.
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
-
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO CHINA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
Or, Janes which I also like
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO NASA?
IF NOT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
& YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
You THINK it isn't; but it IS.
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
Have you ever been to space?
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
Have you ever been to space?
Have you ever been to Djibouti?
-
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless.
Do you actually know how the ignore system works? Seriously?
-
I would like to return to bijane's allegedly clever & relevant comment re: 'have I been to NASA?'.
Bijane; as previously stated, NASA is an ORGANISATION, not a PLACE.
It is a DECENTRALISED BUREAUCRATIC ENTITY; how, exactly, am I supposed to visit such a thing?
If you had said 'have you been to NASA's facilities in Cape Kennedy?' I may have been able to provide you with an answer; but, as the question is phrased, you ask the impossible.
The nearest thing I can imagine to visiting NASA as a whole is to peruse their website; this I have done.
And I consider their website to be a dusty, ramshackle repository of blah, LOL & fail, without any merit whatsoever...
So; in a strange, roundabout, illogical yet typically comically-gold fashion you are at least partially correct b.j - my opinion of NASA is: 'WORTHLESS!'
ausGeoff: WTF???
-
NASA actually plans to overhaul their website and make it better. Even they agree that it needs updated.
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: NASA plans a lot of things; then thinks 'Nah; screw them geeks!' & spends your tax-money on hookers, blow & cheesy s.f.x.
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: NASA plans a lot of things; then thinks 'Nah; screw them geeks!' & spends your tax-money on hookers, blow & cheesy s.f.x.
Actually, I just noticed that NASA has already overhauled it's website. Just look at it, it's a lot better now: http://www.nasa.gov/ (http://www.nasa.gov/)
-
Actually guys, they already have.
nasa.gov
Its designed like its an app for an ipad, I can't say I enjoy it much. but whatevs.
-
WOW IAM AMAZED & GHANGED MY OPINIONN ABOUT SPACE YOU HAVE ALL BEEN YHERECOS NASA NEW WEBSITTE SO SHINY & IPAD FRENDLY SHAME ON ME BAD PAPOA LEGBA BADD OMG OMG OPMG NASA!!!!!!!!!
lol.
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
Have you ever been to space?
Papa himself is now pretending this line of argument was a joke all along. That's one way to try to get out of it.
Alpha2Omega; The internet would be nothing without people who pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.
After all, I just got a 20+ lulz-filled pages thread out of precisely that.
& I thank you for your valuable contributions to it.
Now get back to pontificating on the internet about people who pontificate on the internet about subjects they know nothing about.
& I'll do the same.
But with jokes.
The guy's a riot!
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
Have you ever been to space?
Papa himself is now pretending this line of argument was a joke all along. That's one way to try to get out of it.
Alpha2Omega; The internet would be nothing without people who pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.
After all, I just got a 20+ lulz-filled pages thread out of precisely that.
& I thank you for your valuable contributions to it.
Now get back to pontificating on the internet about people who pontificate on the internet about subjects they know nothing about.
& I'll do the same.
But with jokes.
The guy's a riot!
Dull people are threatened by jokes. You don't know what to do, do you alpha?
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
-
WOW IAM AMAZED & GHANGED MY OPINIONN ABOUT SPACE YOU HAVE ALL BEEN YHERECOS NASA NEW WEBSITTE SO SHINY & IPAD FRENDLY SHAME ON ME BAD PAPOA LEGBA BADD OMG OMG OPMG NASA!!!!!!!!!
lol.
LOLOLOL I HAZ NUTIN TO SAY THATS SMRT OR GUD SO I MAKE FUNZ OF YOU LULLLZZZ!!!!
-
WOW IAM AMAZED & GHANGED MY OPINIONN ABOUT SPACE YOU HAVE ALL BEEN YHERECOS NASA NEW WEBSITTE SO SHINY & IPAD FRENDLY SHAME ON ME BAD PAPOA LEGBA BADD OMG OMG OPMG NASA!!!!!!!!!
lol.
LOLOLOL I HAZ NUTIN TO SAY THATS SMRT OR GUD SO I MAKE FUNZ OF YOU LULLLZZZ!!!!
I rest my case.
-
Alpha2Omega: Butthurt much?
YOU have been the joke all along, not me.
I cannot help but be funnier than you, because I have a sense of humour, whereas you have a sense of unwarranted self-importance.
& to all space-cultists generally: PLEASE work out which of your sock-puppets are which.
Really, you are very bad at this; at least give them distinctive & reliable voices. Don't just chop+change from smart to dumb at the drop of a hat.
Seriously - to ANY net-savvy person your antics are embarrassingly obvious.
Try harder.
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
-
It says just about everyone here is an idiot.
Obviously, happy-joy-joy-goose-stepper turd-gobbler markjo.
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
-
Ok, that's me for the night; thanks for the fun.
I'll drop by tomorrow, to see how your progress towards space-travel is going; after all, with NASA's funky new site, it should be even easier for you all to boldly go where no 'un-special' man has gone before...
WHOOOOOOOSH!!!!!
Up, Up, Up.......
Aaaaaaaaaand....
fail.
-
WOW IAM AMAZED & GHANGED MY OPINIONN ABOUT SPACE YOU HAVE ALL BEEN YHERECOS NASA NEW WEBSITTE SO SHINY & IPAD FRENDLY SHAME ON ME BAD PAPOA LEGBA BADD OMG OMG OPMG NASA!!!!!!!!!
lol.
LOLOLOL I HAZ NUTIN TO SAY THATS SMRT OR GUD SO I MAKE FUNZ OF YOU LULLLZZZ!!!!
I rest my case.
You should probably present a case before resting it.
-
Hint: go to Florida, if you ask someone "Can you tell me where NASA is?" they will point you in the direction of the building. There's a valid objection, there's nit-picking, and then there's just being bloody-minded.
But if you insist: have you been to NASA's facilities yet? If not, you have no personal, unambiguous evidence for what it is like, and so your opinion on them, and what goes on there, is worthless.
Look, still works.
Also, Cape Kennedy hasn't existed for decades. It's Cape Canaveral, just so you know.
-
LOL! Bedtime Gold again...
Thank you, b.j; nice to know I can rely on at least one of you maniacs for something,
Goodnight.
-
LOL! Bedtime Gold again...
Thank you, b.j; nice to know I can rely on at least one of you maniacs for something,
Goodnight.
This says literally nothing. It refutes nothing, presents nothing and says nothing.
Its a masterpiece in Sunyata and zen thinking.
-
LOL! Bedtime Gold again...
Thank you, b.j; nice to know I can rely on at least one of you maniacs for something,
Goodnight.
Sleep well. I'll wait for an answer.
-
I know; shame on me LOL.
Yet, still, I do not want to hear anything he has to say on any subject whatsoever LOL.
Just the way he adds inappropriate & oddly-punctuated LOL.s to nigh-on every damn sentence he spams is reason enough LOL.
But if he wants to try his luck then I doubt a 'shush' from me will stop him LOL.
Cos nothing else does LOL.
LOL.
I'd be more than happy if you added me to your IGNORE listing like sceptimatic claimed to do, but strangely kept responding to my comments nonetheless. Presumably you'll do the same? Like moths to the flame... hmm; pure poetry.
BTW, I normally don't respond to people whose IQ matches room temperature, but in your case I'll make an exception to hopefully suggest some relief for my comments that've obviously struck a raw nerve with you. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist making at least one more comment after you read this. Or will you prove me wrong? I'm betting not. LOL.
Have you ever been to space?
Papa himself is now pretending this line of argument was a joke all along. That's one way to try to get out of it.
Alpha2Omega; The internet would be nothing without people who pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.
After all, I just got a 20+ lulz-filled pages thread out of precisely that.
& I thank you for your valuable contributions to it.
Now get back to pontificating on the internet about people who pontificate on the internet about subjects they know nothing about.
& I'll do the same.
But with jokes.
The guy's a riot!
Dull people are threatened by jokes. You don't know what to do, do you alpha?
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
Just letting sceptimatic know that Papa himself says it was a joke all along. He was late to the party with "the question", in case you didn't notice.
Jeez, guys... why so defensive?
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
Then please explain.
-
There are many different types of humour; 'satire', for example, is often used to point up lack of logic & hypocrisy in establishment viewpoints.
Whatever; I've now checked out NASA's tarted-up website & it seems just as empty & useless as ever, but now with a coating of apple-compatibility to make it even slower & clunkier.
However, I did download an app from there called 'When will YOUR space-adventure begin?'; you simply input your data, i.e. age, place of birth, national insurance number, bank account details (wait what?) etc, & it predicts exactly when you will finally get to go to space yourself.
According to it, my Date Of Ascension is: Never o'clock on Neverday the Nevernth of Never, Two thousand and Neverty-Never.
Funny thing is, I tried a few other inputs but just kept coming up with the same date whatever numbers I spammed; guess it's still a bit glitchy, eh?
Personally, when it comes to the hardcore technical side of space-travel I prefer the www.projectrho.com (http://www.projectrho.com) 'atomic rockets' site; it's far more detailed & informative, as well as being easier to navigate.
Check it out & compare it to NASA.gov; it's much more realistic.
Goodnight.
-
There are many different types of humour; 'satire', for example, is often used to point up lack of logic & hypocrisy in establishment viewpoints.
Whatever; I've now checked out NASA's tarted-up website & it seems just as empty & useless as ever, but now with a coating of apple-compatibility to make it even slower & clunkier.
However, I did download an app from there called 'When will YOUR space-adventure begin?'; you simply input your data, i.e. age, place of birth, national insurance number, bank account details (wait what?) etc, & it predicts exactly when you will finally get to go to space yourself.
According to it, my Date Of Ascension is: Never o'clock on Neverday the Nevernth of Never, Two thousand and Neverty-Never.
Funny thing is, I tried a few other inputs but just kept coming up with the same date whatever numbers I spammed; guess it's still a bit glitchy, eh?
Personally, when it comes to the hardcore technical side of space-travel I prefer the 'atomic rockets' site; it's far more detailed & informative, as well as being easier to navigate.
Check it out & compare it to NASA.gov; it's much more realistic.
Goodnight.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/url)
Does it annoy you that you aren't getting a rise out of anyone? Or are you one of those trolls that can wait on the slow burn?
-
LOL!
Obvious time-wasting sock-puppet is obvious.
You have nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it, will you?
Just want to distract from my post & imply I'm out-numbered.
Trolling 101.
Get to your point, ok?
Oh, I forgot; you don't have one, do you?
-
LOL!
Obvious time-wasting sock-puppet is obvious.
You have nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it, will you?
Just want to distract from my post & imply I'm out-numbered.
Trolling 101.
Get to your point, ok?
Oh, I forgot; you don't have one, do you?
Got it, one of those slow burn trolls.
I'm ok with that, you idiots usually explode spectacularly when you get ignored too much. Fun to watch, much like The Truth Seeker.
Just let me know before you are about to do it, I wanna see.
-
LOL!
Obvious time-wasting sock-puppet is obvious.
You have nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it, will you?
Just want to distract from my post & imply I'm out-numbered.
Trolling 101.
Get to your point, ok?
Oh, I forgot; you don't have one, do you?
Got it, one of those slow burn trolls.
I'm ok with that, you idiots usually explode spectacularly when you get ignored too much. Fun to watch, much like The Truth Seeker.
Just let me know before you are about to do it, I wanna see.
winky, Truth Seeker was unhinged from the start. Papa seems to be here having fun by poking the trolls. Yes, that's right. The trolls like you. Why so many of you insist on hanging around on a site you constantly troll, is beyond me. Maybe it makes you feel important.
Ridicule is the cure for that.
-
Yes, try to link me with the nutcase Truthseeker; Trolling 101 again.
& also FAIL.
Funny how similar Lemmiwinks sounds to another poster here (& what is Lemmiwinks named after again?); the one who usually turns up after his socks have set him up to enter as the 'voice of reason'.
Remember; a sock-puppet almost always has less posts than his creator...
It is SO obvious to any net-savvy person.
& also LOL!
& FAIL!
-
Just letting sceptimatic know that Papa himself says it was a joke all along. He was late to the party with "the question", in case you didn't notice.
Jeez, guys... why so defensive?
He's always defensive. He feels like a guy who brought a knife to a gun fight.
-
Wow! You'd think youse guys'd be mad I'm accusing you all of being socks...
But a neutral observer might think you're instead just trying to change the subject!
Why on earth would that be?
LOL!
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
Then please explain.
Of course. When papa legba belittles a troll (a stated and/or aggressive non-flat earther camped on this site), that is funny for those of us who are happy to consider alternative ideas for anything (including the shape of the earth).
But, when a troll attempts to belittle a flat earther, that is not funny. This is their site and that's just rude.
Does that explain it for you?
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
Then please explain.
Of course. When papa legba belittles a troll (a stated and/or aggressive non-flat earther camped on this site), that is funny for those of us who are happy to consider alternative ideas for anything (including the shape of the earth).
But, when a troll attempts to belittle a flat earther, that is not funny. This is their site and that's just rude.
Does that explain it for you?
So, do you hold Papa's leash or does he hold yours? Either way, you are a cute couple. :-*
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
Then please explain.
Of course. When papa legba belittles a troll (a stated and/or aggressive non-flat earther camped on this site), that is funny for those of us who are happy to consider alternative ideas for anything (including the shape of the earth).
But, when a troll attempts to belittle a flat earther, that is not funny. This is their site and that's just rude.
Does that explain it for you?
So, do you hold Papa's leash or does he hold yours? Either way, you are a cute couple. :-*
Sounds like you're projecting.
-
Sounds like you're projecting.
Sounds like you don't know what couple means.
-
LOL!
Obvious time-wasting sock-puppet is obvious.
You have nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it, will you?
Just want to distract from my post & imply I'm out-numbered.
Trolling 101.
Get to your point, ok?
Oh, I forgot; you don't have one, do you?
Got it, one of those slow burn trolls.
I'm ok with that, you idiots usually explode spectacularly when you get ignored too much. Fun to watch, much like The Truth Seeker.
Just let me know before you are about to do it, I wanna see.
winky, Truth Seeker was unhinged from the start. Papa seems to be here having fun by poking the trolls. Yes, that's right. The trolls like you. Why so many of you insist on hanging around on a site you constantly troll, is beyond me. Maybe it makes you feel important.
Ridicule is the cure for that.
Oh, is he ridiculing me? Usually when someone's level of maturity doesn't exceed a 5 year old like you and Papa I have a hard time taking anything they say serious enough to ever come close to the point of feeling ridiculed.
For you legion, I'll try really hard to take you and Papa seriously enough just once to maybe feel a little ridicule, if anything just so you two at least get a slight sense of accomplishment.
Also Rama is right, you two are a cute couple. Though I bet legion is the bitch and Papa is the butch.
-
There are many different types of humour;
Is that what you think you're doing here? ???
-
When you try to belittle papa legba, it sounds hollow. Desperate, even. And of course, not at all funny.
What does it say about papa legba when he belittles just about everyone?
Sorry buddy. You don't get it either.
Then please explain.
Of course. When papa legba belittles a troll (a stated and/or aggressive non-flat earther camped on this site), that is funny for those of us who are happy to consider alternative ideas for anything (including the shape of the earth).
But, when a troll attempts to belittle a flat earther, that is not funny. This is their site and that's just rude.
Does that explain it for you?
What about when he belittles RE'ers who are not trolls? Or do you believe that there is no such creature?
-
Again: LOL!
Has any of the above blah, yawn & suspiciously-similarly-written fail got any of you one single iota closer to going to space?
I say NO.
&, if you have not been to space, then YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
What? Did you think you'd gotten me off the point? LOL!
&, as ever, Fail...
No; I just took time off for a bit of Stick-application, before returning to the operant conditioning mantra.
Btw; did any of you check out the www.projectrho.com (http://www.projectrho.com) 'atomic rockets' site? Much better than NASA.gov isn't it?
-
YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Well then, your word is worthless too.
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: NASA plans a lot of things; then thinks 'Nah; screw them geeks!' & spends your tax-money on hookers, blow & cheesy s.f.x.
Wolf of wall street springs to mind when I think of those bastards taking the utter piss out of gullible people who should know better.
The most annoying part must be for those of us who are switched on and can see the lying bastard actors for what they are and yet can't do anything about the trickles of money being drained from our accounts to cater for the knees up.
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: NASA plans a lot of things; then thinks 'Nah; screw them geeks!' & spends your tax-money on hookers, blow & cheesy s.f.x.
Wolf of wall street springs to mind when I think of those bastards taking the utter piss out of gullible people who should know better.
The most annoying part must be for those of us who are switched on and can see the lying bastard actors for what they are and yet can't do anything about the trickles of money being drained from our accounts to cater for the knees up.
Any actual basis for your accusation that NASA are siphoning money to pay for entertainment.....?
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: NASA plans a lot of things; then thinks 'Nah; screw them geeks!' & spends your tax-money on hookers, blow & cheesy s.f.x.
Wolf of wall street springs to mind when I think of those bastards taking the utter piss out of gullible people who should know better.
The most annoying part must be for those of us who are switched on and can see the lying bastard actors for what they are and yet can't do anything about the trickles of money being drained from our accounts to cater for the knees up.
Any actual basis for your accusation that NASA are siphoning money to pay for entertainment.....?
What's it to you?
-
So have you been to Cape Canaveral yet?
If you have not been to the Cape and to the rocket launch sites there, then YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THEY ARE LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
-
So have you been to Cape Canaveral yet?
If you have not been to the Cape and to the rocket launch sites there, then YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THEY ARE LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
It could well be but then again, he's not making out he's an expert on it all. You people are making out that you lot are when none of you have any direct evidence of genuine space travel of rockets or any other man made object, except to merely say that you have.
None of you have been to space. None of you have been to space, which means you do not have any expertise on it, at all, because none of you have been to space.
If you haven't been to Australia or any other named place you mention to counteract this; the same applies. If you haven't been to Australia or any other place...or space, then you are not an expert on it and cannot ever claim to be an expert until you frequent any of those places to marry up what you've read in text books or been told about - plus pictures and video.
In your favour, you have a much better chance of gaining the knowledge of Australia and other places due to the fact that you can choose to go to those places...assuming you're entitled to and are not banned from doing so due to criminal convictions.
Space is your biggest problem for a few reasons.
1. Merely going to see a launch at close range is a no no.
2. Getting your name down to be an astronaut is about as odds worthy or winning the lottery without actually buying a ticket.
Basically, your expertise is whittled down to telling people to look up in the sky for glowing dots or watch TV.
-
So have you been to Cape Canaveral yet?
If you have not been to the Cape and to the rocket launch sites there, then YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THEY ARE LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
It could well be but then again, he's not making out he's an expert on it all. You people are making out that you lot are when none of you have any direct evidence of genuine space travel of rockets or any other man made object, except to merely say that you have.
None of you have been to space. None of you have been to space, which means you do not have any expertise on it, at all, because none of you have been to space.
If you haven't been to Australia or any other named place you mention to counteract this; the same applies. If you haven't been to Australia or any other place...or space, then you are not an expert on it and cannot ever claim to be an expert until you frequent any of those places to marry up what you've read in text books or been told about - plus pictures and video.
In your favour, you have a much better chance of gaining the knowledge of Australia and other places due to the fact that you can choose to go to those places...assuming you're entitled to and are not banned from doing so due to criminal convictions.
Space is your biggest problem for a few reasons.
1. Merely going to see a launch at close range is a no no.
2. Getting your name down to be an astronaut is about as odds worthy or winning the lottery without actually buying a ticket.
Basically, your expertise is whittled down to telling people to look up in the sky for glowing dots or watch TV.
Is it possible to apply any previous knowledge to something you have not actually experienced?
-
So, you're saying:
- The only way to know it's possible to get somewhere is to be an expert on that somewhere
- The only way to gain knowledge about something is to personally experience it
-
So have you been to Cape Canaveral yet?
If you have not been to the Cape and to the rocket launch sites there, then YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THEY ARE LIKE.
SO YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
It could well be but then again, he's not making out he's an expert on it all. You people are making out that you lot are when none of you have any direct evidence of genuine space travel of rockets or any other man made object, except to merely say that you have.
None of you have been to space. None of you have been to space, which means you do not have any expertise on it, at all, because none of you have been to space.
If you haven't been to Australia or any other named place you mention to counteract this; the same applies. If you haven't been to Australia or any other place...or space, then you are not an expert on it and cannot ever claim to be an expert until you frequent any of those places to marry up what you've read in text books or been told about - plus pictures and video.
In your favour, you have a much better chance of gaining the knowledge of Australia and other places due to the fact that you can choose to go to those places...assuming you're entitled to and are not banned from doing so due to criminal convictions.
Space is your biggest problem for a few reasons.
1. Merely going to see a launch at close range is a no no.
2. Getting your name down to be an astronaut is about as odds worthy or winning the lottery without actually buying a ticket.
Basically, your expertise is whittled down to telling people to look up in the sky for glowing dots or watch TV.
Is it possible to apply any previous knowledge to something you have not actually experienced?
The only knowledge you can have for something you haven't experienced is the reliance on a person or person's you entrust in channelling that experience to you based on them telling you about their personal physical experience.
This does not make you an expert, nor does it make anything true in any way, shape or form. Everything is based on trust and trust is worthless if the people you trust turn out to be story telling fantasy merchants, but to you; plausible one's.
That makes you at best, trusting, as well as absorbing the knowledge based on that trust, of which you channelled towards other people who equally trusted in you...or...it makes you very naive/gullible.
None of those things make you a bad person and none of those things make you guilty of passing on dud info, with intent to decieve. It just means that info can be passed from pillar to post - from land mass to land mass to people who are just like you, who trust unconditionally and are willing to pass it on.
The worst that can happen is, people walk about believing in fantasies as truth's and truth's as fantasies. It becomes fragmented.
The situation still stands though. Nobody has been to space on this forum, except Rama set and he/she is not willing to talk about it, so can't put his/her expertise forward for you and other's to dissect as being a truth or a fantasy.
If nobody has any expertise about space, then the pockets full of equations and what not pertaining to it can be used to light a fire, because it's only worth that and has no bearing on reality, at all...ever.
-
So, you're saying:
- The only way to know it's possible to get somewhere is to be an expert on that somewhere
- The only way to gain knowledge about something is to personally experience it
You don't have to be an expert to get somewhere. You can walk in the countryside...somewhere you've never been. No expertise needed.
However, if people ask about that place due to them having been there and you give them info which they recall, then you can say that you have some knowledge of it.
In time if you explore it, you can claim to be an expert on it compared to people who's never been, who you can confidently show around.
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
-
So, you're saying:
- The only way to know it's possible to get somewhere is to be an expert on that somewhere
- The only way to gain knowledge about something is to personally experience it
You don't have to be an expert to get somewhere. You can walk in the countryside...somewhere you've never been. No expertise needed.
However, if people ask about that place due to them having been there and you give them info which they recall, then you can say that you have some knowledge of it.
In time if you explore it, you can claim to be an expert on it compared to people who's never been, who you can confidently show around.
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Funny, you have no problem spouting shit like it's a fact.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
I don't need to have studied with Julia Child to know how to make a ham sandwich. I don't need to be a brain Doctor to know what a stroke is and how it can affect someone. I could go on.
-
So, you're saying:
- The only way to know it's possible to get somewhere is to be an expert on that somewhere
- The only way to gain knowledge about something is to personally experience it
You don't have to be an expert to get somewhere. You can walk in the countryside...somewhere you've never been. No expertise needed.
However, if people ask about that place due to them having been there and you give them info which they recall, then you can say that you have some knowledge of it.
In time if you explore it, you can claim to be an expert on it compared to people who's never been, who you can confidently show around.
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Funny, you have no problem spouting shit like it's a fact.
I'm entitled to against the likes of you, kid. I've allowed you to debate with me a few times so be thankful for that.
-
Unthought you were deleting your posts? Change of heart?
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
-
Unthought you were deleting your posts? Change of heart?
You unthought wrong, rimmerset.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
No, it isn't naivety, it's called research. One of the funny things about space travel is that you don't need to personally go to space in order to figure out if it's possible or not. Some of us have actually taken lab physics courses where we personally tested some of the fundamental principles that can be applied to space flight and have found that NASA's claims seem to be consistent with what we have personally experienced.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
No, it isn't naivety, it's called research. One of the funny things about space travel is that you don't need to personally go to space in order to figure out if it's possible or not. Some of us have actually taken lab physics courses where we personally tested some of the fundamental principles that can be applied to space flight and have found that NASA's claims seem to be consistent with what we have personally experienced.
I bet physics can be helpful in determining how to sharpen a unicorn's horn without damaging it. What do you think?
That's basically what you are implying and you can't see how stupid it sounds.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
You made a 2d space thing on your computer and that solves space....right?
What a frigging numpty git you are.
It's like me saying I've played space invaders and I'm now a stand by space fighter pilot.
The silliness is sickeningly hilarious. ;D
-
Oho!
I see the space-expertise that none of you claimed to possess is slowly but surely creeping back into this thread - what with computer modelling, 'lab physics courses' (lol wut?) etc.
Really, you are all such shocking liars; it is utterly shameful.
Good thing most of 'you' are just poorly-handled sock-puppets then, isn't it?
Cos that's not shameful; it is just LOL.
&, inevitably, FAIL.
Now carry on with the Punch & Judy show, space-suckers...
P.S. Have any of you looked at www.projectrho.com (http://www.projectrho.com) 'atomic rockets' yet? Cos it's more believable than nasa.gov. imo.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
You made a 2d space thing on your computer and that solves space....right?
What a frigging numpty git you are.
It's like me saying I've played space invaders and I'm now a stand by space fighter pilot.
The silliness is sickeningly hilarious. ;D
You are aware that creating a game and playing a game are nothing alike right? I understand space travel well enough to program a computer to simulate it, which does require quite a lot of mathematics. It's not just a matter of inputting the laws of physics copy-pasted from Wikipedia, I had to actually mathematically discribe each law I wanted to be simulated which was all laws of motion and gravity (thrust vectors on the space craft were a pain to program) and as a result it simulated Kepler's laws of planetary motion. If you think it's so easy then you can try and do it yourself.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
You made a 2d space thing on your computer and that solves space....right?
What a frigging numpty git you are.
It's like me saying I've played space invaders and I'm now a stand by space fighter pilot.
The silliness is sickeningly hilarious. ;D
You are aware that creating a game and playing a game are nothing alike right? I understand space travel well enough to program a computer to simulate it, which does require quite a lot of mathematics. It's not just a matter of inputting the laws of physics copy-pasted from Wikipedia, I had to actually mathematically discribe each law I wanted to be simulated which was all laws of motion and gravity (thrust vectors on the space craft were a pain to program) and as a result it simulated Kepler's laws of planetary motion. If you think it's so easy then you can try and do it yourself.
Tonight when it's dark; go outside and look up at the night sky; hopefully cloud free for your vision.
Ok, you are now looking at a dark sky with dots of light.
Ok, now bring your note pad and pen and start mapping out your space program.
Without the aid of any books or science, I want you to explain in basic words how you come to calculate everything needed to do what you claim to have done.
I'll allow you some basic tools if you require them.
Or, you can save yourself a lot of time and accept that you are talking out of your arse and are totally reliant on the bullshit you read in space science books, also known as sci-fi books.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
You made a 2d space thing on your computer and that solves space....right?
What a frigging numpty git you are.
It's like me saying I've played space invaders and I'm now a stand by space fighter pilot.
The silliness is sickeningly hilarious. ;D
You are aware that creating a game and playing a game are nothing alike right? I understand space travel well enough to program a computer to simulate it, which does require quite a lot of mathematics. It's not just a matter of inputting the laws of physics copy-pasted from Wikipedia, I had to actually mathematically discribe each law I wanted to be simulated which was all laws of motion and gravity (thrust vectors on the space craft were a pain to program) and as a result it simulated Kepler's laws of planetary motion. If you think it's so easy then you can try and do it yourself.
Tonight when it's dark; go outside and look up at the night sky; hopefully cloud free for your vision.
Ok, you are now looking at a dark sky with dots of light.
Ok, now bring your note pad and pen and start mapping out your space program.
Without the aid of any books or science, I want you to explain in basic words how you come to calculate everything needed to do what you claim to have done.
I'll allow you some basic tools if you require them.
Or, you can save yourself a lot of time and accept that you are talking out of your arse and are totally reliant on the bullshit you read in space science books, also known as sci-fi books.
Based on the way the stars move and their constant angular distance I would have to deduce that the Earth is round and if I look at the ISS with my telescope it looks like a station. Also all the planets follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion and satellites move so fast that I would have to deduce that they are in orbit.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
Compared to you, a 5 year old kid is an expert at space travel.
A one year old is. The reason is because there is no space travel. Now do you see what the issue is, backward boy?
There are no experts except for dipshit's like yourself who sit there and claim it's all real and even have figures all calculated for it. Hahahahaha. What a numpty. ;D
It's one thing to not believe in space travel but another to not believe in space travel without knowing the first thing about it. I don't just claim to have calculated out figures for soace travel, I have personally made a basic 2D program which simulates orbital mechanics given Newtonian laws of motion and gravity and I actually plan to work in the aerospace industry. Your knowlage about space travel is based entirely on the parts of your physics class you didn't sleep through and your assumptions. Who among us do you think is better qualified to talk about space travel?
You made a 2d space thing on your computer and that solves space....right?
What a frigging numpty git you are.
It's like me saying I've played space invaders and I'm now a stand by space fighter pilot.
The silliness is sickeningly hilarious. ;D
You are aware that creating a game and playing a game are nothing alike right? I understand space travel well enough to program a computer to simulate it, which does require quite a lot of mathematics. It's not just a matter of inputting the laws of physics copy-pasted from Wikipedia, I had to actually mathematically discribe each law I wanted to be simulated which was all laws of motion and gravity (thrust vectors on the space craft were a pain to program) and as a result it simulated Kepler's laws of planetary motion. If you think it's so easy then you can try and do it yourself.
Tonight when it's dark; go outside and look up at the night sky; hopefully cloud free for your vision.
Ok, you are now looking at a dark sky with dots of light.
Ok, now bring your note pad and pen and start mapping out your space program.
Without the aid of any books or science, I want you to explain in basic words how you come to calculate everything needed to do what you claim to have done.
I'll allow you some basic tools if you require them.
Or, you can save yourself a lot of time and accept that you are talking out of your arse and are totally reliant on the bullshit you read in space science books, also known as sci-fi books.
Based on the way the stars move and their constant angular distance I would have to deduce that the Earth is round and if I look at the ISS with my telescope it looks like a station. Also all the planets follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion and satellites move so fast that I would have to deduce that they are in orbit.
I'm all ears, I'm all ears. Or should I say, I'm all eyes.
Ok, so tell me about your rocket and fuel and stuff for your space.
I still need to know how you figure out the space stuff, as in how you determine where space begins and the exact speed of your Earth for your space ship to do all it's stuff.
Come on, out with it because there's not a lot to go on from what I see and your rocket and space are looking like a scribble on your school book.
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
No, it isn't naivety, it's called research. One of the funny things about space travel is that you don't need to personally go to space in order to figure out if it's possible or not. Some of us have actually taken lab physics courses where we personally tested some of the fundamental principles that can be applied to space flight and have found that NASA's claims seem to be consistent with what we have personally experienced.
I bet physics can be helpful in determining how to sharpen a unicorn's horn without damaging it. What do you think?
That's basically what you are implying and you can't see how stupid it sounds.
Is that any more stupid that claiming that hydrogen and helium can freeze into a giant dome covering the earth?
-
You can't do this with space and are reliant on peopl;e telling you about it. Your trust is put into those people to tell you space stories as if they are experts.
It doesn't make you an expert until you can show people that what you learned, is physically true, otherwise you're storytelling.
Who here has ever claimed to be an expert on space? ???
You all appear to know all about space. If you don't, then why the hell are you people answering questions about space as if you are experts?
If it's because you naively believe what you are told, then fair enough.
No, it isn't naivety, it's called research. One of the funny things about space travel is that you don't need to personally go to space in order to figure out if it's possible or not. Some of us have actually taken lab physics courses where we personally tested some of the fundamental principles that can be applied to space flight and have found that NASA's claims seem to be consistent with what we have personally experienced.
I bet physics can be helpful in determining how to sharpen a unicorn's horn without damaging it. What do you think?
That's basically what you are implying and you can't see how stupid it sounds.
Is that any more stupid that claiming that hydrogen and helium can freeze into a giant dome covering the earth?
Far from stupid. You can see what happens in a bell jar. You just can't or refuse to understand it.
Your busy mind believing in a spinning ball in a vacuum has warped it to such an extent that you are probably beyond help or too ashamed to dare to deviate from it, because mainstream science is your comfort blanket.
-
I'm all ears, I'm all ears. Or should I say, I'm all eyes.
Ok, so tell me about your rocket and fuel and stuff for your space.
I still need to know how you figure out the space stuff, as in how you determine where space begins and the exact speed of your Earth for your space ship to do all it's stuff.
Come on, out with it because there's not a lot to go on from what I see and your rocket and space are looking like a scribble on your school book.
The edge of space is actually a political border, flying a plane in enemy airspace could be considered an act of war while flying a spaceship over enemy territory often cannot be avoided because if the nature if space travel. In reality the atmosphere fades away gradually like a gradient, it's not a distinct border. The International Space Station is actually slightly in the atmosphere which is why it has to boost it's self sometimes to stay in orbit.
One thing you red to know about velocity is that it's not absolute, it's relative. If you are in a car going 80 miles per hour on the freeway it would be just as correct to say that you and the car are stationary while the Earth is moving past you at 80 miles per hour. Frames of reference commonly used in soace travel are the Earth and the Sun. When dealing with soace crafts orbiting Earth you can just use the Earth as a frame of reference and so Earth is stationary, but if you are doing interplanetary travel and using the Sun as a frame of reference the Earth is moving at 30 kilometers per second. A space craft usually figures out it's position by finding 2 celestial bodies and a star and then using that to triangulate it's position and if it does that twice it can determine it's velocity.
As for the mathematics involved, Scott Manley can explain it a lot better then I can:
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
YET AGAIN, I'M NOTICING A LOT OF SPACE EXPERTISE HERE!!!
BUT, HAVE ANY OF YOU GALOOTS ACTUALLY BEEN THERE?
NO, YOU HAVE NOT.
SO KNOCK IT OFF, OKAY?
COS IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE THEN YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Constant repetition of Hearsay Evidence does not constitute Proof, no matter how much you Wish it so.
Try it in a courtroom & see how far it gets you...
-
One thing you red to know about velocity is that it's not absolute, it's relative. If you are in a car going 80 miles per hour on the freeway it would be just as correct to say that you and the car are stationary while the Earth is moving past you at 80 miles per hour.
Do you have any idea how retarded the garbage you spew is?
Father and son travelling down a road in the family car
son_of_mikeman: How fast are we going, dad?
mikeman: Son, we aren't actually moving. It's the earth that is moving. We are stationary.
son_of_mikeman: What about the cars going in the opposite direction, dad? Does the earth move in both directions at once? Or if four cars set off in four different directions, the earth would be moving in the opposite direction to each of them, whilst they remain at rest. Dad, are you a retard?
mikeman: I'm not sure son. I'll have to go on wikipedia.
-
COS IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO SPACE THEN YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Under that logic a marine biologist knows nothing about marine biology until they have personally seen the bottom of the ocean in a sub even if they study samples on the surface, A soldier can't know anything about combat until they have been in a battle even though they have been through boot camp, a historian can't know anything about Egypt until they have visited it even though they study it, and a doctor can't know anything about cancer until they have it even though they went to medical school. Do you seriously not see the flaws in that logic?
Try it in a courtroom & see how far it gets you...
The word of a doctor on medical things, the word of a historian on history, the word of a marine biologist on the ocean, and the word of a soldier on combat are are things that a court would accept.
-
One thing you red to know about velocity is that it's not absolute, it's relative. If you are in a car going 80 miles per hour on the freeway it would be just as correct to say that you and the car are stationary while the Earth is moving past you at 80 miles per hour.
Do you have any idea how retarded the garbage you spew is?
Father and son travelling down a road in the family car
son_of_mikeman: How fast are we going, dad?
mikeman: Son, we aren't actually moving. It's the earth that is moving. We are stationary.
son_of_mikeman: What about the cars going in the opposite direction, dad? Does the earth move in both directions at once? Or if four cars set off in four different directions, the earth would be moving in the opposite direction to each of them, whilst they remain at rest. Dad, are you a retard?
mikeman: I'm not sure son. I'll have to go on wikipedia.
Saying that the Earth is moving and the car is stationary is not as useful for practical purposes, so here is another example:
Say you are in a moving car and you take an object and throw it backwards. That ball would still be moving forward relative to the Earth but someone else in the car would say that the object was clearly moving backwards. In fact, if you were in a car moving in a strait line at a constant speed with no windows or speedometer (and somehow don't crash it) there would be no experiment you could do that would tell you that you are moving. This is one of the most basic principals in physics, how much of your physics class did you sleep through?
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
-
Sock-puppet FAIL!
& you call me a troll?
LOL!
-
One thing you red to know about velocity is that it's not absolute, it's relative. If you are in a car going 80 miles per hour on the freeway it would be just as correct to say that you and the car are stationary while the Earth is moving past you at 80 miles per hour.
Do you have any idea how retarded the garbage you spew is?
Father and son travelling down a road in the family car
son_of_mikeman: How fast are we going, dad?
mikeman: Son, we aren't actually moving. It's the earth that is moving. We are stationary.
son_of_mikeman: What about the cars going in the opposite direction, dad? Does the earth move in both directions at once? Or if four cars set off in four different directions, the earth would be moving in the opposite direction to each of them, whilst they remain at rest. Dad, are you a retard?
mikeman: I'm not sure son. I'll have to go on wikipedia.
Saying that the Earth is moving and the car is stationary is not as useful for practical purposes, so here is another example:
In other words, you were wrong. Say it. It will make you look like less of an idiot.
Say you are in a moving car and you take an object and throw it backwards. That ball would still be moving forward relative to the Earth but someone else in the car would say that the object was clearly moving backwards.
How do you know that? How would it be measured?
In fact, if you were in a car moving in a strait straight line at a constant speed with no windows or speedometer (and somehow don't crash it) there would be no experiment you could do that would tell you that you are moving. This is one of the most basic principals principles in physics, how much of your physics class did you sleep through?
Yes, that's because you have formed a closed system. One can't determine movement unless one can perceive movement in relation to something else. That's not the same as the error you made earlier though, is it?
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
I am seriously considering starting a thread where we will decide weather space travel is real the way a court does it. The problem is finding an impartial jury, I might just have to use flat earthers as the jury to give them a fighting chance.
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
If you smell a troll, you should realise that the stench is almost certainly from yourself. I can smell you from here.
-
Really; I have no idea what mikeman is trying to say any more.
He has not been to space, yet is expert in every single aspect of it, bar none.
His buddies come riding to the rescue whenever he paints himself into a corner -which is often - attempting to claim those who point out his loopiness are 'trolls'.
Now he wants to start a thread about 'weather', space travel & the judicial system...
I thought friday was your meltdown day, mikeman.nasa.gov; are you 'coming on' early this week?
-
Really; I have no idea what mikeman is trying to say any more.
He has not been to space, yet is expert in every single aspect of it, bar none.
His buddies come riding to the rescue whenever he paints himself into a corner -which is often - attempting to claim those who point out his loopiness are 'trolls'.
Now he wants to start a thread about 'weather', space travel & the judicial system...
I thought friday was your meltdown day, mikeman.nasa.gov; are you 'coming on' early this week?
mikey claims to be a Mormon. I'm fine with religious people. I find many of iWitness's threads interesting (including this one). But mikey considers himself scientific as well. You know, with his 2D software modelling activities and the like.
The problem is, he hasn't got a clue about science! And it shows. The fact that he asked if I "fell asleep in physics class", as though a classroom is the only place to gain knowledge and understanding about the world.
-
He has not been to space, yet is expert in every single aspect of it, bar none.
You've never been to NASA's launch sites and centers, apparently, and yet you claim to be enough of an expert to dismiss everything they've done out of hand.
Funny how that works.
-
He has not been to space, yet is expert in every single aspect of it, bar none.
You've never been to NASA's launch sites and centers, apparently, and yet you claim to be enough of an expert to dismiss everything they've done out of hand.
Funny how that works.
If someone visited a nasa launch site or centre, would they then become an expert in space travel? Is that what you are suggesting?
-
If someone visited a nasa launch site or centre, would they then become an expert in space travel? Is that what you are suggesting?
Nope, I don't think someone has to go somewhere to learn about it. I'm not the one saying that.
-
If someone visited a nasa launch site or centre, would they then become an expert in space travel? Is that what you are suggesting?
Nope, I don't think someone has to go somewhere to learn about it. I'm not the one saying that.
So, what would be achieved by visiting?
-
Really; I have no idea what mikeman is trying to say any more.
What I am trying to explain is basic physics which are easy to prove and I am explaining it in the same way I explained it to my sister when she was 7. If your brain cell still has problems comprehending it it's not my fault.
He has not been to space, yet is expert in every single aspect of it, bar none.
Posting this again because you apparently didn't read it last time:
Under that logic a marine biologist knows nothing about marine biology until they have personally seen the bottom of the ocean in a sub even if they study samples on the surface, A soldier can't know anything about combat until they have been in a battle even though they have been through boot camp, a historian can't know anything about Egypt until they have visited it even though they study it, and a doctor can't know anything about cancer until they have it even though they went to medical school.
Do you seriously not see the flaws in that logic?
His buddies come riding to the rescue whenever he paints himself into a corner -which is often - attempting to claim those who point out his loopiness are 'trolls'.
"'paints' himself into a corner"
You point out every spelling mistake I make as if it proves something, so I will do the same just to show you how annoying it is.
Also, please point out just one time when I "painted" myself into a corner (whatever that means).
I also rarely call people trolls and the only people who have pointed out my """"""""""loopiness"""""""""" are people who don't know the first thing about what I am talking about.
Now he wants to start a thread about 'weather', space travel & the judicial system...
That's a spelling mistake. I don't see how that proves anything.
I thought friday was your meltdown day, mikeman.nasa.gov; are you 'coming on' early this week?
And you say that I don't make any sense...
-
Dammit. Legion, you're stealing my bedtime comedy gold!
Now; bijane - explain again how Australia is like Space...
& mikeman: ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!
-
So, what would be achieved by visiting?
You tell me, you're the one saying you have to go somewhere to know anything about it.
Now; bijane - explain again how Australia is like Space...
1. You haven't been there. 2. Not talking about Australia, haven't for a while. 3. Your turn, what differences stop your 'logic' holding?
-
Meh... not as funny as you used to be.
Legion can have you.
Goodnight.
-
Goodnight.
Night! Try to come back with an answer sometime.
-
I already have. Repeatedly.
But I didn't mind cos it was you...
Now, however, the thrill is gone.
So STFU & get back in your ocd Cape Canaveral-spamming hugbox, okay?
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
If you smell a troll, you should realise that the stench is almost certainly from yourself. I can smell you from here.
Is a new trolling technique to try and pin "troll" on other people? I don't think you're a troll legion, just an idiot.
I was saying Papa is a troll, which he clearly is.
-
YET AGAIN, I'M NOTICING A LOT OF SPACE EXPERTISE HERE!!!
Ummm... No. It's more like scientific competence. I don't need to go into space to see how things work in a vacuum or study gravity.
Constant repetition of Hearsay Evidence does not constitute Proof, no matter how much you Wish it so.
Try it in a courtroom & see how far it gets you...
Scientific evidence does not employ the same burden of proof as legal evidence. In science, you are allowed to learn from other people's experiences, no matter how much you wish it wasn't so.
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So STFU about it.
Bye-bye space-goons.
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So STFU about it.
Bye-bye space-goons.
Again, does this mean that a doctors word on the symptoms of cancer is wrong if the doctor hasn't had cancer? Is a marine biologist's word on what like is like under the sea wrong because he hasn't been to the bottom of the ocean in a submarine? Is a historian's word on history wrong even though they havn't traveled back in time? If you answer no to any of these questions then what makes space different? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you have some serious trust issues.
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Actually, some of us can. I'm sorry if you can't, but that's your problem, not ours.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
And just what mess would that be?
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
How many innocent people has the legal system sent to jail or to their death because the "wheat" didn't get separated from the "chaff"?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
Which brings me neatly back to: what makes you think that personal experience is the only way to gain "direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like"?
So STFU about it.[/b]
Not until you do.
Bye-bye space-goons.
Good riddance, jerk.
-
Good job Papa and legion. Mikey Mike is just babbling about historians and oceanographers, and probably reconsidering his position.
-
Good job Papa and legion. Mikey Mike is just babbling about historians and oceanographers, and probably reconsidering his position.
It's called an analogy, not babbling, and I am not reconsidering my position. You people never cease to amaze me with your refusal to understand concepts that 5 year olds can easily grasp.
-
Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
You must have missed the last few thousand years of human history, perhaps you were working on your "fat girth society" diet plan.
Space has been the preoccupation of civilizations from the stone age to the present day. You might have heard of astronomy? Perhaps not, so, have you ever heard of telescopes? Maybe you don't understand what empirical means. You certainly don't know what constitutes evidence.
Here's a test for you, go outside at night time and look up. What do you see? Giant turtles, Alien spaceships?
-
To: joyful Hitler-worshipping 'creative eater' & bedding-soaker Markjo; I am absolutely certain that there is nothing you crave more than that people should believe that Personal Experience is NOT the only way to gain direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what anything is like whatsoever.
Makes your job of Policing their Thoughts a whole lot easier, don't it, Mr. 'content nazi'?
We should all just Take Your Word for Everything, shouldn't we, you Fascism-lover?
Seriously; what, precisely, is your purpose on this forum?
Why have you spammed 27,000+ arrogant, pompous & empty posts here, none of which express a single idea or concept that could not be found on Wikipedia?
This is a place devoted to alternative thinking; if we wanted wiki-spoo we could easily find it ourselves.
Yet here you are, banging on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on, for ever & ever a-bloody-men...
Why?
What on earth made you decide to make it your business to become such an irredeemable pain-in-the-butt & miserable, sneering downer in a place you are simply not welcome?
And you lot have the sheer temerity to call ME a troll?!?
YOU, 'markjo' are the Troll to end all Trolls; & I've had enough of you.
So STFU & GTFO; no-one likes you. or wants you, here any more.
Except your painfully obvious sock-puppet army, of course...
& rayzor: STFU & polish your 'telescope'. Also; learn to read.
-
BUMP!
Nice try, markjo/harry1999.
But LOL!
& FAIL!
How many socks do you have on this site ffs?
-
BUMP!
...You do know what 'bump' is used for right?
Usually on an old thread. Not one where the last comment was ten minutes ago.
Anyway, been to Cape Canaveral yet?
-
BUMP!
Nice try, markjo/harry1999.
But LOL!
& FAIL!
How many socks do you have on this site ffs?
1. markjo is awesome.
2. Double posting is discouraged.
3. Don't bump threads that are at the top of the list.......
-
1: Lying sock-puppet LOL!!!!!
2: Don't tell me what to do.
3: Ditto.
4: There is no 4:
5: STFU & get back in your ventriloquist's dummy hugbox.
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
If you smell a troll, you should realise that the stench is almost certainly from yourself. I can smell you from here.
Is a new trolling technique to try and pin "troll" on other people? I don't think you're I'm a troll legion, I'm just an idiot.
I was saying Papa is a troll, which he clearly is isn't.
Fixed you latest errors, winky. This is becoming a full time job.
-
1: Lying sock-puppet LOL!!!!!
2: Don't tell me what to do.
3: Ditto.
4: There is no 4:
5: STFU & get back in your ventriloquist's dummy hugbox.
I'm absolutely not a "sock-puppet".
The Earth is flat.
I'm just annoyed with people like you who sully our name.
-
LOL!
Behave yourself, Pinnochio, your nose is growing longer...
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So STFU about it.
Bye-bye space-goons.
Again, does this mean that a doctors word on the symptoms of cancer is wrong if the doctor hasn't had cancer?
A doctor can observe the effects of cancer. He doesn't need to actually have cancer.
Is a marine biologist's word on what like is like under the sea wrong because he hasn't been to the bottom of the ocean in a submarine?
It may not be wrong but it may not be right either. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
Is a historian's word on history wrong even though they havn't traveled back in time?
It's an educated guess. Nothing more. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
If you answer no to any of these questions then what makes space different? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you have some serious trust issues.
Who should we trust? The Nigerian wanting to transfer money into my bank account? All scientists? You tell me.
-
LOL!
Behave yourself, Pinnochio, your nose is growing longer...
Excuse me?
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
If you smell a troll, you should realise that the stench is almost certainly from yourself. I can smell you from here.
Is a new trolling technique to try and pin "troll" on other people? I don't think you're I'm a troll legion, I'm just an idiot.
I was saying Papa is a troll, which he clearly is isn't.
Fixed you latest errors, winky. This is becoming a full time job.
Wow legion. Really? This is the level you set your discourse at? Whats next? Calling me a poopy head? Should I wait for your dad come here and rough me up?
-
I would like to remind everyone that the level of discourse on this thread was set by 'markjo' suggesting that I EAT 'FESCES'.
Just fyi...
-
mikeman: Yup; legion got it right.
You are a total retard & made of Fail.
Let's hope you never have to appear as a Defendant in any court that accepts YOUR definition of what constitutes a reliable witness, as well as conclusive evidence for absolute proof...
No, actually; let's DO!
LOL!
&, as ever, FAIL!
Mike, this guy is a troll. No need to engage him.
If you smell a troll, you should realise that the stench is almost certainly from yourself. I can smell you from here.
Is a new trolling technique to try and pin "troll" on other people? I don't think you're I'm a troll legion, I'm just an idiot.
I was saying Papa is a troll, which he clearly is isn't.
Fixed you latest errors, winky. This is becoming a full time job.
Wow legion. Really? This is the level you set your discourse at? Whats next? Calling me a poopy head? Should I wait for your dad come here and rough me up?
Your original post made no sense. Now it does.
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So STFU about it.
Bye-bye space-goons.
Again, does this mean that a doctors word on the symptoms of cancer is wrong if the doctor hasn't had cancer?
A doctor can observe the effects of cancer. He doesn't need to actually have cancer.
Is a marine biologist's word on what like is like under the sea wrong because he hasn't been to the bottom of the ocean in a submarine?
It may not be wrong but it may not be right either. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
Is a historian's word on history wrong even though they havn't traveled back in time?
It's an educated guess. Nothing more. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
If you answer no to any of these questions then what makes space different? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you have some serious trust issues.
Who should we trust? The Nigerian wanting to transfer money into my bank account? All scientists? You tell me.
That's exactaly my point. I don't have to be in space to know about it, I can observe it, I can make educated guesses about it, and even though my word is not as good as the word of an astronaut it's not completely worthless.
-
I would like to remind everyone that the level of discourse on this thread was set by 'markjo' suggesting that I EAT 'FESCES'.
Just fyi...
markjo is an ex mod and the content Nazi label is something applied by the people that run the site, as it is above the avatar and not below it. So calling him out on that over and over again is strange.
Also I could be wrong, but I would assume he spelt feces right.
And prove you don't eat feces.
-
Well, the problem is that there's 'science' & then there's 'science-fiction' & then there's 'scientism'; & you lot can't tell the difference between them.
Which is how we're in the mess we are.
So maybe a better standard of evidence would help separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bringing me neatly to: Have any of you actually been to space yet? Because if you have not, then you have no direct, unambiguous empirical evidence for what it's like.
So STFU about it.
Bye-bye space-goons.
Again, does this mean that a doctors word on the symptoms of cancer is wrong if the doctor hasn't had cancer?
A doctor can observe the effects of cancer. He doesn't need to actually have cancer.
Is a marine biologist's word on what like is like under the sea wrong because he hasn't been to the bottom of the ocean in a submarine?
It may not be wrong but it may not be right either. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
Is a historian's word on history wrong even though they havn't traveled back in time?
It's an educated guess. Nothing more. Who knows if it's right or wrong?
If you answer no to any of these questions then what makes space different? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you have some serious trust issues.
Who should we trust? The Nigerian wanting to transfer money into my bank account? All scientists? You tell me.
That's exactaly my point. I don't have to be in space to know about it, I can observe it, I can make educated guesses about it, and even though my word is not as good as the word of an astronaut it's not completely worthless.
What would you like to share with us then? I'll give you a fair hearing.
-
Oh, & Pinnochio: ever heard of 'controlled opposition'?
Cos that's what your milk-sop sock was created to be; why else would you, as a supposed flat-earther, be so pro-markjo, yet your tag be so anti-sceptimatic?
You are pathetically obvious; you are BUSTED; you are also, in-fkn-evitably, LOL! & FAIL!
Now buzz off back to your stage-prop hugbox.
-
Oh, & Pinnochio: ever heard of 'controlled opposition'?
Cos that's what your milk-sop sock was created to be; why else would you, as a supposed flat-earther, be so pro-markjo, yet your tag be so anti-sceptimatic?
You are pathetically obvious; you are BUSTED; you are also, in-fkn-evitably, LOL! & FAIL!
Now buzz off back to your stage-prop hugbox.
Because markjo makes sense a lot of the time and scepti is a toolshed.
Is that a good enough answer?
-
Oh, & Pinnochio: ever heard of 'controlled opposition'?
Cos that's what your milk-sop sock was created to be; why else would you, as a supposed flat-earther, be so pro-markjo, yet your tag be so anti-sceptimatic?
You are pathetically obvious; you are BUSTED; you are also, in-fkn-evitably, LOL! & FAIL!
Now buzz off back to your stage-prop hugbox.
You didn't know the old scepti.
He's a troll.
A well known troll.
markjo has been here as long as I can remember, and though I don't agree with most of the content he posts, he is an intelligent and fun person.
Separation is the bane of organized human civilization. I like to associate myself with people of differing beliefs, because that's how you throw bias out and learn.
Of course, I enjoy arguing with round Earth enthusiasts as much as the next guy, but I do not condemn them for their (albeit misinformed) beliefs. That would just make me look silly.
Kind of how you look right now, actually.
-
Oh, & Pinnochio: ever heard of 'controlled opposition'?
Cos that's what your milk-sop sock was created to be; why else would you, as a supposed flat-earther, be so pro-markjo, yet your tag be so anti-sceptimatic?
You are pathetically obvious; you are BUSTED; you are also, in-fkn-evitably, LOL! & FAIL!
Now buzz off back to your stage-prop hugbox.
You didn't know the old scepti.
He's a troll.
A well known troll.
markjo has been here as long as I can remember, and though I don't agree with most of the content he posts, he is an intelligent and fun person.
Separation is the bane of organized human civilization. I like to associate myself with people of differing beliefs, because that's how you throw bias out and learn.
Of course, I enjoy arguing with round Earth enthusiasts as much as the next guy, but I do not condemn them for their (albeit misinformed) beliefs. That would just make me look silly.
Kind of how you look right now, actually.
So when Sceptimatic starts a thread to discuss a particular idea, that is trolling? You have no idea what you're on about, do you?
-
Oh, & Pinnochio: ever heard of 'controlled opposition'?
Cos that's what your milk-sop sock was created to be; why else would you, as a supposed flat-earther, be so pro-markjo, yet your tag be so anti-sceptimatic?
You are pathetically obvious; you are BUSTED; you are also, in-fkn-evitably, LOL! & FAIL!
Now buzz off back to your stage-prop hugbox.
You didn't know the old scepti.
He's a troll.
A well known troll.
markjo has been here as long as I can remember, and though I don't agree with most of the content he posts, he is an intelligent and fun person.
Separation is the bane of organized human civilization. I like to associate myself with people of differing beliefs, because that's how you throw bias out and learn.
Of course, I enjoy arguing with round Earth enthusiasts as much as the next guy, but I do not condemn them for their (albeit misinformed) beliefs. That would just make me look silly.
Kind of how you look right now, actually.
So when Sceptimatic starts a thread to discuss a particular idea, that is trolling? You have no idea what you're on about, do you?
No, when he starts a thread to troll, he's trolling.
What are you "on about"?
-
Pinnochio: Just cut the crap, sock-puppet; no-one's buying your b.s.
Sceptimatic has more original thoughts every single day than you have had in your entire, misbegotten, existence; I've had enough of you & your creator bullying & belittling him, as has every other True free-thinker on this site.
So knock it off, okay?
You're now both outnumbered & out-thought; the game has changed.
I may not be a great originator, but I was in Baghdad when you were in your Dad's Bag; you'll get nothing past me, ever.
So stop trying.
It's over, puppet-masters, trolls & madmen.
Deal with it.
-
Oh, & 'lemmiwinks'; quite the expert on 'markjo', aren't you?
Why would that be, I wonder?
-
Pinnochio: Just cut the crap, sock-puppet; no-one's buying your b.s.
Sceptimatic has more original thoughts every single day than you have had in your entire, misbegotten, existence; I've had enough of you & your creator bullying & belittling him, as has every other True free-thinker on this site.
So knock it off, okay?
You're now both outnumbered & out-thought; the game has changed.
I may not be a great originator, but I was in Baghdad when you were in your Dad's Bag; you'll get nothing past me, ever.
So stop trying.
It's over, puppet-masters, trolls & madmen.
Deal with it.
Who's my "creator"?
You have been terribly misinformed on what "free thinking" is.
Who is this "both"?
You were in Baghdad? When?
Being super ambiguous and just saying "I've won and it's over" is not an argument.
-
Oh, & 'lemmiwinks'; quite the expert on 'markjo', aren't you?
Why would that be, I wonder?
Maybe because he's been here for more than a month.
-
Oh, & 'lemmiwinks'; quite the expert on 'markjo', aren't you?
Why would that be, I wonder?
Maybe because he's been here for more than a month.
No no, apparently in his mind it involves sock puppets for whatever reason.
-
What would you like to share with us then? I'll give you a fair hearing.
I think I need to start a new thread for this.
-
LOL!
Too slick, idiot; remember to at least TRY to imitate 'real' stuff i.e. posting at the same time, stumbling over each other's words, having misunderstandings, etc...
Your nerp-derp procession fools no-one.
Like I said; any net-savvy person here will instantly see what's what.
Now, carry on... With all your progress, personal space-travel can't be far away!
-
Oh, & in your haste to reinforce your perceived ascendance, you forgot to stay in character for 'mikeman'; really, you should watch this.
I told you already.
LOL!
-
LOL!
Too slick, idiot; remember to at least TRY to imitate 'real' stuff i.e. posting at the same time, stumbling over each other's words, having misunderstandings, etc...
Your nerp-derp procession fools no-one.
Like I said; any net-savvy person here will instantly see what's what.
Now, carry on... With all your progress, personal space-travel can't be far away!
I can act overly superstitious too, my cat is working for the government and it's out to get me. I know this because he meowed when I said "meow if you are working for the government".
Oh wait, you are actually serious. Unless you are trolling, which I highly suspect.
Oh, & in your haste to reinforce your perceived ascendance, you forgot to stay in character for 'mikeman'; really, you should watch this.
I told you already.
LOL!
Oh yeah, because of course I am just a one dimensional character who's only purpose is to annoy flat earthers. It's not like I have a life or anything with my own struggles and influences like literally every human on this very round planet.
[/sarcasm]
-
LOL!!!
MARKJO? WHERE ARE YOUUUUUUU???
I'm talking about you, saying BAD things.. yet you have SO MANY defenders that YOU don't have to say a thing...
Just let THEM do it for you...
You are SUCH a popular guy!!!!
LMFAO!!!!
Mikeman: STFU.
-
LOL!!!
MARKJO? WHERE ARE YOUUUUUUU???
I'm talking about you, saying BAD things.. yet you have SO MANY defenders that YOU don't have to say a thing...
Just let THEM do it for you...
You are SUCH a popular guy!!!!
LMFAO!!!!
Mikeman: STFU.
Honestly, you're actually a rather bad troll. I thought maybe you had some game at first, but its falling apart on you.
Just annoying and repetitive. Oh wells. I miss the good trolls.
-
Lemmiwinks & harry1999: LOL!
Seriously, markjo; where are you?
What are you?
Why are you?
I think we should know...
Come back when you're ready to bore the piss out of us with your tl;dr answer, eh?
Maybe it'll get you into space, huh?
After all, your 'lab physics studies' haven't, have they?
Though they've somehow PROVEN everyone else has been there; easy, eh?
When you're a LAB PHYSICS STUDENT, anything is possible!
-
Lemmiwinks & harry1999: LOL!
Seriously, markjo; where are you?
What are you?
Believe it or not, some of us have to work for a living and are not able to babysit you 24/7.
Why are you?
Because I am.
I think we should know...
Thinking doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Come back when you're ready to bore the piss out of us with your tl;dr answer, eh?
Why don't you go away until you're ready to have a civil discussion.
-
Markjo: tl;dr.
Next!
-
P.s. you really do need to create a distinctive voice for 'lemmiwinks'; you sound way too similar.
Why not give him a coprophagia fetish or something?
Oops - already taken!
Oh, well, you'll think of something. I'm sure...
-
P.s. you really do need to create a distinctive voice for 'lemmiwinks'; you sound way too similar.
Why not give him a coprophagia fetish or something?
Oops - already taken!
Oh, well, you'll think of something. I'm sure...
Just going to throw this out there:
I don't think Lemmiwinks is markjo.
-
P.s. you really do need to create a distinctive voice for 'lemmiwinks'; you sound way too similar.
Why not give him a coprophagia fetish or something?
Oops - already taken!
Oh, well, you'll think of something. I'm sure...
Just going to throw this out there:
I don't think Lemmiwinks is markjo.
He'll think what he thinks. Because I said markjo used to be a mod and the content Nazi title is above his avatar and not below it and therefore from site admin I am now a valiant defender of him and probably him.
Papa just has no game and its showing now, tis all.
-
LOL!!!!!
You just dig your own graves, don't you?
Fantastic!
LOL/FAIL/ETC = YOU.
-
Seriously; I can see how any person who ain't net-savvy might think I'm having a 'conversation' with several different people.
But, really, to anyone who's been around it's blindingly obvious that I'm up against an ineptly-handled sock-puppet army.
& nothing markjo & his zombie-horde can say will change that.
But. hey, believe what you want...
-
Have you ever personally met Markjo?
If not, you have no direct, unambiguous evidence for what they're like.
Your opinion on the topic is worthless.
-
Have you ever personally met Markjo?
If not, you have no direct, unambiguous evidence for what they're like.
Your opinion on the topic is worthless.
^5 Jane
-
P.s. you really do need to create a distinctive voice for 'lemmiwinks'; you sound way too similar.
Why not give him a coprophagia fetish or something?
Oops - already taken!
Oh, well, you'll think of something. I'm sure...
I'm not sure that winky is an alt. for markjo. markjo can at least be thought provoking at times, and has a decent grasp of logic. winky on the other hand is a complete moron. One of those people that I dislike instantly. Nearly as bad as geoffrey.
But, an interesting theory though.
-
P.s. you really do need to create a distinctive voice for 'lemmiwinks'; you sound way too similar.
Why not give him a coprophagia fetish or something?
Oops - already taken!
Oh, well, you'll think of something. I'm sure...
I'm not sure that winky is an alt. for markjo. markjo can at least be thought provoking at times, and has a decent grasp of logic. winky on the other hand is a complete moron. One of those people that I dislike instantly. Nearly as bad as geoffrey.
But, an interesting theory though.
Interesting, since you've yet to be able to best me.
Though hey, its exactly what I think of you! So we have something almost in common!
-
Well, legion, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree; cos, to me, it is as plain as the nose on your face that the majority of posters here are sock-puppets.
So what though? An idiot is an idiot no matter what.
& the bigger they come, the harder they fall...
Where were we anyhow?
Right: you stole my comedy gold, but I didn't care cos of summat or other... Ah, sod it; has any bugger here been to space?
Apart from markjo, who is some kind of DEITY whom we mere mortals are not allowed to gaze upon... He was once a MOD you know!!!!
-
Well, legion, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree; cos, to me, it is as plain as the nose on your face that the majority of posters here are sock-puppets.
So what though? An idiot is an idiot no matter what.
& the bigger they come, the harder they fall...
Where were we anyhow?
Right: you stole my comedy gold, but I didn't care cos of summat or other... Ah, sod it; has any bugger here been to space?
Apart from markjo, who is some kind of DEITY whom we mere mortals are not allowed to gaze upon... He was once a MOD you know!!!!
Agreeing to disagree is very rare here buddy. I think it shows our level of intellect that we can do that. Sorry if I'm stealing your comedy gold. Feel free to throw stuff at the trolls. Talking of trolls, has anyone seen geoffrey? He's become awfully quiet lately. Maybe his Mum has taken his computer off him.
-
Have you ever personally met Markjo?
If not, you have no direct, unambiguous evidence for what they're like.
Your opinion on the topic is worthless.
We have all met his online persona. So pipe down.
-
Well, legion, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree; cos, to me, it is as plain as the nose on your face that the majority of posters here are sock-puppets.
To me it's obvious that you are a troll.
-
Legion: Dame Edna knows damn well to keep out of my way; he knows I'd rip him a new one.
But that's cos he's more clued-up to the true nature of reality than most here; I'll give him that at least.
Mikeman: STFU when the adults are talking.
-
Mikeman: STFU when the adults are talking.
LOL, as if a reasonable adult would be a flat earther.
-
We have all met his online persona. So pipe down.
So second-hand, word-of-mouth information is reliable?
-
LOL neither I nor Legion ARE 'flat earthers' you dipshit.
Now STFU while the adults talk, okay?
Dipshit.
-
He'll think what he thinks. Because I said markjo used to be a mod and the content Nazi title is above his avatar and not below it and therefore from site admin I am now a valiant defender of him and probably him.
Actually, the Elder Ones label is for me being a former mod. The Content Nazi label is something that I added.
-
Markjo: I do not care. You are a liar. Go away.
You too, bijane.
-
LOL neither I nor Legion ARE 'flat earthers' you dipshit.
Oh, OK. So you are just a troll who insults round earthers for no reason. Got it.
-
Why are you here, dipshit?
Because your faux-autism gives you an excuse for never understanding anything, ever?
Or what, exactly?
Whatever; STFU when the adults are talking, ok?
You might learn something...
You too, bijane.
But markjo is beyond redemption...
-
You just made a joke about autism. I want to find you and knock your face to the floor.
You deserve to go to hell for that comment.
-
LOL!
So do it; or, more likely, report me to the mods.
As sock-puppets are wont to...
-
We have all met his online persona. So pipe down.
So second-hand, word-of-mouth information is reliable?
No. Direct experience. Let's make your comment bold:
second-hand, word-of-mouth information is reliable?
Now might be a good time to explain your reasoning for your absurd comment.
-
Now might be a good time to explain your reasoning for your absurd comment.
You're saying that experience of an online persona (so: text you're given with no indication as to accuracy) is direct experience of the source of that persona. You're the one being absurd, but I'm pretty sure you know that.
-
Legion: are you feeling the comedy gold yet?
It can become addictive; take care....
-
Have you ever personally met Markjo?
If not, you have no direct, unambiguous evidence for what they're like.
Your opinion on the topic is worthless.
Now might be a good time to explain your reasoning for your absurd comment.
You're saying that experience of an online persona (so: text you're given with no indication as to accuracy) is direct experience of the source of that persona. You're the one being absurd, but I'm pretty sure you know that.
Erm, no I'm not. Find where I said that. I clearly stated that we have direct experience of the persona. I make no assumptions about the source of the persona. You have conveniently sidestepped (ignored) my suggestion that you explain this absurd comment:
So second-hand, word-of-mouth information is reliable?
Nothing I read on here is "second hand" and I fail to see what is taken as "word-of-mouth". Maybe you can explain, or maybe you're trolling?
-
Erm, no I'm not. Find where I said that. I clearly stated that we have direct experience of the persona. I make no assumptions about the source of the persona.
In that case your addition was irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm not sure why you were adding it. Papa was clearly making assumptions about what the source of the persona.
-
Erm, no I'm not. Find where I said that. I clearly stated that we have direct experience of the persona. I make no assumptions about the source of the persona.
In that case your addition was irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm not sure why you were adding it. Papa was clearly making assumptions about what the source of the persona.
Once again, what do you mean by "second-hand and word-of-mouth information is reliable" in relation to members on here? Have you finally lost the plot? It seems that way to me. Excessive trolling has that effect.
-
Legion: are you feeling the comedy gold yet?
It can become addictive; take care....
Not really mate. I feel (a tiny bit) sorry for these clowns. Since you joined they are really struggling to hold it together. I'm starting to miss geoffrey. At least he had conviction of his beliefs. These lot remind me of call centre workers.
-
Once again, what do you mean by "second-hand and word-of-mouth information is reliable" in relation to members on here? Have you finally lost the plot? It seems that way to me. Excessive trolling has that effect.
You're getting all your information from what you're told, by a persona, with no personal investigatio as to accuracy, as to what the originator of the persona is like. Not literally 'word of mouth' perhaps, but certainly second hand.
-
Once again, what do you mean by "second-hand and word-of-mouth information is reliable" in relation to members on here? Have you finally lost the plot? It seems that way to me. Excessive trolling has that effect.
You're getting all your information from what you're told, by a persona, with no personal investigatio as to accuracy, as to what the originator of the persona is like. Not literally 'word of mouth' perhaps, but certainly second hand.
But do I believe that information? Do I accept it as truth? I'll leave that with you to decide...
-
But do I believe that information? Do I accept it as truth? I'll leave that with you to decide...
Doesn't really matter what you think, the point wasn't directed at you. And given Papa is making claims based on that information, he either believes it or is trolling. I mean, it's obviously the latter, but still.
-
Well, Legion, I guess me & b.j. kinda had a thing going on... Like so much in life, though, it was just down to timing.
But now she's alone I pity her; she'll end up like markjo, merely playing games in the dark with her toy-soldiers..
& she could've done better, damn it!
But, as I always say; LOL!
& FAIL!
-
Well, Legion, I guess me & b.j. kinda had a thing going on... Like so much in life, though, it was just down to timing.
But now she's alone I pity her; she'll end up like markjo, merely playing games in the dark with her toy-soldiers..
& she could've done better, damn it!
But, as I always say; LOL!
& FAIL!
Yes, I saw the chemistry. You two had a good thing going there for a bit. But now you must move on with your lives, knowing that you came so close to virtual happiness. So sad!
-
Thank you; it's good to know that someone out there understands...
but, as my old dad said: 'never give a sucker an even break'.
Plus; LOL!
&, as night follows day: FAIL!
-
Thank you; it's good to know that someone out there understands...
but, as my old dad said: 'never give a sucker an even break'.
Plus; LOL!
&, as night follows day: FAIL!
I don't think any of that actually made sense.
-
Thank you; it's good to know that someone out there understands...
but, as my old dad said: 'never give a sucker an even break'.
Plus; LOL!
&, as night follows day: FAIL!
I don't think any of that actually made sense.
All I got out of it was that for some reason he doesn't think you are markjo, just everyone else.
-
All I got out of it was that for some reason he doesn't think you are markjo, just everyone else.
But I wanted to be Markjo too :-[
-
Bijane: you're too dumb to be one of markjo's socks; he's USING YOU, dimwit.
You okay with that?
Anyway, idiots; time for your operant conditioning session:
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THUS, YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Discuss.
Sensibly, please...
-
Bijane: you're too dumb to be one of markjo's socks; he's USING YOU, dimwit.
I doubt it. Barely know him.
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
Still going on with that?
-
Yep; still asking if any of you space-tards actually have 1st-hand experience of the thing you're so very, very, expert in.
Relevant question; still no good answer.
As for you: STFU; Hugbox.
Nuff said.
Bye, jane.
-
Yep; still asking if any of you space-tards actually have 1st-hand experience of the thing you're so very, very, expert in.
Relevant question; still no good answer.
As for you: STFU; Hugbox.
Nuff said.
Bye, jane.
By your own logic you have no expertise or experience with it and therefore your opinion is worthless as well.
-
Yup, lemmiwinks you dumb bag of spanners; I have no knowledge of, or experience of space-travel & thus my word on the subject is worthless.
NOW: what makes YOU so very different?
Come on; you're only a disposable sock; take a punt eh?
-
Yup, lemmiwinks you dumb bag of spanners; I have no knowledge of, or experience of space-travel & thus my word on the subject is worthless.
NOW: what makes YOU so very different?
Come on; you're only a disposable sock; take a punt eh?
Doesn't matter what my opinion is, since you have just admitted your word on the subject is worthless then anything I say is irrefutable by you. Your opinion is null and void on the subject. You muzzled yourself with your own logic.
I say I think it exists and you say it doesn't, who cares, your opinion on the subject is worthless.
-
Bijane: you're too dumb to be one of markjo's socks; he's USING YOU, dimwit.
You okay with that?
Anyway, idiots; time for your operant conditioning session:
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THUS, YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
Discuss.
Sensibly, please...
No, I haven't been to space.
No, I claim no expertise.
Does this make you happy?
But I still reckon the earth is round because of the logicality of this model, and the inability of flat-earthers to provide any holes in this logic.
i would like to ask Papa and legion a question: What shape do you think the earth is?
You both say that you aren't flat-earthers. You also both say that round-earthers have no place on these fora.
If you are correct in both of these statements, then you are round-earthers, and therefore don't belong here.
FYI: Im on this forum because of the same reason as I read the Bible.
I don't agree with the content contained within, but the opposing point of view interests me.
-
Yup, lemmiwinks you dumb bag of spanners; I have no knowledge of, or experience of space-travel & thus my word on the subject is worthless.
NOW: what makes YOU so very different?
Come on; you're only a disposable sock; take a punt eh?
Dude, you're going about this all wrong. Right know your troll-persona is a static character; same insults, same dumbass claim, same ignoring of evidence, you're being to constant, you're having too much fun with this. In order to troll successfully, you need to mix it up a bit. Throw some YEC bullshit in there, get angrier. Your bait will be more appealing that way.
-
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO SPACE?
BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NO DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IT'S LIKE.
THUS, YOUR WORD ON THE SUBJECT IS WORTHLESS.
I have been quietly doing a poll of interested parties, and we have come to a unanimous decision, and that is, that you are 100% correct. We need someone with personal experience to tell us what space is like.
To that end you have been selected to go on the next SpaceX mission to the ISS, since the DragonX is not yet ready for human space flight you will be travelling cargo class.
By a (again ) unanimous vote, we thought it appropriate to call it a science experiment. The NASA pick up team will be calling shortly to drug and kidnap ... prepare, you for transportation to Vandenberg AFB.
Bon Voyage and don't forget to write. ;D
-
i would like to ask Papa and legion a question: What shape do you think the earth is?
You both say that you aren't flat-earthers. You also both say that round-earthers have no place on these fora.
If you are correct in both of these statements, then you are round-earthers, and therefore don't belong here.
FYI: Im on this forum because of the same reason as I read the Bible.
I don't agree with the content contained within, but the opposing point of view interests me.
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemna fallacy:
A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)
Simply put, I don't have enough information to be sure whether those are the only two options. And for the last few years I've leaned heavily towards the simulation hypothesis which makes such questions redundant.
-
This has to be one of the worst threads on the internet.
-
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't. You are misinterpreting the false dilemma fallacy.
A false dilemma, or more correctly a false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting only two opposing viewpoints in such a way that they seem to be the only two possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false; there is no third or additional option available here. Dichotomy means two parts.
-
This has to be one of the worst threads on the internet.
Only a troll would feel the need to post that.
-
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't. You are misinterpreting the false dilemma fallacy.
A false dilemma, or more correctly a false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting only two opposing viewpoints in such a way that they seem to be the only two possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false; there is no third or additional option available here. Dichotomy means two parts.
I suggest you re-read your post to detect your blatant contradiction. I've helpfully made it bold for you.
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
-
Is this actually real?
Are there actually people dumb enough to stare proven facts in the face and reject them?
While still believing in the magical talking snake and such fairy tales?
I see we're going to be good friends. I use extremely dumb christians against their self to kill religion all together :)
-
Is this actually real?
Are there actually people dumb enough to stare proven facts in the face and reject them?
While still believing in the magical talking snake and such fairy tales?
I see we're going to be good friends. I use extremely dumb christians against their self to kill religion all together :)
Oh great. Another troll, or an alt. of an existing troll.
-
Not at all a 'troll'
Unless you feel trolled when confronted with facts and logic?
-
This has to be one of the worst threads on the internet.
Only a troll would feel the need to post that.
Or someone who thinks this thread is just terrible.
Legion, you are just awful at debating. It's like watching a drunk man on some greasy stairs: amusing at first, then just tragic.
-
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't. You are misinterpreting the false dilemma fallacy.
A false dilemma, or more correctly a false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting only two opposing viewpoints in such a way that they seem to be the only two possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false; there is no third or additional option available here. Dichotomy means two parts.
I suggest you re-read your post to detect your blatant contradiction. I've helpfully made it bold for you.
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Zenner One was not correlating gravity with the shape of the Earth. This would be a straw man.
-
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't. You are misinterpreting the false dilemma fallacy.
A false dilemma, or more correctly a false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting only two opposing viewpoints in such a way that they seem to be the only two possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false; there is no third or additional option available here. Dichotomy means two parts.
I suggest you re-read your post to detect your blatant contradiction. I've helpfully made it bold for you.
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Zenner One was not correlating gravity with the shape of the Earth. This would be a straw man.
I see you're having another one of your off days. You know, when your brain lets you down.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't.
That is the false dilemna fallacy. No strawman in sight. Except from you, of course.
-
This has to be one of the worst threads on the internet.
Only a troll would feel the need to post that.
Or someone who thinks this thread is just terrible.
Legion, you are just awful at debating. It's like watching a drunk man on some greasy stairs: amusing at first, then just tragic.
Your opinion of my debating skills is irrelevant. You are starting to remind me of inquisitive. At least he has/had a theme, though.
Worthy adversaries are getting harder to come by on this site. Maybe it's time for all the old ladies to bugger off?
-
I don't get the premise and point of this thread. It's not like official space agencies are a obvious scam just because the technology obsessed people of the 1960s made some eager and inaccurate predictions due to the technological jump caused by the Cold War.
-
I can't speak for Papa Legba, but I don't see why someone needs to be either a flat earther or a round earther. It's a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't. You are misinterpreting the false dilemma fallacy.
A false dilemma, or more correctly a false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting only two opposing viewpoints in such a way that they seem to be the only two possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false; there is no third or additional option available here. Dichotomy means two parts.
I suggest you re-read your post to detect your blatant contradiction. I've helpfully made it bold for you.
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Zenner One was not correlating gravity with the shape of the Earth. This would be a straw man.
I see you're having another one of your off days. You know, when your brain lets you down.
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't.
That is the false dilemna fallacy. No strawman in sight. Except from you, of course.
So you did not understand what I said, fascinating.
-
One has to be either a RE'r or a FE'r in the same way that one believes in gravity, or one doesn't.
There have been people who have come to the forum and said that they don't know if the Earth is round or flat, not to mention there are also toroidal earthers (Dinosaur Neil) and concave earthers (TheTruthSeeker).
-
Is this actually real?
Are there actually people dumb enough to stare proven facts in the face and reject them?
While still believing in the magical talking snake and such fairy tales?
I see we're going to be good friends. I use extremely dumb christians against their self to kill religion all together :)
Parrots can talk so what? And you can stick your willy in a woman's pee hole and a baby pops out! Tell me that isn't magical? That's the problem with you atheists is you act like everything just works for no reason whatsoever. You think you are so smart but have no idea what you are doing here. Give me a break.
-
Insulting Atheists. That's not very Christlike of you iWitness, you are a Christian right? I am a Christian too and yet I believe that the Earth is round and that science is real, none of that stuff contradicts Crhistian beliefs. Fun fact: the Bible actually says that when Gid created the world all the land was in one place before he spread it out and science only recently discovered using satellites that tectonic plates move around and that all of Earth's land used to be all in one supercontinent. Again, this was discovered with satellites which you believe don't exist, and if NASA is made up of satanists then why would they fake data which supports the Bible?
Here is a question that I have asked you many times without receiving any answers: the model you believe in can't explain time zones, does that mean that you believe that time zones don't exist?
-
Insulting Atheists. That's not very Christlike of you iWitness, you are a Christian right? I am a Christian too and yet I believe that the Earth is round and that science is real, none of that stuff contradicts Crhistian beliefs. Fun fact: the Bible actually says that when Gid created the world all the land was in one place before he spread it out and science only recently discovered using satellites that tectonic plates move around and that all of Earth's land used to be all in one supercontinent. Again, this was discovered with satellites which you believe don't exist, and if NASA is made up of satanists then why would they fake data which supports the Bible?
Here is a question that I have asked you many times without receiving any answers: the model you believe in can't explain time zones, does that mean that you believe that time zones don't exist?
Do you know Christ? Because the Jesus I know flipped tables in the Synagogues and called the Pharisees "Hypocrites" and "Children of Vipers".
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:27
-
The Pharisees mentioned in the Bible were simply people like you who were very bashful.
-
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Why is it that whenever a flat earther is backed into a corner without an answer, they invariably introduce a straw man to muddy the waters? As per "or do you challenge that"? This is simply putting a non-existent question into the mouth of somebody else, and then expecting them to try and address it, thereby hiding their own lack of a response to the original question. Magicians call it "misdirection" and this guy LEGION is a master of the art I have noticed.
-
The Pharisees mentioned in the Bible were simply people like you who were very bashful.
Ok now you're just being ridiculous. It's obvious you're a troll/shill so I'm not wasting any more time with you. But I want to give you one last chance to prove you really are a Christian on the FES forums that believes the Earth is a Ball.
Can you provide your best verses that prove the earth is a ball that spins around the sun?
Afterwhich I will provide the verses that are the basis for my beliefs. If you can't provide any verses then I'm done with you.
-
Can you provide your best verses that prove the earth is a ball that spins around the sun?
This is a nonsensical request. The Abrahamic bible is NOT acknowledged as any sort of scientific text by any scholar or scientist in the world. One cannot utilise biblical scripture as supporting "evidence" in any 21st-century debate involving scientific principles. The bible is nothing more than a historical book written to reflect the times 2,500 years ago, long before confirmatory astrophysics were developed in any major way.
Which is why the bible repeatedly claims that the earth is flat. To the camel-jockeys who wrote it, it looked flat, therefore it WAS flat.
-
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Why is it that whenever a flat earther is backed into a corner without an answer, they invariably introduce a straw man to muddy the waters? As per "or do you challenge that"? This is simply putting a non-existent question into the mouth of somebody else, and then expecting them to try and address it, thereby hiding their own lack of a response to the original question. Magicians call it "misdirection" and this guy LEGION is a master of the art I have noticed.
I'm legion. Not LEGION or legion. And I'm not a flat earther.
-
The Pharisees mentioned in the Bible were simply people like you who were very bashful.
Ok now you're just being ridiculous. It's obvious you're a troll/shill so I'm not wasting any more time with you. But I want to give you one last chance to prove you really are a Christian on the FES forums that believes the Earth is a Ball.
Can you provide your best verses that prove the earth is a ball that spins around the sun?
Afterwhich I will provide the verses that are the basis for my beliefs. If you can't provide any verses then I'm done with you.
The Bible mentions many times that the Earth is a circle, but at the time ut was written there was no word to discribe a sphere. A sphere does look circular from all directions, and if they were trying to communicate that the Eartg is a flat disk then they probobaly would have used the word "flat" to describe it. Flat is definitely a word they had at the time because it's used 3 times in the Bible, and if the world was really flat then why wouldn't they discribe it as such?
-
I'm sure in the days when the earth was assumed to be flat, things still fell to the ground when dropped. Or do you challenge that?
Why is it that whenever a flat earther is backed into a corner without an answer, they invariably introduce a straw man to muddy the waters? As per "or do you challenge that"? This is simply putting a non-existent question into the mouth of somebody else, and then expecting them to try and address it, thereby hiding their own lack of a response to the original question. Magicians call it "misdirection" and this guy LEGION is a master of the art I have noticed.
I'm legion. Not LEGION or legion. And I'm not a flat earther.
So, legion. What shape do you think the earth is? You must have an opinion, do you not?
It isn't unreasonable to assume that there are indeed sides in this debate.
You can either think that the earth is a. Round b. Flat c. Something else entirely
Because after all, the shape of the earth isn't subjective.
-
The Pharisees mentioned in the Bible were simply people like you who were very bashful.
Ok now you're just being ridiculous. It's obvious you're a troll/shill so I'm not wasting any more time with you. But I want to give you one last chance to prove you really are a Christian on the FES forums that believes the Earth is a Ball.
Can you provide your best verses that prove the earth is a ball that spins around the sun?
Afterwhich I will provide the verses that are the basis for my beliefs. If you can't provide any verses then I'm done with you.
The Bible mentions many times that the Earth is a circle, but at the time ut was written there was no word to discribe a sphere. A sphere does look circular from all directions, and if they were trying to communicate that the Eartg is a flat disk then they probobaly would have used the word "flat" to describe it. Flat is definitely a word they had at the time because it's used 3 times in the Bible, and if the world was really flat then why wouldn't they discribe it as such?
C'mon mikey, even you know that circles are flat.
-
The Pharisees mentioned in the Bible were simply people like you who were very bashful.
Ok now you're just being ridiculous. It's obvious you're a troll/shill so I'm not wasting any more time with you. But I want to give you one last chance to prove you really are a Christian on the FES forums that believes the Earth is a Ball.
Can you provide your best verses that prove the earth is a ball that spins around the sun?
Afterwhich I will provide the verses that are the basis for my beliefs. If you can't provide any verses then I'm done with you.
The Bible mentions many times that the Earth is a circle, but at the time ut was written there was no word to discribe a sphere. A sphere does look circular from all directions, and if they were trying to communicate that the Eartg is a flat disk then they probobaly would have used the word "flat" to describe it. Flat is definitely a word they had at the time because it's used 3 times in the Bible, and if the world was really flat then why wouldn't they discribe it as such?
C'mon mikey, even you know that circles are flat.
But in the time the Bible was written there was no word for sphere and the shape of an orange was refereed to as a circle. The shape of the Earth is described with the same word they would use to describe the shape of an orange.
-
Good evening & shut up.
For Lo! It is I; Papa Legba, returned in all my splendiferous eloquence, armed with a mighty Staff - made of Truth & the size of a House - that none but I can wield...
The subject of False Analogies has been much on my mind of late; why are NASA-cultists so fond of them (Australia lol)?
& why are they so blind to them?
Research was needed; so I dug deep into the guts of the Great Working that is NASA until I finally found the origin for the Cultists obstinacy.
& that is because the entirety of NASA's space-mythos is founded upon The Mother of all False Analogies...
Time to raise my Fearful Staff of Truth & Smite this Foul Deception to Smithereens!
NASA explain their model of how rockets work via the following Analogy: A man stands on a skateboard, holding a medicine ball.
The skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the rocket motor, the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
When the man throws the ball, he travels backwards; this represents the rocket throwing the exhaust mass, thus producing an action-reaction pair according to Newton's 3rd.
However, this is FALSE.
In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.
Thus, we see the true placement of the action-reaction, Newton's 3rd, pairing is between Exhaust & External mass, NOT between Exhaust & Rocket motor; in fact the latter makes no sense whatsoever if considered logically.
Want more proof? Imagine the man & his ball suspended from a rope, so he throws the ball DOWNWARDS (after all, rockets travel vertically do they not?). When he does so, little effect will be seen, yet lower him so that his ARMS can touch the MASS of the ground & he will be able to THRUST himself up, producing LIFT.
Ergo: rockets require an outside mass in order to function, so cannot work in a vacuum.
Space travel is a physical impossibility.
You can howl, nitpick, cry, abuse, deride; but whatever you try, nothing will change that.
I told you before: I am not here to 'respond' or 'debate'; no, I am here to open doorways.
Enter; do not enter; the choice is yours.
Just remember the immortal words of the great Stanley Laurel: 'You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be led'.
What are YOU, space-cultists?
Horses?
Or Pencils?
-
Good evening & shut up.
Ha! Nice start. tl&dr for the rest though - try to keep your trolling snappy.
-
Good evening & shut up.
Ha! Nice start. tl&dr for the rest though - try to keep your trolling snappy.
Or more likely; reading more than a couple of lines hurts your feeble, indoctrinated brain.
Back under your bridge you silly little troll.
-
Imitation is, as ever, the sincerest form of flattery, Mr Butt-hurt Crab.
Care to address my comprehensive destruction of NASA's blatantly mendacious analogy?
Nah, didn't think so...
Definitely a Horse.
-
Newton's first law is also worth considering for anyone believing in all the space adventure nonsense:
"An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it." and,
"An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it."
So you have the problem of what force gives the initial and ongoing (whilst in motion) momentum (which must be external). There is lots of comedy as "educational" and "scientific" sites try to explain how that applies to rockets:
http://www.livescience.com/46561-newton-third-law.html: (http://www.livescience.com/46561-newton-third-law.html:)
How, then, can a rocket move through space if there is nothing for it to push against? When the fuel is ignited in the rocket nozzle, the gas expands rapidly in all directions. Some of it goes backwards and has no effect on the rocket; however, some if it goes forward and crashes into the back of the rocket exerting a force that causes the rocket to accelerate in the forward direction. This is why Newton’s Third Law is considered to be the fundamental principle of rocket science.
That's right readers. The rocket pushes itself along and breaks Newton's first law everytime they go on a space adventure!
-
Care to address my comprehensive destruction of NASA's blatantly mendacious analogy?
Why bother when you already said:
I told you before: I am not here to 'respond' or 'debate';
-
Care to address my comprehensive destruction of NASA's blatantly mendacious analogy?
I have no knowledge of, or experience of space-travel & thus my word on the subject is worthless.
-
Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.
Knew YOU couldn't do it.
Cos the truth of what I say is obvious to a child.
Nitpicking, abuse, derision, etc... Keep it up.
NASA's GREAT LIE is laid bare for all to see who wish to see; that you would not be one of them is no surprise.
None at all.
Bijane: LOL! I just said that rockets CANNOT TRAVEL TO SPACE; therefore no experience of 'space-travel' is necessary to speak of or understand them.
You've brought back the Comedy Gold!!!!
Aaaaaw...
Now try harder.
Horse...
-
Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.
Knew YOU couldn't do it.
Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.
-
Yes, markjo27000; OF COURSE you could...
LOL!
-
Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.
Knew YOU couldn't do it.
Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.
I would have thought you'd jump at the chance to point out the errors in space adventure disbelievers. But instead you've decided to say...
nothing.
Very clever, markjo. Bravo.
-
Remember what I said about NASA breaking ALL the laws of physics, markjo27000?
Or have you not learnt what the word 'ALL' means yet, Mr. High&Mighty Happy-Fascist?
Take your time....
-
Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.
Knew YOU couldn't do it.
Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.
I would have thought you'd jump at the chance to point out the errors in space adventure disbelievers.
Normally, I would. However, Papa has demonstrated time and time again that he is not interested in anything that anyone has to say, so why should I bother wasting my time indulging him?
-
markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?
computer: Tell them about how the rocket exhaust pushes the rocket along.
markjo: Goddammit! They already know that's complete bollocks!
computer: Tell them you wouldn't throw pearls before a swine.
markjo: Thanks. That might work...
-
Ah, forget markjo; I hate him anyway.
Good riddance.
Surely someone else here can debunk my obvious troll-post though?
I mean, how hard can it be? You got every 'rocket-scientist' in the world backing you up...
Wait! Don't tell me Santa ain't real after all?
Oh, no!
LOL!!!!!
-
Surely someone else here can debunk my obvious troll-post though?
What would the point be? You're not even entertaining.
(I'll give you a start though: the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate).
-
In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.
no, the ball represents the exhaust. the atmosphere represents the atmosphere.
-
Good evening & shut up.
For Lo! It is I; Papa Legba, returned in all my splendiferous eloquence, armed with a mighty Staff - made of Truth & the size of a House - that none but I can wield...
LOL, as if you have any splendiferous eloquence and tell the truth.
NASA explain their model of how rockets work via the following Analogy: A man stands on a skateboard, holding a medicine ball.
The skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the rocket motor, the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
When the man throws the ball, he travels backwards; this represents the rocket throwing the exhaust mass, thus producing an action-reaction pair according to Newton's 3rd.
However, this is FALSE.
In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.
If that's the case then thy to move a skate board by moving your hand in a throwing motion. It won't work unless you throw the ball.
Thus, we see the true placement of the action-reaction, Newton's 3rd, pairing is between Exhaust & External mass, NOT between Exhaust & Rocket motor; in fact the latter makes no sense whatsoever if considered logically.
Want more proof? Imagine the man & his ball suspended from a rope, so he throws the ball DOWNWARDS (after all, rockets travel vertically do they not?).
Rockets work the same no matter what direction they face.
When he does so, little effect will be seen, yet lower him so that his ARMS can touch the MASS of the ground & he will be able to THRUST himself up, producing LIFT.
That's because throwing a medicine ball does not produce enough lift to lift you off the ground. It will produce vertical thrust, but it's canceled out by gravity. If his arms touch the ground then that's one way he can propel himself, but that doesn't disprove any other propulsion methods.
Ergo: rockets require an outside mass in order to function, so cannot work in a vacuum.
Space travel is a physical impossibility.
I have launched model rockets myself and they work, in fact I can calculate their exact thrust using Newtonian laws of motion.
You can howl, nitpick, cry, abuse, deride; but whatever you try, nothing will change that.
I can probably quote 100 instances where flat earthers cherry pick evidence, 2 of which are linked in my forum signature. I bet you can't tell me one instance where a round earther ignores evidence.
Just remember the immortal words of the great Stanley Laurel: 'You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be led'.
What are YOU, space-cultists?
Horses?
Or Pencils?
That analogy makes no sense.
-
So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?
Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?
Thus proving NOTHING.
As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.
But is far funnier...
Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.
It's not hard; you can do it...
The doorway is open.
Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.
Because you are insane.
-
So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?
Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?
Thus proving NOTHING.
As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.
But is far funnier...
Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.
It's not hard; you can do it...
The doorway is open.
Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.
Because you are insane.
To help prove the basic laws of motion I would like you to consider the following experiment.
Say you are floating in the water in a light weight inflatable raft of some sort and your raft is touching a dock you want to get off at. As you move towards the dock the raft (which is lighter then you) will move back a lot more then you move forward and when you try to go towards the dock you only move towards it a bit while the raft moves in the opisite direction. I have personally been in such a scenario and I am willing to bet that you have too.
-
So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?
Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?
Thus proving NOTHING.
As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.
But is far funnier...
Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.
It's not hard; you can do it...
The doorway is open.
Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.
Because you are insane.
Rocket engines do not thrust against anything. They propel themselves by expelling mass at extremely high speeds in one direction.
-
stick your willy in a woman's pee hole and a baby pops out! Tell me that isn't magical?
That would be magical. However, I recommend you aim for the vagina - it's far more effective as well as being significantly less uncomfortable for your partner.
-
Bijane wrote: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'
Really?
Because last I looked, the solid-fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle came in pre-formed steel segments into which the solid fuel was already tightly packed.
It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fuel was LESS 'physically part of the rocket' than that.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to wtf you are babbling about, Little Miss foot-in-mouth disease?
As to the rest of you: learn to read.
& mikeman.nasa.dolt; stop trying to 'prove' ONE crappy false analogy by spamming out ANOTHER, you broke-brained loser.
Now try harder.
-
Rocket engines do not thrust against anything. They propel themselves by expelling mass at extremely high speeds in one direction.
That's fascinating quail. That answers all questions anyone could have on the subject, doesn't it?
Tit.
-
The point I raise is: where does the action/reaction pairing occur in order to give thrust to a rocket?
I say it occurs between the rocket exhaust column & an outside mass i.e. the atmosphere or ground.
NASA says it occurs between the rocket &... erm... itself. Somehow.
Who is right?
Me?
Or the Liars?
William Blake wrote: 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water & breeds reptiles of the mind'.
Is that your problem, space-cultists?
Do you have REPTILES?
In your MINDS?
-
Really?
Because last I looked, the solid-fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle came in pre-formed steel segments into which the solid fuel was already tightly packed.
It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fuel was LESS 'physically part of the rocket' than that.
Let's see. Can you spot a difference between the rocket, and the rocket fuel?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/gif/2015/03/SLSQM-1-opt.gif)
-
Bijane: are you saying that the fuel inside a space shuttle solid-fuel booster IS NOT physically part of the rocket?
Simply answer 'yes' or 'no', then we can let the neutral observer decide who is right.
-
Bijane: are you saying that the fuel inside a space shuttle solid-fuel booster IS NOT physically part of the rocket?
That would be a valid question if anyone has ever proposed the fuel was staying inside the space shuttle.
-
Bijane said: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'.
I showed it was not.
She is now trying to say she was referring to the EXHAUSTED fuel; this is a LIE.
Bad Bijane.
& markjo; stop retro-editing your posts, you utterly creepy mental-case.
-
markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?
I would tell them that if they need to resort to willfully misrepresenting Newton's laws, then there really isn't much point in continuing.
This thread has already gone 30 pages of trying to explain why one doesn't need to personally go to space in order to be able to get an idea of what it's like out there. I don't see how another 30 pages of trying to explain how rocket engines work to someone who chooses not to understand will do anyone any good. I've already been through this sort of thing with sceptimatic and with Anders and I'm not sure if I can force myself to care enough to try it again with Papa.
-
Bijane said: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'.
I showed it was not.
She is now trying to say she was referring to the EXHAUSTED fuel; this is a LIE.
So, focusing on semantics instead? Well, not surprised.
-
Markjo: well STFU & get back in your fouled-diaper-encrusted, retro-editing, thoroughly creepy, strength-through-joy hugbox then.
You are neither wanted nor needed & your contributions will NOT be missed.
My point is that neither you, NASA, or many others here are capable of applying Newton's 3rd Law correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.
I aim to help you think correctly.
The doorway is open...
& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!
YOU are the one employing semantic tricks, to get out of the mess you got yourself into with your stupid statement about fuel not being part of a rocket!
Jesus! Grow up, the lot of you...
-
& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!
Your trolling's very far from comedy gold too. Just obnoxious at this point. I suggest a little bit of freshness, try to actually be somewhat entertaining.
-
markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?
I would tell them that if they need to resort to willfully misrepresenting Newton's laws, then there really isn't much point in continuing.
This thread has already gone 30 pages of trying to explain why one doesn't need to personally go to space in order to be able to get an idea of what it's like out there. I don't see how another 30 pages of trying to explain how rocket engines work to someone who chooses not to understand will do anyone any good. I've already been through this sort of thing with sceptimatic and with Anders and I'm not sure if I can force myself to care enough to try it again with Papa.
It's not just Papa who sees that Newton's laws are regularly being violated by space adventures. Let me repeat:
Law 1. An object will remain at rest, or continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.
Law 2. F=MA
Law 3. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
Do you see the problems in respect of laws 1 and 3?
-
Markjo: well STFU & get back in your fouled-diaper-encrusted, retro-editing, thoroughly creepy, strength-through-joy hugbox then.
You are neither wanted nor needed & your contributions will NOT be missed.
My point is that neither you, NASA, or many others here are capable of applying Newton's 3rd Law correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.
I aim to help you think correctly.
The doorway is open...
& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!
YOU are the one employing semantic tricks, to get out of the mess you got yourself into with your stupid statement about fuel not being part of a rocket!
Jesus! Grow up, the lot of you...
Rockets produce thrust by expelling mass at high velocity in a focused direction. Not a single law of physics says that it needs something to push against. Rockets aren't propeller engines, you know? The fuel is the reaction mass of the rocket. It gets combusted, which causes it to expand and be deflected away at high speed by the nozzle, producing thrust. The rocket produces thrust, and looses mass. There is nothing that violates any of the laws of physics here.
-
Oh, & let's not forget the Joules-Thompson Effect, i.e. Free Expansion Of Gas In a Vacuum; THAT has a few nasty implications for NASA's GAS-powered rockets too.
Learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet, markjo?
Or am I casting Pearls before Swine?
& quail: WHERE is the thrust produced?
WHERE is the action/reaction pairing situated, PRECISELY please?
-
Oh, btw Legion; NASA violate Newton Law 2 as well, & in a particularly LOL way.
But we'll get to that eventually...
In the meantime, shall we stick to finding precisely where the action-reaction pairing occurs in a rocket in order for it to produce thrust?
Inquiring minds wish to know!
-
Oh, & let's not forget the Joules-Thompson Effect, i.e. Free Expansion Of Gas In a Vacuum; THAT has a few nasty implications for NASA's GAS-powered rockets too.
Learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet, markjo?
Or am I casting Pearls before Swine?
& quail: WHERE is the thrust produced?
WHERE is the action/reaction pairing situated, PRECISELY please?
The action is the fuel being combusted and deflected out of the nozzle. The reaction is the rocket being pushed by the exhaust.
Throwing something heavy and feeling how you get pushed back is pretty much the same, without the combustion and deflection part.
-
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?
Or are you just quoting wikipedia?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
Just ANSWER ffs!
-
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?
Or are you just quoting wikipedia?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
Just ANSWER ffs!
The rocket looses mass which is propelled out, and the exhaust also pushes the rocket as it gets defected in the nozzle. There is pressure in the nozzle, which also pushes the rocket.
-
Papa is trying to tell you globalists about the lies you adhere to from the fantasy rocket science world.
Here's a video that you should all observe and ABSORB. If this doesn't help you grasp the truth then you have no desire to grasp it and are best left in your slumber or deliberate lie, whichever fits you.
(http://)
-
It's not just Papa who sees that Newton's laws are regularly being violated by space adventures. Let me repeat:
Law 1. An object will remain at rest, or continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.
Law 2. F=MA
Law 3. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
Do you see the problems in respect of laws 1 and 3?
No, I don't. Would you please explain the problems?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
It doesn't.
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
The action/reaction pairing is occurring within the rocket engine itself.
-
Papa Legba, one more breach of the rules and you will be banned. Final warning
-
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?
Or are you just quoting wikipedia?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
Just ANSWER ffs!
It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.
The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:
Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s
90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.
Simple.
-
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?
Or are you just quoting wikipedia?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
Just ANSWER ffs!
It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.
The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:
Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s
90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.
Simple.
Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Try again.
-
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?
Or are you just quoting wikipedia?
State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
Just ANSWER ffs!
It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.
The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:
Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s
90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.
Simple.
Since the thrust to weight ratio constantly changes during the burn, this is the formula that you want:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/4/5/945a66bb8ac5a46fd959ab6c12eebb00.png)
Plugging in your numbers would give a delta v of 450 m/s.
-
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.
Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
-
Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Try again.
Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.
External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
-
Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Try again.
Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.
External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Stop talking out of your arse and just get to the real point or what you're trying to say. No wonder you people have messed up heads.
-
So: the action/reaction pairing occurs within the rocket 'engine' itself.
But WHERE, precisely?
The front?
The back?
Somewhere inbetween?
I say that when a rocket ignites its fuel it creates an ACTION (i.e. exhaust column);
The exhaust column creates a REACTION with an OUTSIDE MASS such as the ground or the atmosphere;
This transfers THRUST back to the base of the rocket, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newtons 3rd.
Stick your hand out of the window of a car travelling at 80mph; you will feel how solid the atmosphere around us can be.
Now imagine what would happen at a velocity similar to that of a rocket exhaust, i.e. 4000+mph.
Plenty enough mass for a rocket to push on...
Except in the VACUUM of space, of course.
& what about Free Expansion of gas? Not a peep out of you on that subject eh?
To finish: mistaking Words for Reality is foolish enough, but to mistake Numbers for Reality is the pinnacle of madness.
-
Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Try again.
Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.
External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Stop talking out of your arse and just get to the real point or what you're trying to say. No wonder you people have messed up heads.
[/quote
Rough translation - you don't understand basic science.
Ok. Simple speak.
If two objects collide momentum is conserved.
If two object split momentum is conserved.
-
The specifications of the BuK M2E long-range ground-to-air missile are freely available on the web; www.army-technology.com (http://www.army-technology.com) has them for example.
Look in the performance stats & you will find that it has a 'maximum operating altitude above sea level' of 3,000 metres.
Why on earth should this be, if rockets are not reliant on atmospheric pressure in order to function?
I will tell you why: it is because the army knows that their troops are mostly thick as planks of wood & will not make the connection between the inability of their rockets to operate in rarefied atmospheres & the impossibility of space travel.
& they can't take the chance that one of them would try to launch a rocket above it's maximum operating altitude, thus destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment.
But the above should show anyone capable of independent thought that military rocket engineers are perfectly aware of how a rocket actually functions.
I know this for a fact because I've met a few; they all considered 'space travel' to be kids stuff.
Like Santa...
Want to contemplate 1 Corinthians 13:11 again, anyone?
& what about Free Expansion?
Tricky one, that!
-
Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Try again.
Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.
External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Are you making this up as you go along?
-
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?
Don't be too harsh, legion!
-
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?
Don't be too harsh, legion!
You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.
-
Papa is trying to tell you globalists about the lies you adhere to from the fantasy rocket science world.
Here's a video that you should all observe and ABSORB. If this doesn't help you grasp the truth then you have no desire to grasp it and are best left in your slumber or deliberate lie, whichever fits you.
(http://)
I'd say it's a video everyone should watch and TEST. I plan on doing so this weekend. Great vid and I'll let you know my results.
-
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?
Don't be too harsh, legion!
You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.
You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.
Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.
Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.
Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate systems.
-
Yes, legion; it is an excellent video & easy to reproduce at home; how easy it is to absorb the lesson thereof is another matter, sadly.
On a different note, I invite anyone who does not believe NASA to be a cult to google any combination of the words 'Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, Babalon Working'.
The results, to any person with the slightest esoteric knowledge, will make the whole sordid saga as clear as daylight.
Honestly; it could not be clearer.
But enough of that; what about Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum & its repercussions for NASA's GAS-powered rockets in the VACUUM of space?
Anyone?
& mainframes: you lot do love your false analogies don't you? But let's try to get beyond them eh?
Just try it; you may learn something.
The doorway is open...
-
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?
Don't be too harsh, legion!
You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.
You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.
Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.
Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.
Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate systems.
Here we go again:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant.
In your pool balls example, some energy will be lost due to friction (assuming a pool table). But, critically, no matter (or mass) will be exchanged outside of the pool system table (closed). Unless, ball A, the one you hit, explodes on contact with ball B. In that case, the conservation of momentum law will no longer apply as much/most of the force was expended in the explosion of ball A.
-
It makes me laugh how people can believe a combustion chamber in a rocket is going to allow burning rocket fuel to push up and down in equal terms.
Have any of you so called NASA rocket engineers had a look at the combustion chamber in an engine and also the injectors that squirt oxygen and fuel into this chamber?
Think of the so called power they say is created in those engines that is thrown out of the back. Seriously do any of you so called rocket scientists believe a huge so called space rocket can lift off a pad into space without simply blowing up under the pathetic forces they tell us happens to enable the lift of tehse so called monster rockets?
Here's something for you though and I want you to think about this very clearly. Those who have blinkers on and wax in their ears; do not respond.
Those who have a brain, just take heed of what's being said.
A rocket nozzle is shaped like a cone for a reason. The cone widens as it spans out from the rockets arse for a reason. What could that reason be.
1. To allow the burning fuel to mix and expand inside a combustion chamber inside the rocket and simply disperse the burning fuel into the atmosphere as simply waste and doing nothing.
2. To allow the fuel mixture to disperse into the atmosphere to create a controlled burn against the atmosphere to expand it so the rocket gases pushes against that atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes right back in equal measures.
The answer is simple to those who aren't brainwashed.
You see; if rockets worked like NASA tells us then why the need for a nozzle at all?
Also what was the point of having a nozzle in space if it's a vacuum?
What kind of combustion chamber must have been inside the supposed LEM that supposedly landed on the moon?
The so called astroliars were basically sat on top of one engine that was sat on top of another one.
Why did the LEM have a rocket nozzle on landing on the so called moon and yet the ascent kettle, erm rocket thing had no nozzle whatsoever. What's the reason for this?
No resistance, no movement of anything. Kaput. Zilch.
Ever wondered why an aerosol can fizzes when you press the top?
It fizzes because it is compressed inside the can, just like a rocket would hold compressed fuel/oxy.
Open the valve and the fast compressed fuel/oxy/aerosol pushes into the atmosphere at speed which forces the atmosphere away from it, yet the atmosphere equally hits back and tries to equalise the pressure. It friction grips the compressed fuel/oxy/aerosol and you hear the fizz. The SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
Now let's put that into your vacuum of space. Open the nozzle and the oxy/fuel/aerosol plays the last man out, stinks game.
Where's the fizz? The SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS?
There isn't one because the compressed oxy/fuel/aerosol is allowed FREE EXPANSION because it has nothing at all to arrest it's free movement into the vacuum.
It's like letting the air out of your tyre in space and then deciding you want to pump it up again. The problem is, your bike pump has nothing to pump. You plunge down the handle into the pump cylinder and there's no resistance because there's no air.
You're not even going to push down the valve in your inner tube to allow air into it because there is no air. So if your valve doesn't move by the force of you pumping that handle down, then how in the hell do you expect a rocket to move in a vacuum by expelling the fuel from it into the same vacuum?
Action/reaction works great inside Earth, due to resistance or atmosphere in ALL cases.
It's worthless in your fictional space because resistance cannot exist.
If only people could understand the principles of a vacuum or a near one and what space is supposed to be and how nothing could work in it, then it would make life easier for people to see just how far the duping has gone.
Throw a ball on Earth and you have a few things in your favour to allow you to throw it.
1. You have the friction of your feet and mass of body against the floor by atmospheric pressure pushing down on you. You can now throw your ball.
2. Dangle you from a rope to throw the ball again and you lose the friction of your feet/legs but your body mass has been transferred to the rope, except now your throw isn't as strong due to less resistance. All you have to enable the throw is the rope and your swing energy and as much push into the atmosphere as your body can muster.
Effective but nowhere near as efective as the feet to the solid ground as a friction grip.
Now take all that away - and as we are told; 'float you in space' with that same ball.
Now throw it.
In your mind right now, you believe you can throw it and you will see it disappear into the endless pit of space, right?
Can't you see that you are rendered still? It's hard to imagine because we are used to friction on Earth. The problem is, you are made to believe that atmosphere is negligent.
I'm going on here and the dipshits will type the usual tl;dr garbage and waste their time. If they do they have to quote me which means the real people get to see what I'm saying many times.
Anyway, back to what we all know. I'll type this is capitals so we don't forget the definite in life. the law that is a must.
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE MUST BE AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
What does it really mean in the grand scheme of things?
It means: if I or anything uses energy in any action, a reaction of the same energy will be transferred to whatever that energy was used against.
For instance: if I punched someone in the face, my energy would be transferred to the persons body as an action and an equal reactive force from their body would be transferred back to my fist and arm/shoulder/body mass.
Basically I get back what I put in and the same goes for moving in atmosphere. If you walk into it, you compress it and it pushes right back against you with the same reaction to your action.
Confused?
If you are tied to a bungee cord and use all your energy to run as hard as you can by stretching that cord to the max, your energy can stretch it, then that cord will now react against your body with the same energy you placed upon that. It pushes you back.
Now get in your car and imagine you're up against a 100 mph wind. Your car is stationary at this point because your handbrake and tyres are friction gripped to the wheels and road and the mass of your car against atmospheric pressure upon it means you need a lot of energy to move that car into that 100 mph wind.
Once you move that car into that 100 mph wind, you are compressing it more by the mass and energy of your car which pushes harder against that onrushing air onto your car front. But the thing is, just like the bungee rope, the energy has to equalise which it does by being forced around your car and friction gripping it on the sides before smashing into the air behind you that you are moving away from which equalises the pressure only on the energy your car produced, meaning your car is back to fighting the 100 mph wind and not any extra.
Have a good think about that. Some may not grasp it. It requires logical thought.
Now let's take it into so called space.
Let's park your car in space and put you behind it. Now push the car. Does it move?
Ok, kick the car.
Does it move?
Ok, how about pushing yourself away from the car and catapulting yourself away from that car. Yeah?
Can't be done, can it?
Why?
No resistance. You do not possess anything to lever off.
I know what you're thinking. "wait a minute, if I grabbed an open window and gripped it, I could launch myself away from the car."
It sounds plausible doesn't it?
You can be told lots of things...lies. Like; " oh space is a vacuum but things still have mass."
This is a perfect cover story to make you think that something feels heavier than something else and this allows a person or object to be ejected. It should clearly be seen to be bullshit if you're prepared to think.
If I'm holding hands with you in space then drag me towards you. Am I being pulled towards you or are you being pulled towards me?
Or are we simply not doing anything because none of us has anything at all to use as a resistive force. No leverage.
We can move inside Earth because we are under a force of atmospheric pressure. One action results in an equal reaction.
No action can happen without a reaction. You always need a resistive force to enable you to move one muscle of your body.
Atmosphere provides this. Space as this vacuum, does not.
The end result for anything in that so called spacial vacuum is SUSPENDED ANIMATION. No movement in any free way at all, unless a resistance can be used to enable that to happen.
Now just like we couldn't move in this vacuum without using a leverage, neither could Earth. It cannot freely float along. What it can do is expand and contract within itself against that vacuum.
This is why putting a person up higher and higher results in that person expanding and that's not even at a vacuum; just much lower pressure.
This is why we are a sealed unit against a vacuum. A natural sealed prison cell with it's own breathable skin against the vacuum of suspended animation that we simply see as the absence of all light. BLACKNESS with inner reflections.
OOP'S , I went a bit too far near the end, so I'll leave it at that.
It's boring to read but read it and absorb it for those who want to find reality from the sack of crap we've been fed. I'm being totally serious.
-
May I just add, to sceptimatic's typically interesting & thought-provoking post, that the real reason 'choked-flow/De Laval' nozzles are used on military rockets is simply to accelerate the exhausts velocity.
They play NO part whatsoever in increasing the functionality of a rocket in vacuum.
NOTHING can; because rockets can not work in a vacuum.
End of story...
Unless we are gulled into entering a reductio ad absurdum concerning a false analogy, of course.
-
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?
Don't be too harsh, legion!
You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.
You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.
Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.
Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.
Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate systems.
Here we go again:
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant.
In your pool balls example, some energy will be lost due to friction (assuming a pool table). But, critically, no matter (or mass) will be exchanged outside of the pool system table (closed). Unless, ball A, the one you hit, explodes on contact with ball B. In that case, the conservation of momentum law will no longer apply as much/most of the force was expended in the explosion of ball A.
In pool ball example momentum is conserved at point of collision. If ball A has 1kgm/s and B has none then after collision the pair will a sum total of 1 kgm/s. How that is split between the balls depends upon how full on they collide. With a perfect strike ball A would have 0kgm/s and B would have 1kgm/s. A 45degree hit and they would both have 0.5kgm/s. Friction only plays a part after the collision when each ball is a separate system again.
-
If I understand Legion's position correctly (he will undoubtedly claim I don't), sails should not work.
-
So now some maths involving 'pool balls' will somehow prove that rockets work in vacuum...
Nice try with yet another FALSE ANALOGY but can we stick to REALITY, please?
I know it's painful for you, but give it a go; you may even find it liberating...
-
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.
Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
A simplistic example doesn't help if it gives the wrong answer.
So: the action/reaction pairing occurs within the rocket 'engine' itself.
But WHERE, precisely?
The front?
The back?
Somewhere inbetween?
Yes. The initial action/reaction occurs in the combustion chamber where expanding gasses push against the walls of the chamber (action) and the walls of the chamber push back (reaction). Now if it were a sealed chamber like a balloon, then the action/reaction is balanced in all directions. However, there is an opening called the throat. As the gasses escape through the throat, the action of that gas does not balance the action in the opposite direction, therefore the rocket wants to move opposite direction of the escaping gasses.
Now consider that as the gasses are being pushed from the relatively large combustion chamber through the relatively small throat, the gasses increase in pressure and velocity. Also remember that the gasses still have mass. The mass and velocity of the escaping gasses are used to calculate the specific impulse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse) of the engine.
After the exhaust gas passes through the throat, it enters the nozzle where the gas expands once again. The expanding gas will push against the nozzle (action) causing still more reaction.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Rocket_thrust.svg)
-
The specifications of the BuK M2E long-range ground-to-air missile are freely available on the web; www.army-technology.com (http://www.army-technology.com) has them for example.
Look in the performance stats & you will find that it has a 'maximum operating altitude above sea level' of 3,000 metres.
Why on earth should this be, if rockets are not reliant on atmospheric pressure in order to function?
First if all, I think that you missed a zero. A maximum altitude of 3000 meters (about 10,000 feet) sounds pretty useless for a long range surface to air missile. 30,000 meters (about 100,000 feet) sounds a lot more reasonable.
Secondly, the rocket motor is for propulsion, but the missile still needs air for the steering fins to work.
-
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.
Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
A simplistic example doesn't help if it gives the wrong answer.
The answer was correct given the analogy. I said fuel was ejected out the back as a single unit to demonstrate a simple conservation of momentum calculation. It s fine if you then want to expand into ejection of fuel of a period of time.
As I said they need to understand conservation of momentum first before trying to explain rocket equation.
-
So now some maths involving 'pool balls' will somehow prove that rockets work in vacuum...
Nice try with yet another FALSE ANALOGY but can we stick to REALITY, please?
I know it's painful for you, but give it a go; you may even find it liberating...
This was demonstrating the princes of conservation of momentum which are required in explaining how rockets work in a vacuum. You'll notice I gave an example of an explosion and a collision.
-
So now some maths involving 'pool balls' will somehow prove that rockets work in vacuum...
Nice try with yet another FALSE ANALOGY but can we stick to REALITY, please?
I know it's painful for you, but give it a go; you may even find it liberating...
This was demonstrating the princes of conservation of momentum which are required in explaining how rockets work in a vacuum. You'll notice I gave an example of an explosion and a collision.
I've come to the conclusion, that there is a certain minimum threshold level of knowledge, that's required in order to assimilate and acquire additional knowledge, some people fall below that minimum level, and there is no amount of explanation that will allow them to move beyond that primitive level of understanding.
To think that there are people alive in this century that think rockets don't work in a vacuum, beggars belief.
Explaining conservation of momentum to such people is a bit like trying to teach monkeys to play scrabble. They can't keep score and they argue all the time about spelling and semantics.
-
i don't know why you people harp on about conservation of momentum as if it means anything in your space vacuum. It means nothing. It doesn't exist in your vacuum and cannot exist in it, no matter what.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
I think it's pretty scary to think that supposed scientifically mided people on here can't grasp this rocket bullshit. Maybe some can and won't admit it; but most are as naive as hell and can't see past their own noses, not to mention they are devoid of logic and common sense to go with a lack of humour.
-
i don't know why you people harp on about conservation of momentum as if it means anything in your space vacuum. It means nothing. It doesn't exist in your vacuum and cannot exist in it, no matter what.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
I think it's pretty scary to think that supposed scientifically mided people on here can't grasp this rocket bullshit. Maybe some can and won't admit it; but most are as naive as hell and can't see past their own noses, not to mention they are devoid of logic and common sense to go with a lack of humour.
Same old crap septic. You can't or won't under real basic shit so it don't happen. Sorry but you are full of it, get your tank pumped.
-
i don't know why you people harp on about conservation of momentum as if it means anything in your space vacuum. It means nothing. It doesn't exist in your vacuum and cannot exist in it, no matter what.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
I think it's pretty scary to think that supposed scientifically mided people on here can't grasp this rocket bullshit. Maybe some can and won't admit it; but most are as naive as hell and can't see past their own noses, not to mention they are devoid of logic and common sense to go with a lack of humour.
I don't know where to even begin, you are so far off track, maybe some basic physics lessons? Action and reaction, conservation of momentum, these are fundamental concepts, that should be self evident.
Maybe you have some kind of emotional investment in ignorance, that you can't let go of.
See if this helps https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/momentum-tutorial/v/momentum-ice-skater-throws-a-ball (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/momentum-tutorial/v/momentum-ice-skater-throws-a-ball)
-
i don't know why you people harp on about conservation of momentum as if it means anything in your space vacuum. It means nothing. It doesn't exist in your vacuum and cannot exist in it, no matter what.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
I think it's pretty scary to think that supposed scientifically mided people on here can't grasp this rocket bullshit. Maybe some can and won't admit it; but most are as naive as hell and can't see past their own noses, not to mention they are devoid of logic and common sense to go with a lack of humour.
Same old crap septic. You can't or won't under real basic shit so it don't happen. Sorry but you are full of it, get your tank pumped.
I've told you people time and time again to stay out of dealing with me. You're not worthy of my time. You're a bunch of naive retarded idiots that can't grasp basic stuff and have to live in a world of made up nonsnse.
Pm your bum chums you prick and talk with them.
-
i don't know why you people harp on about conservation of momentum as if it means anything in your space vacuum. It means nothing. It doesn't exist in your vacuum and cannot exist in it, no matter what.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
I think it's pretty scary to think that supposed scientifically mided people on here can't grasp this rocket bullshit. Maybe some can and won't admit it; but most are as naive as hell and can't see past their own noses, not to mention they are devoid of logic and common sense to go with a lack of humour.
I don't know where to even begin, you are so far off track, maybe some basic physics lessons? Action and reaction, conservation of momentum, these are fundamental concepts, that should be self evident.
Maybe you have some kind of emotional investment in ignorance, that you can't let go of.
See if this helps https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/momentum-tutorial/v/momentum-ice-skater-throws-a-ball (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/momentum-tutorial/v/momentum-ice-skater-throws-a-ball)
Ice skaters don't operate rockets and rockets don't use ice skates. Stop bringing nonsense into the debate you clown.
-
Ice skaters don't operate rockets and rockets don't use ice skates. Stop bringing nonsense into the debate you clown.
I didn't think you would understand it, but it was worth a try.
Sadly, there's nothing more basic I could find, so, your time in the physics class has expired. You can now go back to blowing bubbles and gurgling happily in your ignorance. If you can find some crayons there's a good coloring book I can recommend.
-
Ice skaters don't operate rockets and rockets don't use ice skates. Stop bringing nonsense into the debate you clown.
I didn't think you would understand it, but it was worth a try.
Sadly, there's nothing more basic I could find, so, your time in the physics class has expired. You can now go back to blowing bubbles and gurgling happily in your ignorance. If you can find some crayons there's a good coloring book I can recommend.
You stay backward you dipstick. You'll never grasp anything because you simply don't want to. Your tongue is firmly planted into the science world's aris and you are in awe of lying spotty faced tefal headed front men.
Ice skates for the rocket dupe is for the likes of you to jizz your pants over you thick bastard.
-
You stay backward you dipstick. You'll never grasp anything because you simply don't want to. Your tongue is firmly planted into the science world's aris and you are in awe of lying spotty faced tefal headed front men.
Ice skates for the rocket dupe is for the likes of you to jizz your pants over you thick bastard.
Now you are projecting your weird fantasies, don't be insulted, but I'd prefer not to know about your bedroom preferences.
Just because a concept is beyond your grasp, doesn't mean that there aren't others who can understand and apply those concepts.
Just out of curiousity, what is your educational background? Did you finish high school?
-
You stay backward you dipstick. You'll never grasp anything because you simply don't want to. Your tongue is firmly planted into the science world's aris and you are in awe of lying spotty faced tefal headed front men.
Ice skates for the rocket dupe is for the likes of you to jizz your pants over you thick bastard.
Now you are projecting your weird fantasies, don't be insulted, but I'd prefer not to know about your bedroom preferences.
Just because a concept is beyond your grasp, doesn't mean that there aren't others who can understand and apply those concepts.
Just out of curiousity, what is your educational background? Did you finish high school?
One day you might learn the reality of the TV rockets your subscribe to like a faithful puppy.
Trying to play games as to who has what in an educational background is a bit silly because what you have learned, is tarnished with a lot of bullcrap.
I suggest you gain some logical sense and actually have a look at your fantasy rockets that you believe float about in space.
Once you see the reality, you will have no choice but to question your whole so called education.
I'm here to educate ignorant people like you. You can't accept the help because of your arrogance and adherence to the mass opinion that the high up "so called" science world has convinced to accept as the truth.
It's a sad world when pople can't grasp simple things and have to hide behind a bunch of equations and bullshit that masks reality.
-
You stay backward you dipstick. You'll never grasp anything because you simply don't want to. Your tongue is firmly planted into the science world's aris and you are in awe of lying spotty faced tefal headed front men.
Ice skates for the rocket dupe is for the likes of you to jizz your pants over you thick bastard.
Now you are projecting your weird fantasies, don't be insulted, but I'd prefer not to know about your bedroom preferences.
Just because a concept is beyond your grasp, doesn't mean that there aren't others who can understand and apply those concepts.
Just out of curiousity, what is your educational background? Did you finish high school?
One day you might learn the reality of the TV rockets your subscribe to like a faithful puppy.
Trying to play games as to who has what in an educational background is a bit silly because what you have learned, is tarnished with a lot of bullcrap.
I suggest you gain some logical sense and actually have a look at your fantasy rockets that you believe float about in space.
Once you see the reality, you will have no choice but to question your whole so called education.
I'm here to educate ignorant people like you. You can't accept the help because of your arrogance and adherence to the mass opinion that the high up "so called" science world has convinced to accept as the truth.
It's a sad world when pople can't grasp simple things and have to hide behind a bunch of equations and bullshit that masks reality.
You can stop arguing your case, I've already given up on trying to explain concepts that you clearly aren't able to understand, what I'm now curious about is how you got to the state of mind where you claim to possess knowledge that no-one else understands and defies the laws of physics. That's why I asked what your educational background was, I take it that you didn't do any science classes at high school level?
-
As I said they need to understand conservation of momentum first before trying to explain rocket equation.
The rocket equation is the correct application of the conservation of momentum when the mass of the rocket is constantly changing. If you want to use the simple explanation, then use Newton's cradle.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
Scepti, we've explained how rockets work lots of times and in lots of different ways. Just because you refuse to understand doesn't mean that we haven't explained.
-
As I said they need to understand conservation of momentum first before trying to explain rocket equation.
The rocket equation is the correct application of the conservation of momentum when the mass of the rocket is constantly changing. If you want to use the simple explanation, then use Newton's cradle.
You people use this crap because you can't explain how a rocket works. You lot literally cannot expalin what's happening in a rocket for it to do what you say it does, except to say that fuel expands in a combustion chamber and you think this answers the question.
Scepti, we've explained how rockets work lots of times and in lots of different ways. Just because you refuse to understand doesn't mean that we haven't explained.
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
-
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
So, how did you arrive at this understanding of how rockets really work?
-
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
So, how did you arrive at this understanding of how rockets really work?
By understanding how atmospheric pressure is what keeps everything working on Earth, including rockets and the lack of atmospheric pressure renders everything useless, such as rockets and jet planes and high climbing humans, nullified.
Simple logic and common sense and the ability to actually seea different picture to the one you have been forced to see, will actually allow you to see if you want to.
Start by bringing up a rocket diagram and study it, then ask yourself about the combustion chamber expansion and all the rest of the bullshit that supposedly kicks a mammoth so called apace rocket into space, as you are told.
The main issue is, it really does require a person to WAKE up and see logic amid the fantasy given out and also shown in movies that are purported to be live launches.
Just spend 10 seconds studying the forward strut on the shuttle that supposedly keeps it stuck to the tank by one pop up bolt and ask yourself the question of who's the gullible one's.
Of course, If you come back and see no problem with it, then don't bother telling me. Just forget I exist and carry on with your bullshit spreading, because it will show me immediately what you are.
Over to you. Use logic and common sense or follow the sheep. OR...sit sniggering at how you think you're duping people into believing in fantasy space crap.
-
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
So, how did you arrive at this understanding of how rockets really work?
By understanding how atmospheric pressure is what keeps everything working on Earth, including rockets and the lack of atmospheric pressure renders everything useless, such as rockets and jet planes and high climbing humans, nullified.
Simple logic and common sense and the ability to actually seea different picture to the one you have been forced to see, will actually allow you to see if you want to.
Start by bringing up a rocket diagram and study it, then ask yourself about the combustion chamber expansion and all the rest of the bullshit that supposedly kicks a mammoth so called apace rocket into space, as you are told.
The main issue is, it really does require a person to WAKE up and see logic amid the fantasy given out and also shown in movies that are purported to be live launches.
Just spend 10 seconds studying the forward strut on the shuttle that supposedly keeps it stuck to the tank by one pop up bolt and ask yourself the question of who's the gullible one's.
Of course, If you come back and see no problem with it, then don't bother telling me. Just forget I exist and carry on with your bullshit spreading, because it will show me immediately what you are.
Over to you. Use logic and common sense or follow the sheep. OR...sit sniggering at how you think you're duping people into believing in fantasy space crap.
My intention is to understand why you hold those views, not to argue. How does lack of atmospheric pressure render everything useless? Specifically rockets. And what was it that led you to that conclusion?
-
I've told you people time and time again to stay out of dealing with me. You're not worthy of my time. You're a bunch of naive retarded idiots that can't grasp basic stuff and have to live in a world of made up nonsnse.
For something not worthy of your time, you sure spend a lot of it arguing about this. How many replies have you made in the last couple hours on this topic alone? You've told "us people", time and time again, many, many things that are utter balderdash. This is just another example.
But, remembering something "worthy of your time" that you haven't bothered to reply to, have you forgotten a challenge you made in another thread?
This one:
If I ever said I had 13 academic qualifications then I would be telling lies. Did I ever say I had and if so I need you to put up or shut up and stop acting like a little screaming girl. ;D
It's accumulated some responses, some more than a week old. Why don't you tootle over there, look them over, and answer the responses to the challenge you issued instead of replying to topics "not worthy of your time"? Surely that topic is worthy; otherwise, why did you bring it up?
-
I've already explained why I hold the views. Other's have explained why they do, too. It's in the explanations given for why rockets don't work in a vacuum.
-
I've told you people time and time again to stay out of dealing with me. You're not worthy of my time. You're a bunch of naive retarded idiots that can't grasp basic stuff and have to live in a world of made up nonsnse.
For something not worthy of your time, you sure spend a lot of it arguing about this. How many replies have you made in the last couple hours on this topic alone? You've told "us people", time and time again, many, many things that are utter balderdash. This is just another example.
But, remembering something "worthy of your time" that you haven't bothered to reply to, have you forgotten a challenge you made in another thread?
This one:
If I ever said I had 13 academic qualifications then I would be telling lies. Did I ever say I had and if so I need you to put up or shut up and stop acting like a little screaming girl. ;D
It's accumulated some responses, some more than a week old. Why don't you tootle over there, look them over, and answer the responses to the challenge you issued instead of replying to topics "not worthy of your time"? Surely that topic is worthy; otherwise, why did you bring it up?
I asked people to put up or shut up. Nobody has put up, including you. If you think you have then link to the thread where I said I had 13 academic qualifications.
If not, then shut up and stop acting like a whining little girl.
-
I've already explained why I hold the views. Other's have explained why they do, too. It's in the explanations given for why rockets don't work in a vacuum.
The explanation I've read is that rockets need something to push against, and that in the vacuum of space there is nothing to push against.
What I don't understand, is why rockets need something to push against? If I could show you that a rocket doesn't need anything to push against would that alter your point of view?
-
I've already explained why I hold the views. Other's have explained why they do, too. It's in the explanations given for why rockets don't work in a vacuum.
The explanation I've read is that rockets need something to push against, and that in the vacuum of space there is nothing to push against.
What I don't understand, is why rockets need something to push against? If I could show you that a rocket doesn't need anything to push against would that alter your point of view?
I'll tell you what I'll do for you. If you can show me that rockets do not use atmosphere and you can prove they can work in a vacuum of your space by any means possible, I'll not only believe in sp[ace rockets, I'll also change my stance to believing everthing about Earth and what not, being a spinning ball, plus planets and sun and stars and moon and whatever else, to be what you believe them to be.
You think this will be easy?
Let me just explain something. For everything you hit me with, I'm going to hit you back with my version. If you call me arrogant for going against you, then I will call you the same.
It's up to you to find the best way to stump me to prove your theory.
If you come at me with silly equations, you lose. I want explanations not calculations and especally not silly space equations.
Over to you.
-
I've already explained why I hold the views. Other's have explained why they do, too. It's in the explanations given for why rockets don't work in a vacuum.
The explanation I've read is that rockets need something to push against, and that in the vacuum of space there is nothing to push against.
What I don't understand, is why rockets need something to push against? If I could show you that a rocket doesn't need anything to push against would that alter your point of view?
I'll tell you what I'll do for you. If you can show me that rockets do not use atmosphere and you can prove they can work in a vacuum of your space by any means possible, I'll not only believe in sp[ace rockets, I'll also change my stance to believing everthing about Earth and what not, being a spinning ball, plus planets and sun and stars and moon and whatever else, to be what you believe them to be.
You think this will be easy?
Let me just explain something. For everything you hit me with, I'm going to hit you back with my version. If you call me arrogant for going against you, then I will call you the same.
It's up to you to find the best way to stump me to prove your theory.
If you come at me with silly equations, you lose. I want explanations not calculations and especally not silly space equations.
Over to you.
I specifically said I didn't want to argue, because you seem to be very fixed in your opinion, and very likely you'll not agree with anything I could say. The point I was trying to establish is, what exactly is the basis of your understanding of why rockets don't work in space.
We've established that the central issue is the view that there is nothing for the rocket to push against. The laws of physics say that you don't need anything to push against.
If you disagree with the following, then just briefly say why and we leave it at that, we don't need to drag this out into a protracted argument that ultimately ends in insults.
Imagine a cube shaped sealed metal box floating in the vacuum of space 1m x 1m x 1m and we have pressurized the box with air to 10 kg per square meter
The area of each of the sides of the cube is 1 square meter so there is 10 kg pressing from the inside on each side of the cube. Now we cut a 0.1 square meter hole in the bottom of the cube, so the bottom now has only 9kg pressing on it, but the top still has 10kg so there is 1kg force difference between the top and bottom, pushing the box upwards. And the box moves up. It doesn't need to push against anything.
I'll leave the equations for another day.
-
I specifically said I didn't want to argue, because you seem to be very fixed in your opinion, and very likely you'll not agree with anything I could say. The point I was trying to establish is, what exactly is the basis of your understanding of why rockets don't work in space.
Free expansion is why they can't work in space. Free expansion is why they couldn't get too far up into the atmosphere, never mind what you believe space to be.
We've established that the central issue is the view that there is nothing for the rocket to push against. The laws of physics say that you don't need anything to push against.
If you disagree with the following, then just briefly say why and we leave it at that, we don't need to drag this out into a protracted argument that ultimately ends in insults.
The laws of physics aren't laws when dealing with this. It's the laws of lies or guesswork.
The fact that a person can't envisage himself being in a vacuum and unable to distinguish it from being at sea level doing his stuff; it's bound to sway a person towards the bogus physics laws.
If you do not have any resistive force to your energy, then you simply do not move, whether that's a person or a rocket.
Here's an experiment for you to try.
Tie a strong box from a rafter and you and a friend get inside of it and shut the lid.
Let's call the box the inside of your rocket chamber and you and your friend are the fuel mix.
You are sat above your friend. He can smell your arse and the crease of your ball sack through your khaki shorts but this is irrelevant, as it's just an occupational hazard.
Ok so you tell him to push down onto the bottom of the box.
He does this and realises that to break it he has to lever off of your arse whilst you have to lever your shoulders and head against the top of the box lid.
Let's assume that your box lid is solid and won't break.
Now your friend manages to break through his lid due to him squashing you. All you are doing is being jammed against your lid until he breaks his lid and falls out under the pressure he and you used as force.
He shoots out and hits the deck. Where are you?
You don't hit the ceiling do you? you drop out behind him like a limp dick because you both expended your energy pushing each otehr to break his lid and now you are left in the box for a sec after your friend smashes his face off the floor. Then you follow like a newly hatched chick falling from a nest onto your mate.
Imagine a cube shaped sealed metal box floating in the vacuum of space 1m x 1m x 1m and we have pressurized the box with air to 10 kg per square meter
The area of each of the sides of the cube is 1 square meter so there is 10 kg pressing from the inside on each side of the cube. Now we cut a 0.1 square meter hole in the bottom of the cube, so the bottom now has only 9kg pressing on it, but the top still has 10kg so there is 1kg force difference between the top and bottom, pushing the box upwards. And the box moves up. It doesn't need to push against anything.
I'll leave the equations for another day.
You lost your force when you cut the cube open. You lost it to free expansion.
Try and make things easier for yourself or you will get frustrated.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
I can understand why you believe the lies, as well.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
I can understand why you believe the lies, as well.
As a matter of interest, how old are you?
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
I can understand why you believe the lies, as well.
As a matter of interest, how old are you?
Old enough to realise I've been duped for a lot of my life. That should give you a clue. How old are you?
If you are a young kid then it's only natural you will be naive with this stuff.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
-
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
Scepti, a rocket works because of unbalanced forces. Let's say that you have a sealed chamber with 500 psi of pressure in it. That means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing out against it (action) and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction) to keep the system in balance. Do you agree with this so far?
If yes, then let's cut a one square inch hole in the chamber. This means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing outwards against it (action), and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction), except for the one square inch that is missing. This means that the system is no longer in balance because there is 500 pounds of force pushing out (action) with nothing to push back. Now, what does your logic tell you should happen with this unbalanced system?
Here's a picture to make it a little easier to visualize:
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/Shari/balloon.gif)
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score. Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
I can understand why you believe the lies, as well.
As a matter of interest, how old are you?
Old enough to realise I've been duped for a lot of my life. That should give you a clue. How old are you?
If you are a young kid then it's only natural you will be naive with this stuff.
I'm in my 60's got the grey hair to prove it. So how old are you? You can lie if it makes you feel better.
-
Scepti, a rocket works because of unbalanced forces. Let's say that you have a sealed chamber with 500 psi of pressure in it. That means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing out against it (action) and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction) to keep the system in balance. Do you agree with this so far?
Are we talking sea level here with this chamber or in space?
If yes, then let's cut a one square inch hole in the chamber. This means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing outwards against it (action), and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction), except for the one square inch that is missing. This means that the system is no longer in balance because there is 500 pounds of force pushing out (action) with nothing to push back. Now, what does your logic tell you should happen with this unbalanced system?
Here's a picture to make it a little easier to visualize:
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/Shari/balloon.gif)
Is this at sea level or in space. I need to know.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score.
Yes I do know the score. Have you haven't a single point yet.
Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about
You should take your own advice.
and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
I couldn't give a rats ass how well we get along.
-
As I said, I'm not interested in the argument, you've shown that logic is not a factor. I was more interested in why you believe these things, and now I've got a pretty good idea.
I can understand why you believe the lies, as well.
As a matter of interest, how old are you?
Old enough to realise I've been duped for a lot of my life. That should give you a clue. How old are you?
If you are a young kid then it's only natural you will be naive with this stuff.
I'm in my 60's got the grey hair to prove it. So how old are you? You can lie if it makes you feel better.
I'm older than 40 and younger than 60.
I'm shocked that you can't see the bullshit in this carry on. I'm serious as well.
It took me until I semi retired to actually engage my mind towards questioning like this. By doing so, it becomes quite obvious how ridiculous some of these dupes are.
The fact that you don't seem to question anything brings your honesty on this forum into question with me. Not that it'll bother you. I'm just saying.
The only thing I can see is that you have some kind of agenda, whether that's sinister or simply a need to make people believe in authority, when you should know for a fact that people in authority regularly lie to gain.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score.
Yes I do know the score. Have you haven't a single point yet.
Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about
You should take your own advice.
and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
I couldn't give a rats ass how well we get along.
Then sit with your crayons and stop being a little irritant or there will be no ice cream, boy.
-
Scepti, a rocket works because of unbalanced forces. Let's say that you have a sealed chamber with 500 psi of pressure in it. That means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing out against it (action) and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction) to keep the system in balance. Do you agree with this so far?
Are we talking sea level here with this chamber or in space?
It doesn't matter. The inside of the chamber is at 500 psi, that's all that matters.
If yes, then let's cut a one square inch hole in the chamber. This means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing outwards against it (action), and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction), except for the one square inch that is missing. This means that the system is no longer in balance because there is 500 pounds of force pushing out (action) with nothing to push back. Now, what does your logic tell you should happen with this unbalanced system?
Here's a picture to make it a little easier to visualize:
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/Shari/balloon.gif)
Is this at sea level or in space. I need to know.
Again, it doesn't matter. You have 500 pounds of force that isn't being balanced, that's all that matters.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score.
Yes I do know the score. Have you haven't a single point yet.
Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about
You should take your own advice.
and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
I couldn't give a rats ass how well we get along.
Then sit with your crayons and stop being a little irritant or there will be no ice cream, boy.
Once again, you should follow your own advice. You have shown that you have no critical thinking skills, your only skill is to automatically oppose whatever you deem is "the authority" and claim you know better.
You have shown you don't understand anything you are talking about.
-
Scepti, a rocket works because of unbalanced forces. Let's say that you have a sealed chamber with 500 psi of pressure in it. That means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing out against it (action) and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction) to keep the system in balance. Do you agree with this so far?
Are we talking sea level here with this chamber or in space?
It doesn't matter. The inside of the chamber is at 500 psi, that's all that matters.
If yes, then let's cut a one square inch hole in the chamber. This means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing outwards against it (action), and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction), except for the one square inch that is missing. This means that the system is no longer in balance because there is 500 pounds of force pushing out (action) with nothing to push back. Now, what does your logic tell you should happen with this unbalanced system?
Here's a picture to make it a little easier to visualize:
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/Shari/balloon.gif)
Is this at sea level or in space. I need to know.
Again, it doesn't matter. You have 500 pounds of force that isn't being balanced, that's all that matters.
Sorry markjo but it isn't all that matters. It's all that matters to you because you can't grasp the difference between resistance to action at sea level and no resistance to action in your vacuum of your space.
Seriously, we need to deal with these seperately.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score.
Yes I do know the score. Have you haven't a single point yet.
Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about
You should take your own advice.
and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
I couldn't give a rats ass how well we get along.
Then sit with your crayons and stop being a little irritant or there will be no ice cream, boy.
Once again, you should follow your own advice. You have shown that you have no critical thinking skills, your only skill is to automatically oppose whatever you deem is "the authority" and claim you know better.
You have shown you don't understand anything you are talking about.
And yet you just can't help yourself can you. Like a little terrier snapping at my ankles. Behave yourself and either put some effort it or stay out of it because tit for tat just ends up pointless with insults.
-
I'm older than 40 and younger than 60.
I'm shocked that you can't see the bullshit in this carry on. I'm serious as well.
It took me until I semi retired to actually engage my mind towards questioning like this. By doing so, it becomes quite obvious how ridiculous some of these dupes are.
The fact that you don't seem to question anything brings your honesty on this forum into question with me. Not that it'll bother you. I'm just saying.
The only thing I can see is that you have some kind of agenda, whether that's sinister or simply a need to make people believe in authority, when you should know for a fact that people in authority regularly lie to gain.
You might think that I don't question anything, but the opposite is true, I question everything, just because I come to different conclusions to what you have is neither here nor there. I don't have a specific agenda, the agenda ( if you could call it that ) I have is to try and understand why people believe crackpot conspiracies. And debunking the obvious lies and unsupported assertions that the conspiracy loonies seem to thrive on.
My background is in Science and Engineering, I know what works and I know how to evaluate evidence. Call it a BS detector if you like. The ease which people believe blatant lies unconnected to reality seems to be proportional to how way out the lie is. And people like yourself with a natural distrust of authority are uniquely susceptible to conspiracy theories, because they reinforce your preconceived notions of mistrust of authority.
So it's easier to believe that NASA is lying about space travel, and hiding the flat earth. There is no south pole and satellites are faked somehow, and on we go.
Gotta love a good conspiracy.
-
I don't think you understand what free expansion is scepti.
Well, a typical bell end like you would naturally say that when you have no clue what it means yourself.
I don't think many of your sort do because if you did, you would not be arguing about rockets in space.
Typical response from someone who is being paid to spread lies.
Yeah well, you best stay out of it with me. You know the score.
Yes I do know the score. Have you haven't a single point yet.
Don't jump into stuff you know nothing about
You should take your own advice.
and me and you will get along just fine, kid.
I couldn't give a rats ass how well we get along.
Then sit with your crayons and stop being a little irritant or there will be no ice cream, boy.
Once again, you should follow your own advice. You have shown that you have no critical thinking skills, your only skill is to automatically oppose whatever you deem is "the authority" and claim you know better.
You have shown you don't understand anything you are talking about.
And yet you just can't help yourself can you. Like a little terrier snapping at my ankles. Behave yourself and either put some effort it or stay out of it because tit for tat just ends up pointless with insults.
I am putting as much effort into it as you. You claim to fame is saying "you are wrong, I am right, if you can't see why, you are just an indoctrinated mind"
-
Sorry markjo but it isn't all that matters. It's all that matters to you because you can't grasp the difference between resistance to action at sea level and no resistance to action in your vacuum of your space.
Seriously, we need to deal with these seperately.
No. I'm not talking about resistance to an action, I'm talking about the balance of action and reaction within a system. When action and reaction are not balanced, then you will have a net force. Whether that force leads to motion or not is a different matter.
-
Markjo: I did NOT 'miss a zero'; the maximum operating altitude above sea level (i.e. maximum altitude at which it can be launched successfully) of the BuK M2E missile is 3,000 metres.
I provided a link to a site containing all performance data, including RANGE; really, you simply do not know how to read, do you?
Also; if it is the case that a rocket somehow 'pushes on itself', then, using the exact same principle, I should be able to lift myself up by pulling on my ear, until I reach space, where I will be able to travel EVEN FASTER!
Somehow...
Your position is untenable; you have no genuine science or logic to back your assertions up.
You are done.
But you will never stop posting otherwise.
Why?
-
Oh, & Rayzor: you claim that I'M playing 'semantic games'?
LOL!!!
That really does 'beggar belief'!
Now tell me again how NASA's GAS-powered rockets work in a VACUUM in direct violation of the principle of Free Expansion of GAS in a VACUUM.
I'll get my popcorn...
-
& lastly: every military rocket designer knows that rockets require an outside mass to push against.
The ones I've met could barely disguise their contempt when NASA, space-travel etc. were mentioned, & changed the subject asap.
Really; it's an embarrassment to them.
But, hey - believe what you want.
Jack Parsons; L Ron Hubbard; Aleister Crowley: what WERE they all doing together?
-
And I and a few other's have explained how rockets really work and yet you refuse to understand it. You lose in the long run because you are hinging your knowledge of rocketry on fantasy.
Believing they work in how you have been told by the text books is nonsense that you may find out about in time. It all depends on whether you have the sense to use your own logic.
Anyway, stick to your lies and I'll stick to the truth.
Scepti, a rocket works because of unbalanced forces. Let's say that you have a sealed chamber with 500 psi of pressure in it. That means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing out against it (action) and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction) to keep the system in balance. Do you agree with this so far?
If yes, then let's cut a one square inch hole in the chamber. This means that every square inch of the chamber has 500 pounds of force pushing outwards against it (action), and every square inch of the chamber is pushing back with 500 pounds of force (reaction), except for the one square inch that is missing. This means that the system is no longer in balance because there is 500 pounds of force pushing out (action) with nothing to push back. Now, what does your logic tell you should happen with this unbalanced system?
Here's a picture to make it a little easier to visualize:
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/Shari/balloon.gif)
Here's what my logic tells me:
All of the mass (gas/liquid) in the system will move toward the opening. Nothing will push opposite the opening. The pressure inside the vessel will be reduced at a constant rate until all of the mass has exited.
No motion will occur as no external force has been applied, as per Newton's first law.
Edit: This is assuming an isolated system, like a rocket in space.
-
Oh, legion!
Will you stop being so logical!
You know how it annoys these NASA-cultists...
Whatever; better get ready for another false analogy to come your way; they seem to have an endless supply of the damn things.
-
Here's what my logic tells me:
All of the mass (gas/liquid) in the system will move toward the opening. Nothing will push opposite the opening. The pressure inside the vessel will be reduced at a constant rate until all of the mass has exited.
What direction is the pressure remaining in the vessel pushing while the pressure is being reduced? Is all of the pressure directed only at the opening, or is it pushing against the chamber equally in all directions, including the opening?
No motion will occur as no external force has been applied, as per Newton's first law.
Again, I'm not worried about motion at this point. I'm only concerned with the balance of action/reaction forces.
-
Yes, markjo; let's suppose a thing that free expansion proves conclusively can not occur in a vacuum.
Like 'space'.
Free expansion only applies to an ideal gas (no mass) and a closed system. Rocket exhaust does have mass and space is not a closed system.
-
LOL!
Nice try.
Free expansion is an idealised extrapolation of an observed phenomena; makes for a neat equation, you know?
In the real world, the work done by real gases in practically-possible vacuums is as near to Zero as makes no difference.
Any Edwardian steam-engineering apprentice knew this; yet you don't.
Why?
P.S. I thought you were done with this thread; we can only hope...
& have you read the specs of the BuK M2E properly yet? LOL!
Real rocket engineers laugh at you; I've heard them & laughed along too.
But keep believing whatever you like.
Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley: what were they doing, again?
-
Work (done by a gas) = Pressure x change in Volume (W=PV).
When the pressure = Zero (as in a vacuum) then the work done = Zero.
You can't get something from nothing!
Keep 'debating', though; I need the LOLs.
-
Work (done by a gas) = Pressure x change in Volume (W=PV).
When the pressure = Zero (as in a vacuum) then the work done = Zero.
You can't get something from nothing!
Keep 'debating', though; I need the LOLs.
So much fail.
The work done by a gas in the equation you have quoted is for closed systems like pistons, bladders etc and calculates the work done on the surrounding system ie amount of force imparted on a piston to push it upwards.
A rocket does not work like this. A rocket uses a different principle using the conservation of momentum.
-
Papa Legless is trolling you, he calls it debating but all he does is throw out some bait and negate what ever comes back. He is without soul.
-
If I ever said I had 13 academic qualifications then I would be telling lies. Did I ever say I had and if so I need you to put up or shut up and stop acting like a little screaming girl. ;D
It's accumulated some responses, some more than a week old. Why don't you tootle over there, look them over, and answer the responses to the challenge you issued instead of replying to topics "not worthy of your time"? Surely that topic is worthy; otherwise, why did you bring it up?
I asked people to put up or shut up. Nobody has put up, including you. If you think you have then link to the thread where I said I had 13 academic qualifications.
If not, then shut up and stop acting like a whining little girl.
Sorry. That may have been too difficult for you to follow. Click here. This shows where you made the claim that you had 13 academic qualifications. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg1687448#msg1687448) Is that clear enough?
Your claim that you have 13 academic qualifications is there for all to see. If you disagree, it would be best for you to answer in the thread where the challenge to find that claim was made. If you think you need to reply to this post, a link to your convincing response in the other thread would be most effective.If you simply wheedle more here, it makes it even more obvious that you can't defend your claim. Which would surprise no one.
-
And yet you just can't help yourself can you. Like a little terrier snapping at my ankles. Behave yourself and either put some effort it or stay out of it because tit for tat just ends up pointless with insults.
I've told you people time and time again to stay out of dealing with me. You're not worthy of my time. You're a bunch of naive retarded idiots that can't grasp basic stuff and have to live in a world of made up nonsnse.
You sure spend a lot of time on people "not worthy of your time". Have you considered spending time on things more worthy of it?
How's that scale model of the Ice Dome coming along?
-
Your claim that you have 13 academic qualifications is there for all to see.
He said that he had 13, but he never said 13 what.
-
Your claim that you have 13 academic qualifications is there for all to see.
He said that he had 13, but he never said 13 what.
However, it was in a direct response to the question of how many academic qualifications he had. If someone asks you, how many dogs you owned, then you reply with just the number 4, it is implied that your response is, in fact, the number of dogs you own, not, for example, the number of brain hemorrhages that scepti has had.
-
Your claim that you have 13 academic qualifications is there for all to see.
He said that he had 13, but he never said 13 what.
However, it was in a direct response to the question of how many academic qualifications he had. If someone asks you, how many dogs you owned, then you reply with just the number 4, it is implied that your response is, in fact, the number of dogs you own, not, for example, the number of brain hemorrhages that scepti has had.
Exactly.
-
Wrong.
It is true that lab tests for Free Expansion on earth can only be done using a closed system; how else could they be done?
A near-limitless vacuum such as space cannot be re-created on earth.
But that Free Expansion will also apply to the PRESSURISED GAS inside a rocket's fuel tanks, when open to the VACUUM OF SPACE is utterly obvious even to a child.
Just what have you lot got against the laws of physics anyway?
Oh, & next one to call me a troll, or make ANY personal comment gets reported; I'm playing your game now.
BTW: Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley; Babalon Working; Moonchild... what WAS all that about again?
-
Wrong.
It is true that lab tests for Free Expansion on earth can only be done using a closed system; how else could they be done?
A near-limitless vacuum such as space cannot be re-created on earth.
But that Free Expansion will also apply to the PRESSURISED GAS inside a rocket's fuel tanks, when open to the VACUUM OF SPACE is utterly obvious even to a child.
Just what have you lot got against the laws of physics anyway?
Oh, & next one to call me a troll, or make ANY personal comment gets reported; I'm playing your game now.
BTW: Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley; Babalon Working; Moonchild... what WAS all that about again?
Uh oh, sounds like someone is trying to apply "common sense" to the world again. Who wants to tell him that human intuition is a terrible approximation of how the world behaves? Wait, did I just do it?
Yup I did.
-
Wrong.
It is true that lab tests for Free Expansion on earth can only be done using a closed system; how else could they be done?
A near-limitless vacuum such as space cannot be re-created on earth.
But that Free Expansion will also apply to the PRESSURISED GAS inside a rocket's fuel tanks, when open to the VACUUM OF SPACE is utterly obvious even to a child.
Just what have you lot got against the laws of physics anyway?
Oh, & next one to call me a troll, or make ANY personal comment gets reported; I'm playing your game now.
BTW: Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley; Babalon Working; Moonchild... what WAS all that about again?
You prove again and again don't understand even the most basic physics, even when explained carefully with simple diagrams.
Who came up with this notion in the first place? Is this one of that flat earth psycho Eric Dubay's conspiracy theories? Designed to fool the terminally stupid and try to disprove space travel.
You probably don't believe is satellites either. (http://)
-
Specially for Papa Legover. Here is a video. (http://) Start at 3:35 for description of how rockets work
-
Yes, markjo; let's suppose a thing that free expansion proves conclusively can not occur in a vacuum.
Like 'space'.
Free expansion only applies to an ideal gas (no mass) and a closed system. Rocket exhaust does have mass and space is not a closed system.
What do you mean an ideal gas with no mass and a closed system?
All gas has mass. Anything that is something has mass, unless people want to play with magic.
Free expansion applies to anything that can freely expand, which is anything that encounters NO RESISTANCE to it's energy/force.
-
Yes, markjo; let's suppose a thing that free expansion proves conclusively can not occur in a vacuum.
Like 'space'.
Free expansion only applies to an ideal gas (no mass) and a closed system. Rocket exhaust does have mass and space is not a closed system.
What do you mean an ideal gas with no mass and a closed system?
All gas has mass. Anything that is something has mass, unless people want to play with magic.
Free expansion applies to anything that can freely expand, which is anything that encounters NO RESISTANCE to it's energy/force.
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding. Fuel and oxidizer are burned at such a high rate that the expanding gasses are forced out of the chamber faster than they would normally escape if the combustion was not occurring. Think about a water hose. If the water pressure is low, then the water just dribbles out on its own and its easy to handle. Now if you add a high pressure pump, then the water is forced out quite vigorously and the hose becomes much harder to handle. Same thing with gasses in a rocket engine: low pressure = free expansion; very high pressure = thrust.
-
I can't believe how people disagree if rockets work in space. The simple fact is, if rockets do work in space the same as they do in Earths atmosphere, then space is simply not a vacuum as everyone thinks it is. It is comprised of something else that acts as an atmosphere of some sort. It is that simple.
-
I can't believe how people disagree if rockets work in space. The simple fact is, if rockets do work in space the same as they do in Earths atmosphere, then space is simply not a vacuum as everyone thinks it is. It is comprised of something else that acts as an atmosphere of some sort. It is that simple.
Or, maybe it doesn't matter to the rocket if space is a vacuum or not.
-
Simply stating that I do not understand the laws of physics does not make it so.
Peer-pressure, ridicule & dumb repetition will not change that.
Nor will it make rockets work in a vacuum.
Rayzor: you repeatedly proved earlier that you are unable to comprehend a simple sentence in English; why, then, should anyone take your word that you are able to comprehend simple laws of science written in the same language?
If you still believe that you have any credibility left in this thread then you are mistaken; but please continue with your contributions, as they provide valuable evidence to the neutral reader of the comprehensive moral & intellectual bankruptcy of your position.
Markjo: Yes; the 'combustion chamber' - this is where the reductio ad absurdum inevitably ends whenever this matter is discussed.
& I shall leave you to fester there, as I have no desire to debate whether the molecules therein can transfer momentum to the chamber walls or not.
Because it is utterly irrelevant.
The fact is that if any rocket nozzle is open to a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent - as is found in space - then Free Expansion will occur & no Work will be done.
This is very simple, basic science; yet you refuse to comprehend it.
Why?
I do not care.
Now: Hubbard (scientology founder); Parsons (JPL founder); Crowley (Black Magician) - what could possibly connect them?
-
I can't believe how people disagree if rockets work in space. The simple fact is, if rockets do work in space the same as they do in Earths atmosphere, then space is simply not a vacuum as everyone thinks it is. It is comprised of something else that acts as an atmosphere of some sort. It is that simple.
Or, maybe it doesn't matter to the rocket if space is a vacuum or not.
But apparently it DOES matter if the air pressure is so low at 120,000+ feet that the rockets will not ignite.
-
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding.
The only place you could get free expansion, hypothetically, is in a true vacuum.
Anything close to that does not allow FREE expansion, although it does allow a much faster expansion of gases against much less resistance of reactive pressure.
Fuel and oxidizer are burned at such a high rate that the expanding gasses are forced out of the chamber faster than they would normally escape if the combustion was not occurring.
Yes they are forced out faster. I agree, but the issue is about what's happening inside the chamber.
You see, the gases in a sealed chamber would expand and explode if there was no outlet. Like a handgrenade with the pin pulled out. It blows apart and throws shrapnel in ALL directions because the expansion of gases had no seperate outlet.
Now imagine that hand grenade having the pin pulled out but also having a large hole in the top. There's your rocket.
It ignites and expands, except that the expanded gases have an outlet and you would see a spray of burning gases and probably a handgrenade flapping about around the place as it hits ATMOSPHERE and exapnds it due to it's ejected HOT gases expanding the compressed (colder) air around it which reacts in qual measures to compress back, causing the hand grenade in the opposite direction to its ejected flame.
This is how a rocket works, except much more thrust. When I say rocket, I mean much smaller rockets than the ones we are bullshitted with, as in fantasy space rockets.
Think about a water hose. If the water pressure is low, then the water just dribbles out on its own and its easy to handle. Now if you add a high pressure pump, then the water is forced out quite vigorously and the hose becomes much harder to handle.
It becomes harder to handle because you are throwing much denser water at the atmosphere and the atmosphere is being compressed out of the way of the thrustng water. The atmosphere reacts in equal measures by squeezing back onto the water being ejected out of the hose and this is what pushes you back.
Think about it rationally.
If your hose was shooting out barbed wire water thn it would grip the inside of your hose and carry it forward not push it back against you.
Remember that water is moving forward pushed by the pump. The water in the hose cannot push back against you if it's being pushed forward.
The only way you can be pushed back is by the atmosphere friction gripping the more dense water to try and equalise the presasure put into it. Nature has to always equally react to an action in equal measures and it includes equalising pressures or attempting to.
As long as energy is applied against atmospheric pressure, then atmospheric pressure will always try to equalise against that energy by fricton squeezing it.
No different to a rocket burn, except for the actual means of expansion of atmosphere and energy applied.
Same thing with gasses in a rocket engine:
As above.
low pressure = free expansion; very high pressure = thrust.
Low pressure = low expansion; very high pressure = very high expansion as long as it's done in atmospheric conditons.
In your space, low pressure = free expansion; very high pressure = free expansion for anything sealed in a container against a vacuum of any pressure and allowed to be released. It would all be FREE EXPANSION.
-
You literally couldn't be more wrong.
In an atmosphere the expanding gas in the combustion chamber has to push against atmospheric pressure making it less efficient. In a vacuum the expanding gas is free to exit the combustion chamber to allow maximum efficiency.
The force pushing a rocket forward is the pressure of the combusting fuel and oxidiser in the combustion chamber, which is not in equilibrium due to the exit nozzle.
-
You literally couldn't be more wrong.
In an atmosphere the expanding gas in the combustion chamber has to push against atmospheric pressure making it less efficient. In a vacuum the expanding gas is free to exit the combustion chamber to allow maximum efficiency.
The force pushing a rocket forward is the pressure of the combusting fuel and oxidiser in the combustion chamber, which is not in equilibrium due to the exit nozzle.
Oh, I'm not wrong. I'm 100% correct. You, for some reason are just following protocol or being naive, whether deliberately or whatever.
You talk about something pushing against atmospheric pressure making it less efficient.
The whole purpose of the existence of anything is to push against resistance. No push against resistance means no life at all in any shape or form.
You just refuse to see it for whatever reason. All you're doing is aiding the lies and gaining nothing from it, because you can't call it knowledge when it's a complete lie unless you want to call your knowledge of fantasy, worthwhile.
-
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding.
The only place you could get free expansion, hypothetically, is in a true vacuum.
Anything close to that does not allow FREE expansion, although it does allow a much faster expansion of gases against much less resistance of reactive pressure.
Then I suppose that it's a good thing that outer space is not a true vacuum and this whole discussion is pointless.
-
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding.
The only place you could get free expansion, hypothetically, is in a true vacuum.
Anything close to that does not allow FREE expansion, although it does allow a much faster expansion of gases against much less resistance of reactive pressure.
Then I suppose that it's a good thing that outer space is not a true vacuum and this whole discussion is pointless.
The discussion is pointless for those who won't/refuse to understand that rockets will not work in space, whether it's a true vacuum or not by your accounts.
You seem to know that outer space is not a true vacuum for some reason. What reason would that be?
-
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding.
The only place you could get free expansion, hypothetically, is in a true vacuum.
Anything close to that does not allow FREE expansion, although it does allow a much faster expansion of gases against much less resistance of reactive pressure.
Then I suppose that it's a good thing that outer space is not a true vacuum and this whole discussion is pointless.
The discussion is pointless for those who won't/refuse to understand that rockets will not work in space, whether it's a true vacuum or not by your accounts.
You seem to know that outer space is not a true vacuum for some reason. What reason would that be?
Please tell me how a rocket would produce thrust by pushing against air without just making it circulate and fly around.
-
Here's what my logic tells me:
All of the mass (gas/liquid) in the system will move toward the opening. Nothing will push opposite the opening. The pressure inside the vessel will be reduced at a constant rate until all of the mass has exited.
What direction is the pressure remaining in the vessel pushing while the pressure is being reduced? Is all of the pressure directed only at the opening, or is it pushing against the chamber equally in all directions, including the opening?
No motion will occur as no external force has been applied, as per Newton's first law.
Again, I'm not worried about motion at this point. I'm only concerned with the balance of action/reaction forces.
The pressure will be the same at all points. If you start with 500psi, then release 100psi, you will now have a vessel pressurised to 400psi. You could have pressure gauges all around the vessel and they would all read the same (while the pressure is being released as well).
-
Somehow, a shrinking balloon 'proves' space travel; this is the depths to which the NASA-cultists are prepared to sink.
AGAIN, I ASK: WHAT WERE L RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER OF SCIENTOLOGY, JACK PARSONS, FOUNDER OF JPL, & ALEISTER CROWLEY, RENOWNED BLACK MAGICIAN, ALL DOING TOGETHER?
WHAT WAS THE 'BABALON WORKING'? WHAT WAS THE 'MOONCHILD' THEY TRIED TO CREATE?
Really; grow up, cultists.
-
Somehow, a shrinking balloon 'proves' space travel; this is the depths to which the NASA-cultists are prepared to sink.
AGAIN, I ASK: WHAT WERE L RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER OF SCIENTOLOGY, JACK PARSONS, FOUNDER OF JPL, & ALEISTER CROWLEY, RENOWNED BLACK MAGICIAN, ALL DOING TOGETHER?
WHAT WAS THE 'BABALON WORKING'? WHAT WAS THE 'MOONCHILD' THEY TRIED TO CREATE?
Really; grow up, cultists.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Well then, take your hands off your ears, open your eyes & use google like everybody else has, slowpoke...
Parsons, Hubbard & Crowley: all INVOKING things... What could that have been about?
-
Well then, take your hands off your ears, open your eyes & use google like everybody else has, slowpoke...
Parsons, Hubbard & Crowley: all INVOKING things... What could that have been about?
Do you realizes that anyone can post something on the internet, making it a horrible source of information? I never heared of any of the names you are talking about, because I simply don't care about some "cult" which I supposedly belong to.
-
The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not an environment where gas is freely expanding.
The only place you could get free expansion, hypothetically, is in a true vacuum.
Anything close to that does not allow FREE expansion, although it does allow a much faster expansion of gases against much less resistance of reactive pressure.
Then I suppose that it's a good thing that outer space is not a true vacuum and this whole discussion is pointless.
The discussion is pointless for those who won't/refuse to understand that rockets will not work in space, whether it's a true vacuum or not by your accounts.
You seem to know that outer space is not a true vacuum for some reason. What reason would that be?
Perhaps because the conspiracy has launched enough probes into space to study the how much of what gasses are in outer space.
-
Here's what my logic tells me:
All of the mass (gas/liquid) in the system will move toward the opening. Nothing will push opposite the opening. The pressure inside the vessel will be reduced at a constant rate until all of the mass has exited.
What direction is the pressure remaining in the vessel pushing while the pressure is being reduced? Is all of the pressure directed only at the opening, or is it pushing against the chamber equally in all directions, including the opening?
No motion will occur as no external force has been applied, as per Newton's first law.
Again, I'm not worried about motion at this point. I'm only concerned with the balance of action/reaction forces.
The pressure will be the same at all points. If you start with 500psi, then release 100psi, you will now have a vessel pressurised to 400psi. You could have pressure gauges all around the vessel and they would all read the same (while the pressure is being released as well).
Yes, the pressure would be equal all around the vessel, except for the one square inch hole. Since there is nothing there to oppose the pressure within the vessel, the forces are unbalanced resulting in a net force on the surface opposite the opening.
-
Markjo: combustion chamber LOL!
Also; so there IS a conspiracy?
Thanks for admitting that.
In fact, what 'the conspiracy' has done is to fire enough rockets upwards to know that they'll fall back down as soon as the atmosphere is too thin to support thrust, then thought 'meh; so what?' & given the go-ahead to con-men & cultists to rip-off feeble-minded sci-fi fans with s.f.x. nonsense.
It's not hard to see.
-
& quail: just lol.
Really.
lol.
-
papa legba, you are a troll. end of. you are pathetic. just fuck off already, no one is interested in a word you have to say, and you dragging out this bs thread for so long is just excruciating. no one gives a fuck what you are to stay, you are just a sad litle individual. even as a troll, just repeating yourself for over a dozen pages is just the product of a sick little mind.
you are pathetic.
some of us actually care about advancing flat earth theory. you however are just a grade a buffooon. you are dull, tedious, utterly uninteresting, and moronic. it is not often i agree with round earthers, but on this case it is clear.
you are a troll. you are a waste of time and of aether (or air as the scientifically illiterate call it). just leave. come back when you're remotely able to engage your brain, or at least when you're somewhat interesting.
you're pathetic. end of.
-
LOL!
I would report you for personal abuse, Jrowe, but your comments are just too funny & I want em to stand.
As evidence, like...
Cos you lot really do have NOTHING, do you?
Not.
A.
Sausage.
& you hate it!
Now; explain again how the combustion chamber of a choked-flow nozzle works...
In a vacuum!
ROFLCOPTER!!!!!
-
LOL!
I would report you for personal abuse, Jrowe, but your comments are just too funny & I want em to stand.
As evidence, like...
Cos you lot really do have NOTHING, do you?
Not.
A.
Sausage.
& you hate it!
Now; explain again how the combustion chamber of a choked-flow nozzle works...
ROFLCOPTER!!!!!
why? space travel is faked, that's a fact, but your arguments are grade a bullshit. stop wasting everybody's time you moronic waste of space.
-
Whatever; when you have anything to add beyond personal abuse then get back to me...
Til then - buh-bye!!!
P.s. what do YOU think Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley were doing, INVOKING things?
Just for laughs, like...
-
Whatever; when you have anything to add beyond personal abuse then get back to me...
Til then - buh-bye!!!
P.s. what do YOU think Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley were doing, INVOKING things?
Just for laughs, like...
no one gives a fuck what you think or what you have to say. just piss off already.
you are tedious. dull. frustrating. you are nothing except some sad pathetic idiot with nothing to do except type what you know is shit into a forum you care nothing about, and it's laughable due to how much time you've spent here. make you feel good, huh? typing out insults and wasting time for something you clearly care nothing about. must be the only place you can act tough. you have to be a real weakling in real life.
you do nothing except repeat yourself. people get bored of you, you find some new shit, then you repeat that. you're just a loser. so i really don't give a fuck what you're invoking or whatever it is that means you've decided to waste hours of your own time here. i have no desire to answer you, and no desire to stop insulting you, because this is precisely what you deserve.
you are a moron. a pathetic, sad little moron.
go fuck yourself.
-
Whatever; when you have anything to add beyond personal abuse then get back to me...
Til then - buh-bye!!!
P.s. what do YOU think Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley were doing, INVOKING things?
Just for laughs, like...
no one gives a fuck what you think or what you have to say. just piss off already.
you are tedious. dull. frustrating. you are nothing except some sad pathetic idiot with nothing to do except type what you know is shit into a forum you care nothing about, and it's laughable due to how much time you've spent here. make you feel good, huh? typing out insults and wasting time for something you clearly care nothing about. must be the only place you can act tough. you have to be a real weakling in real life.
you do nothing except repeat yourself. people get bored of you, you find some new shit, then you repeat that. you're just a loser. so i really don't give a fuck what you're invoking or whatever it is that means you've decided to waste hours of your own time here. i have no desire to answer you, and no desire to stop insulting you, because this is precisely what you deserve.
you are a moron. a pathetic, sad little moron.
go fuck yourself.
Strangely enough, I agree with you.
-
You really are getting desperate.
Aren't you?
I'll get back to you later, once you've all sobered up...
There will be a test, so don't forget to study!
-
papa legba, you are a troll. end of. you are pathetic. just fuck off already, no one is interested in a word you have to say, and you dragging out this bs thread for so long is just excruciating. no one gives a fuck what you are to stay, you are just a sad litle individual. even as a troll, just repeating yourself for over a dozen pages is just the product of a sick little mind.
you are pathetic.
some of us actually care about advancing flat earth theory. you however are just a grade a buffooon. you are dull, tedious, utterly uninteresting, and moronic. it is not often i agree with round earthers, but on this case it is clear.
you are a troll. you are a waste of time and of aether (or air as the scientifically illiterate call it). just leave. come back when you're remotely able to engage your brain, or at least when you're somewhat interesting.
you're pathetic. end of.
You speak for yourself. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of anyone who is dealing with their indoctrination. And for God's sake, learn how to capitilize letters. Is it laziness or a lack of education? I can't decide. Either way it makes you look stupid.
-
papa legba, you are a troll. end of. you are pathetic. just fuck off already, no one is interested in a word you have to say, and you dragging out this bs thread for so long is just excruciating. no one gives a fuck what you are to stay, you are just a sad litle individual. even as a troll, just repeating yourself for over a dozen pages is just the product of a sick little mind.
you are pathetic.
some of us actually care about advancing flat earth theory. you however are just a grade a buffooon. you are dull, tedious, utterly uninteresting, and moronic. it is not often i agree with round earthers, but on this case it is clear.
you are a troll. you are a waste of time and of aether (or air as the scientifically illiterate call it). just leave. come back when you're remotely able to engage your brain, or at least when you're somewhat interesting.
you're pathetic. end of.
You speak for yourself. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of anyone who is dealing with their indoctrination. And for God's sake, learn how to capitilize letters. Is it laziness or a lack of education? I can't decide. Either way it makes you look stupid.
Do you use the 12 step program in Indoctrinated Anonymous?
-
No-one has really dealt with my question re. Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley all INVOKING stuff; you can't just wish it away, you know?
So; exactly WHAT were two proven CULT-LEADERS |(& Jack Parsons, lol!) doing when they all hung out together?
-
No-one has really dealt with my question re. Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley all INVOKING stuff; you can't just wish it away, you know?
So; exactly WHAT were two proven CULT-LEADERS |(& Jack Parsons, lol!) doing when they all hung out together?
Being zealots together. Who cares?
-
AHA!!!
SO; Jack Parsons, founder of JPL, was a 'zealot', yes?
NOW we're getting somewhere...
The OTHER TWO zealots he hung out with founded CULTS; what, precisely, did Jack Parsons found?
Getting the picture yet, space-cultists?
-
papa legba, you are a troll. end of. you are pathetic. just fuck off already, no one is interested in a word you have to say, and you dragging out this bs thread for so long is just excruciating. no one gives a fuck what you are to stay, you are just a sad litle individual. even as a troll, just repeating yourself for over a dozen pages is just the product of a sick little mind.
you are pathetic.
some of us actually care about advancing flat earth theory. you however are just a grade a buffooon. you are dull, tedious, utterly uninteresting, and moronic. it is not often i agree with round earthers, but on this case it is clear.
you are a troll. you are a waste of time and of aether (or air as the scientifically illiterate call it). just leave. come back when you're remotely able to engage your brain, or at least when you're somewhat interesting.
you're pathetic. end of.
You speak for yourself. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of anyone who is dealing with their indoctrination. And for God's sake, learn how to capitilize letters. Is it laziness or a lack of education? I can't decide. Either way it makes you look stupid.
Do you use the 12 step program in Indoctrinated Anonymous?
I question everything, so therefore, I'm not indoctrinated. No steps required.
-
Everyone; you have made my night with your battiness; honestly, you are all hilarious.
Thank you.
When I return. I'd like to get back to my refutation of NASA's 'man on skateboard' false analogy, which none of you truly addressed.
We'll get there, eventually... You'll be cured, should you wish.
The door is always open.
-
Is there any particular reason this PAPA LEGBA person has not yet been banned by the moderators for consistently breaking the forum's rules?
Low content in upper forum; obscenities; flaming; repeatedly off-topic; personal insults and ad hominems; inflammatory language etc. Or is he/she one of the honoured few that the moderators encourage in order to inject a bit of controversy into the forums?
-
Here's what my logic tells me:
All of the mass (gas/liquid) in the system will move toward the opening. Nothing will push opposite the opening. The pressure inside the vessel will be reduced at a constant rate until all of the mass has exited.
What direction is the pressure remaining in the vessel pushing while the pressure is being reduced? Is all of the pressure directed only at the opening, or is it pushing against the chamber equally in all directions, including the opening?
No motion will occur as no external force has been applied, as per Newton's first law.
Again, I'm not worried about motion at this point. I'm only concerned with the balance of action/reaction forces.
The pressure will be the same at all points. If you start with 500psi, then release 100psi, you will now have a vessel pressurised to 400psi. You could have pressure gauges all around the vessel and they would all read the same (while the pressure is being released as well).
Yes, the pressure would be equal all around the vessel, except for the one square inch hole. Since there is nothing there to oppose the pressure within the vessel, the forces are unbalanced resulting in a net force on the surface opposite the opening.
It sounds like you have misunderstood Newton's third law. Let's call the mass inside the pressure vessel, body A.
I hope you are aware that that all that pressurised gas is a body, in itself, contained within the pressure vessel?
In order for Newton's third law to apply, body A must exert a force on another body, body B. We can now call the pressurised gas, body A, and the containing vessel, body B. The third law applies. The pressurised gas will apply a force to the vessel (which will be returned as long as it has been made correctly). As the mass of body A is reduced, the force applied to body B (the pressure vessel), is also reduced. Further, as body B is the body that is reducing the force on itself (through the opening) and the system as a whole, a reaction force is cancelled out.
But here is the thing. Even if a force were generated (which it isn't), the force would be purely internal and no motion would result. Newton wrote his first law to make that explicit.
-
I specifically said I didn't want to argue, because you seem to be very fixed in your opinion, and very likely you'll not agree with anything I could say. The point I was trying to establish is, what exactly is the basis of your understanding of why rockets don't work in space.
Free expansion is why they can't work in space. Free expansion is why they couldn't get too far up into the atmosphere, never mind what you believe space to be.
We've established that the central issue is the view that there is nothing for the rocket to push against. The laws of physics say that you don't need anything to push against.
If you disagree with the following, then just briefly say why and we leave it at that, we don't need to drag this out into a protracted argument that ultimately ends in insults.
The laws of physics aren't laws when dealing with this. It's the laws of lies or guesswork.
The fact that a person can't envisage himself being in a vacuum and unable to distinguish it from being at sea level doing his stuff; it's bound to sway a person towards the bogus physics laws.
If you do not have any resistive force to your energy, then you simply do not move, whether that's a person or a rocket.
Here's an experiment for you to try.
Tie a strong box from a rafter and you and a friend get inside of it and shut the lid.
Let's call the box the inside of your rocket chamber and you and your friend are the fuel mix.
You are sat above your friend. He can smell your arse and the crease of your ball sack through your khaki shorts but this is irrelevant, as it's just an occupational hazard.
Ok so you tell him to push down onto the bottom of the box.
He does this and realises that to break it he has to lever off of your arse whilst you have to lever your shoulders and head against the top of the box lid.
Let's assume that your box lid is solid and won't break.
Now your friend manages to break through his lid due to him squashing you. All you are doing is being jammed against your lid until he breaks his lid and falls out under the pressure he and you used as force.
He shoots out and hits the deck. Where are you?
You don't hit the ceiling do you? you drop out behind him like a limp dick because you both expended your energy pushing each otehr to break his lid and now you are left in the box for a sec after your friend smashes his face off the floor. Then you follow like a newly hatched chick falling from a nest onto your mate.
Imagine a cube shaped sealed metal box floating in the vacuum of space 1m x 1m x 1m and we have pressurized the box with air to 10 kg per square meter
The area of each of the sides of the cube is 1 square meter so there is 10 kg pressing from the inside on each side of the cube. Now we cut a 0.1 square meter hole in the bottom of the cube, so the bottom now has only 9kg pressing on it, but the top still has 10kg so there is 1kg force difference between the top and bottom, pushing the box upwards. And the box moves up. It doesn't need to push against anything.
I'll leave the equations for another day.
You lost your force when you cut the cube open. You lost it to free expansion.
Try and make things easier for yourself or you will get frustrated.
I don't know about anyone else, but if my physics text book had used words like "Arse" and "Ball Sack," I would have enjoyed the class a lot more!
-
It sounds like you have misunderstood Newton's third law.
Well, it's fairly obvious that at least one of us has and I don't think that it's me. :P
Let's call the mass inside the pressure vessel, body A.
I hope you are aware that that all that pressurised gas is a body, in itself, contained within the pressure vessel?
Agreed.
In order for Newton's third law to apply, body A must exert a force on another body, body B. We can now call the pressurised gas, body A, and the containing vessel, body B. The third law applies. The pressurised gas will apply a force to the vessel (which will be returned as long as it has been made correctly).
As the mass of body A is reduced, the force applied to body B (the pressure vessel), is also reduced.
So far, so good.
Further, as body B is the body that is reducing the force on itself (through the opening) and the system as a whole, a reaction force is cancelled out.
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
But here is the thing. Even if a force were generated (which it isn't), the force would be purely internal and no motion would result. Newton wrote his first law to make that explicit.
Actually, Newton's first law (inertia) specifically refers to bodies at rest or in uniform motion. In other words, in a state of equilibrium. A vessel under pressure with a hole in one end is most certainly not in a state of equilibrium.
-
Good vid scepti. The onlything that could be said of the demonstration is, the paper blocking the nozzle provides backward pressure cancleing the movement. I think if you put your hand near the nozzle as it is going, the car would go faster. IfI have time I will try it. That way it would show the pressurein back of the car was moving it, not just the air leaving the nozzle.
-
This guy has a kickstarter project to fund the experiment.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/62683336/propulsion-in-vacuum-experiment-to-debunk-prove-sp (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/62683336/propulsion-in-vacuum-experiment-to-debunk-prove-sp)
Mind you I think NASA has a bigger budget, bigger rockets and have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt many times already, but why not.
Speaking of rockets I came across an interesting documentary on the failed Russian N1 rocket project.
It was far more successful than it was originally thought in the west, Russian rocket engineering is still, even today years ahead of the technology of the USA.
(http://)
-
I don't know about anyone else, but if my physics text book had used words like "Arse" and "Ball Sack," I would have enjoyed the class a lot more!
And to top it all I was being polite and reasonable when he came back with that incomprehensible verbal barrage. I think it's just symptomatic of his mental condition.
-
Everyone; you have made my night with your battiness; honestly, you are all hilarious.
Thank you.
When I return. I'd like to get back to my refutation of NASA's 'man on skateboard' false analogy, which none of you truly addressed.
We'll get there, eventually... You'll be cured, should you wish.
The door is always open.
They are getting irritated because you're speaking the truth. They are desperately trying not to answer your last question because they know it leads to the little fantasy gathering of those employed to take away naive people's thoughts and gather them into cult groups.
It's no more than Werner Von Braun and Walt Disney, plus Arthur C Clarke , etc, have done over the years. Made people go all gooey eyed over space exploits and made them as believable as disney cartoons are for pre-school kids.
Let's face it, kids can go and meet astronauts at little space conventions just as asily as they can go and meet disney characters at disneyland.
All characters are made by the same kind of people. All fantasy.
When a kid can run up to a character inside a Mickey mouse suit and cuddle that character, not knowing what or who the hell is inside that suit and yet believing that it is actually Mickey mouse; it's no wonder how easly kids and even grown up's can be brainwashed into it all.
It's a simple play on our naive brains. We are all guilty of believing in fantasy as a truth on many occasions in life but it's about seeing past it and actually deciphering what is potentially real and what is plainly bullshit.
-
Is there any particular reason this PAPA LEGBA person has not yet been banned by the moderators for consistently breaking the forum's rules?
Low content in upper forum; obscenities; flaming; repeatedly off-topic; personal insults and ad hominems; inflammatory language etc. Or is he/she one of the honoured few that the moderators encourage in order to inject a bit of controversy into the forums?
If he gets banned they better ban every free thinker and just leave you bastards to duke it out with the remainihng flat Earther's who stay.
You people are like parasites. You use names for whatever topics as if you're duping people. How silly.
The fact that you people beg for bans is enough for anyone to see just what your game is. Shut down the forum or make it redundant because you see that too many people are waking up and getting a little bit close to the bone.
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.
1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room, the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.
Why does the balloon move? And why would it be any different in a vacuum.
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon, and the size of the flow restriction ( the neck ) or on a rocket it would be the nozzle. In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero. So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum, but not instantaneous. The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower, like a venturi.
Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.
1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room, the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.
Why does the balloon move? And why would it be any different in a vacuum.
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon, and the size of the flow restriction ( the neck ) or on a rocket it would be the nozzle. In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero. So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum, but not instantaneous. The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower, like a venturi.
Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.
I'm not talking about the balloon flying around the room. I'm talking about observing what happens only to the balloon, whilst the pressure is reduced. I've added that to step 2 as I hadn't explicitly written that.
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds, whilst holding the balloon.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. According to nasa, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
The above image is what markjo and yourself claim is happening. That can be disproven in five minutes. All of the air moves to the opening. There is no " opposite direction reaction" inside the balloon. The only reaction is the balloon contracts at the rate the air is released.
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
I'm not particularly smart, but if I hold the balloon's neck and let the air out, wouldn't the force of the exhaust be on my hand?
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?
Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?
Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.
A hand holding the balloon is irrelevant.
The concept that nasa rely on is that a force going one way, gives a reaction force going the other way. We are told (and shown) that the reaction force is on the opposite end of the balloon.
Therefore, in my experiment the held balloon should protrude at the unopened end while air is escaping. That is, unless you can explain another means by which the "reaction" force is applied?
-
A hand holding the balloon is irrelevant.
Why?
Therefore, in my experiment the held balloon should protrude at the unopened end while air is escaping.
Why? Not only should the balloon resist such an action (another action/reaction to take into account), not only is the interior of the balloon not perfectly still (so there will be no direct line through), but this is real life, not a smoothed-out diagram.
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?
Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.
...
The concept that nasa rely on is that a force going one way, gives a reaction force going the other way. We are told (and shown) that the reaction force is on the opposite end of the balloon.
...
The opposite reaction should be at the nozzle. The picture is simplified.
Anyways, the opposite reaction does happen.
(http://)
-
But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them. Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.
I must admit, hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.
You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?
Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.
A hand holding the balloon is irrelevant.
The concept that nasa rely on is that a force going one way, gives a reaction force going the other way. We are told (and shown) that the reaction force is on the opposite end of the balloon.
Therefore, in my experiment the held balloon should protrude at the unopened end while air is escaping. That is, unless you can explain another means by which the "reaction" force is applied?
The balloon is made of an elastic material that is returning to it's original, smaller size as the pressure is reduced. It's contracting equally all around.
And besides, the force being applied from the exhaust is acting on the balloon as a whole, trying to move the entire unit in the opposite direction of the thrust. A jet engine moves the plane forward because it's attached to the plane.
-
Legion, please tell me how a rocket engine could produce thrust by pushing against the atmosphere.
-
This is fantastic; you guys crack me up, honest!
Wasting a bank holiday weekend arguing with anonymous nobodies on the internet about shit nobody cares about; LOL!!!!
Rockets do not work in a vacuum; I'll take the word of military ROCKET ENGINEERS over NASA's Hollywood IMAGINEERS anyday.
Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley: WHAT were these cult-leaders all doing together again?
-
Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley: WHAT were these cult-leaders all doing together again?
Why don't you tell us? You're the one apparently obsessed with repeating yourself.
(Any evidence would be appreciated).
-
Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?
The doorway is open...
Honest; it is.
& everyone's welcome!
-
Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?
I'm not particularly interested in the topic, why would I spend time on it?
As you keep repeating the point, you must have a lot in support of it: more than I could come up with on the spot. Why don't you wow us all with the grand revelation, and all the evidence you have in support of it?
-
Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?
I'm not particularly interested in the topic, why would I spend time on it?
As you keep repeating the point, you must have a lot in support of it: more than I could come up with on the spot. Why don't you wow us all with the grand revelation, and all the evidence you have in support of it?
I am also not interested in the "blah blah space cultists" topic and it's just another stupid conspiracy theory. Why does it matter if someone I never heared about or from is in some cult that does not even have evidence pointing towards its existence.
-
Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?
The doorway is open...
Honest; it is.
& everyone's welcome!
tl;dr, Troll harder
-
Rockets do not work in a vacuum; I'll take the word of military ROCKET ENGINEERS over NASA's Hollywood IMAGINEERS anyday.
Which military rocket engineers say that rockets don't work in a vacuum? The ones who run the spy satellites?
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.
1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room, the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.
Why does the balloon move? And why would it be any different in a vacuum.
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon, and the size of the flow restriction ( the neck ) or on a rocket it would be the nozzle. In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero. So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum, but not instantaneous. The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower, like a venturi.
Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.
I'm not talking about the balloon flying around the room. I'm talking about observing what happens only to the balloon, whilst the pressure is reduced. I've added that to step 2 as I hadn't explicitly written that.
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds, whilst holding the balloon.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. According to nasa, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
The above image is what markjo and yourself claim is happening. That can be disproven in five minutes. All of the air moves to the opening. There is no " opposite direction reaction" inside the balloon. The only reaction is the balloon contracts at the rate the air is released.
Oh wow. This is almost a zigzag level of stupid.
-
Yes, isn't it, weatherwax?
Are you a 'zig' or a 'zag'?
-
Here is where we disagree. Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in2 and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi. This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied. Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium. Are we agreed so far?
Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side. Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches. This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium. Are we still agreed?
Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.
The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate, the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds ( 5000-4500) and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened. The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.
I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.
1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room, the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.
Why does the balloon move? And why would it be any different in a vacuum.
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon, and the size of the flow restriction ( the neck ) or on a rocket it would be the nozzle. In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero. So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum, but not instantaneous. The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower, like a venturi.
Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.
I'm not talking about the balloon flying around the room. I'm talking about observing what happens only to the balloon, whilst the pressure is reduced. I've added that to step 2 as I hadn't explicitly written that.
1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds, whilst holding the balloon.
3. Observe what happens.
Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. According to nasa, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.
(http://i.imgur.com/faqeCR0.gif)
The above image is what markjo and yourself claim is happening. That can be disproven in five minutes. All of the air moves to the opening. There is no " opposite direction reaction" inside the balloon. The only reaction is the balloon contracts at the rate the air is released.
Oh wow. This is almost a zigzag level of stupid.
If that's the case, you should be able to set me straight in no time. Use the balloon example to demonstrate the action/reaction.
-
Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?
All of them.
Try meeting a few; not that any of them would be comfortable speaking openly with a... 'thing' like you.
But you could try... LOL!
Oh, & the rest of you: meh... so you refuse to accept you're in a cult? No biggy; most cultists don't.
That's the nature of cults... Enjoy!
P.s. legion: forget it; they're too far gone. Balloons are the same as rockets to them, like Australia & ice-rinks are the same as space; what can you do?
Except LOL!!!
Have a good weekend.
-
Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION
The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION
I don't see what the problem is here.
-
Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION
The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION
I don't see what the problem is here.
Of course you don't. Have a look here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html)
This nasa page shows a simple experiment demonstrating Newton's third law. Below is the conclusion:
DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.
Of course I agree with this. However, in a vacuum there is no air, so what pushes back?
-
As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law...
NASA are mental.
& a cult.
Enjoy!
-
As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law.
What's wrong with that? The action of gravity is being counteracted by the force of the molecular bonding in the table, preventing the book falling through the table the ground.
-
LOL!
-
Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION
The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION
I don't see what the problem is here.
Of course you don't. Have a look here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html)
This nasa page shows a simple experiment demonstrating Newton's third law. Below is the conclusion:
DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.
Of course I agree with this. However, in a vacuum there is no air, so what pushes back?
That would be the air inside the balloon obviously. A balloon filled with air can be placed in a vacuum and the air released. The ejected air will cause the balloon to move forwards.
-
[
DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.
It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"
-
As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law...
So you're saying that the weight of the book does not apply a force to the table? ???
-
Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?
All of them.
What about the military rocket engineers at Space Command (http://www.afspc.af.mil/)?
-
Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?
All of them.
What about the military rocket engineers at Space Command (http://www.afspc.af.mil/)?
I think Papa Legless is thinking of the "rocket engineers" over in the psychiatric wing of his palatial country mansion, "the funny farm". Don't worry, the Doctors will be with him shortly.
Either that or he's been at the absinthe again.
-
Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!
Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.
& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.
Which is very dumb indeed; learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet? Seems not...
A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.
Rayzor; you're not very good at this, are you?
An adult literacy class may help.
Or a sense of humour.
BTW, where's Jroweskeptic gone? Now he was funny!
A tad confusing, though; I'd like to question him further on exactly what he meant by 'go fuck yourself'?
Honest; you guys are just a hoot!
Tatty-bye, NASA-cultists!
P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!
-
Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!
Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.
& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.
Which is very dumb indeed; learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet? Seems not...
A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.
Rayzor; you're not very good at this, are you?
An adult literacy class may help.
Or a sense of humour.
BTW, where's Jroweskeptic gone? Now he was funny!
A tad confusing, though; I'd like to question him further on exactly what he meant by 'go fuck yourself'?
Honest; you guys are just a hoot!
Tatty-bye, NASA-cultists!
P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!
The point of that post was? Content == Zero, Humor == Zero, Insults == Nothing new. What's with the fixation with Alistair Crowley? He was 2 bob short as I recall.
Your trolling is getting worse, I would not have said it's possible.
However, I'll throw you a safety line, maybe you can add some content to the discussion, ( albeit long overdue ). Who are these military rocket scientists that claim rockets don't work in space?
-
Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!
Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.
& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.
*sigh* Yes, despite your incredulity, Space Command is a real part of the US Air Force.
Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is a major command of the United States Air Force, with its headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. AFSPC supports U.S. military operations worldwide through the use of many different types of satellite, launch and cyber operations. Operationally, AFSPC is an Air Force component command subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), a unified combatant command.
More than 38,000 people perform AFSPC missions at 88 locations worldwide and comprises Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard military personnel, Department of the Air Force Civilians (DAFC), and civilian military contractors. Composition consist of approximately 22,000 military personnel and 9,000 civilian employees, although their missions overlap.
A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.
So you admit that you have no idea of how Newtonian mechanics work and it's a waste of time trying to explain? Got it.
P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!
What does dabbling in the occult have to do with how rockets work?
-
A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more.
That's just plain ignorant.
-
P.s. legion: forget it; they're too far gone. Balloons are the same as rockets to them, like Australia & ice-rinks are the same as space; what can you do?
I know right? We are too far gone. Once you use math and logic it's really hard to go back to becoming an ignorent biased fool.
None of us said that Austrailia and ice rinks are the same as space, if you actually bothered to read our posts you would know that they are analogies (sorry for using such big words, look it up if you don't know what it means).
-
stop arguing amongst yourselves. it's obvious papa legba is one of you, with nothing better to do than try to discredit flat earth theory. why do you waste time?
flat earth theory is a serious endeavor, and a great deal of work has gone into it. the fact you've all decided to ignore that and play about with a troll who has no original thought and no capability for anything remotely interesting or intelligent just speaks wonders about how pathetic and desperate you all are. you cannot face the fact round earth theory is dying so you distract yourself with the pile of bullshit papa legba is spewing.
legba, now. leave. if you're so idiotic you do not understand the truth and you'd rather waste time discrediting something that shouldn't affect you, you're a waste of space. you do not understand anything. you know nothing about flat earth theory, and you may well know nothing at all, you just repeat the same old things, most of which is bs.
just leave already.
-
stop arguing amongst yourselves. it's obvious papa legba is one of you, with nothing better to do than try to discredit flat earth theory. why do you waste time?
flat earth theory is a serious endeavor, and a great deal of work has gone into it. the fact you've all decided to ignore that and play about with a troll who has no original thought and no capability for anything remotely interesting or intelligent just speaks wonders about how pathetic and desperate you all are. you cannot face the fact round earth theory is dying so you distract yourself with the pile of bullshit papa legba is spewing.
legba, now. leave. if you're so idiotic you do not understand the truth and you'd rather waste time discrediting something that shouldn't affect you, you're a waste of space. you do not understand anything. you know nothing about flat earth theory, and you may well know nothing at all, you just repeat the same old things, most of which is bs.
just leave already.
The fact that we have a hard time telling trolls apart from actual flat earthers says a thing or two about FET.
-
Again: you have no evidence I am a flat-earther. Because you cannot read.
A book on a table demonstrates merely that a book is on a table; you not only cannot read but cannot think.
I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.
But if you think I'm naming any of them for you then you are even dumber than I thought.
Which is quite extraordinarily dumb; I mean, really, you have no idea...
Lastly: Jroweskeptic; I asked for an explanation of precisely what you meant by 'go fuck yourself'. With diagrams, please, if possible?
You are all a joke.
& everybody is laughing at you.
This thread alone demonstrates to the neutral reader how completely morally & intellectually bankrupt you are.
Now carry on, proving me right every single time you post.
-
A book on a table demonstrates merely that a book is on a table; you not only cannot read but cannot think.
Does the weight of a book produce a force on a table or doesn't it? It's a very simple question.
I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.
You showed no such thing. Air to air missiles are routinely fired from altitudes far above 10,000 feet.
Your source says:
The missile system can operate in temperatures up to ± 50°C and wind speeds up to 30m/s. Its maximum operating altitude above sea level is 3,000m.
There is more to the system than the missile itself.
-
Hello again, children; it's time for a story...
Once upon a time, there was a zen novice who was struggling to attain enlightenment.
His master suggested that the novice shut himself in his cell for a month & meditate on an Ox.
Nothing but an Ox.
At the end of the month, the master opened the cell door & asked the novice to come out.
'I can't.' replied the novice, 'My horns won't fit through the door!'
Now; I have repeatedly told you that I am here to Open Doorways.
Some lead to Freedom; others lead... elsewhere.
Yet you resolutely refuse to enter them.
Why?
Because your horns won't fit through the door.
Space-horns, for Space-believers!
lol!
-
I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.
Can you point out where the specs in the Buk M2E article show that it relies on atmospheric pressure to work? I gives target ranges, a max altitude you can shoot it off from, but I didn't see anything about atmospheric pressure range.
I probably missed it. Could you point it out?
-
I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.
Can you point out where the specs in the Buk M2E article show that it relies on atmospheric pressure to work? I gives target ranges, a max altitude you can shoot it off from, but I didn't see anything about atmospheric pressure range.
I probably missed it. Could you point it out?
It doesn't it was just diversionary tactic by that creepy little forum troll, the cancerous Papa Legbefore
-
Hello again, children; it's time for a story...
Once upon a time, there was a zen novice who was struggling to attain enlightenment.
His master suggested that the novice shut himself in his cell for a month & meditate on an Ox.
Nothing but an Ox.
At the end of the month, the master opened the cell door & asked the novice to come out.
'I can't.' replied the novice, 'My horns won't fit through the door!'
Now; I have repeatedly told you that I am here to Open Doorways.
Some lead to Freedom; others lead... elsewhere.
Yet you resolutely refuse to enter them.
Why?
Because your horns won't fit through the door.
Space-horns, for Space-believers!
lol!
Maybe my horns are what's preventing me from going into a prison instead of getting out.
-
[
DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.
It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"
If that were the case, you would have no movement. Think about it. Anyway, time for a physics lesson that you can try at home:
Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.
If any of the space adventure believers has an experiment to prove their "rockets push themselves along" beliefs, the go ahead and post it. Indoctrination and appeals to common sense(!) don't count.
-
It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"
Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.
-
It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"
Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.
Why would you think the air doesn't push on the opening? Did you not watch the physics video I linked?
Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.
So in the case of the balloon, the higher speed, lower pressure air (relative to the stationary air in the room) coming out of the balloon, causes the atmosphere to push on the balloons opening and thereby creates a net force from the higher to lower pressure gradient.
This causes the balloon to move.
What have you got for anyone to test?
-
It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"
Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.
Why would you think the air doesn't push on the opening? Did you not watch the physics video I linked?
Because an opening is nothing. How can something push on nothing?
Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.
So in the case of the balloon, the higher speed, lower pressure air (relative to the stationary air in the room) coming out of the balloon, causes the atmosphere to push on the balloons opening and thereby creates a net force from the higher to lower pressure gradient.
This causes the balloon to move.
What have you got for anyone to test?
Although Bernoulli's principle does occur in the nozzle section of a balloon, unbalanced action/reaction forces also occur and must be accounted for.
-
To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.
So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!
-
To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.
So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!
Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.
Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.
-
To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.
So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!
Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.
Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.
Ha ha.. Welcome to sceptimatic's low cost space program. Replacing the Delta 4 heavy with a bottle rocket. Seems an appropriate comparison between Flat Earth and Round Earth. And here's a hint, the flat earth space program is NOT the Delta 4.
I was looking at the sister site earlier today, and there were some interesting observations about sceptimatic.
Tom Bishop thought sceptimatic was actually Eric Dubay.
Thork says, "Sceptimatic just talks bollocks. And lots of it."
I agree with Thork, he seems the brightest of the bunch over there. As for Tom Bishop thinking sceptimatic was Eric Dubay, I'm not sure who ought to be more insulted. If Eric Dubay's videos are any guide, he is as dumb as they come, and sceptimatic is not far away.
Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun? I mean seriously ... that's as idiotic as it comes.
-
Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun? I mean seriously ... that's as idiotic as it comes.
Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.
-
To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.
So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!
Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.
Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.
Ha ha.. Welcome to sceptimatic's low cost space program. Replacing the Delta 4 heavy with a bottle rocket. Seems an appropriate comparison between Flat Earth and Round Earth. And here's a hint, the flat earth space program is NOT the Delta 4.
I was looking at the sister site earlier today, and there were some interesting observations about sceptimatic.
Tom Bishop thought sceptimatic was actually Eric Dubay.
Thork says, "Sceptimatic just talks bollocks. And lots of it."
I agree with Thork, he seems the brightest of the bunch over there. As for Tom Bishop thinking sceptimatic was Eric Dubay, I'm not sure who ought to be more insulted. If Eric Dubay's videos are any guide, he is as dumb as they come, and sceptimatic is not far away.
Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun? I mean seriously ... that's as idiotic as it comes.
You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. ;D
-
Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.
Ah, ok, get a piece of paper, draw a circle on it representing the sun. Now draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper, are those lines parallel?
Now look at Eric Dubay's video again showing the sun coming through the clouds, he says that the rays of the sun should be parallel if the sun is far away, and because they aren't parallel, he concludes the sun must be just above the clouds.
(http://)
He is just wrong. And I believe deliberately misleading. No one could be that stupid.
-
You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. ;D
Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is. Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.
PS. Tom Bishop was wrong, Eric Dubay you ain't dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.
-
You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. ;D
Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is. Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.
PS. Tom Bishop was wrong, Eric Dubay you ain't dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.
Your other names are just as horrble. Try one with a dfferent persona, you pleb.
-
You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. ;D
Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is. Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.
PS. Tom Bishop was wrong, Eric Dubay you ain't dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.
Your other names are just as horrble. Try one with a dfferent persona, you pleb.
So now that we have the insults out of the way, what is it about rockets in space that is your biggest concern. Is it that you don't accept the physics, or is it that you don't understand it.
-
Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.
Ah, ok, get a piece of paper, draw a circle on it representing the sun. Now draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper, are those lines parallel?
If we are drawing cartoons, wouldn't you have to include a cloud in that drawing with a small gap in the cloud. Then the sun shining toward that gap with the light coming through the gap to all points around the edge of the paper?
Something smells fishy here.
-
Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.
Ah, ok, get a piece of paper, draw a circle on it representing the sun. Now draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper, are those lines parallel?
If we are drawing cartoons, wouldn't you have to include a cloud in that drawing with a small gap in the cloud. Then the sun shining toward that gap with the light coming through the gap to all points around the edge of the paper?
Something smells fishy here.
You could put a cloud in there if you like, it's your drawing, but it still won't make the rays of the sun parallel, they will still radiate outwards from the sun.
-
Well you should have finished your drawing by now, so now look at Eric Dubay's video where he claims the diverging rays prove the sun is just above the clouds?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/4895/2fWj2z.png)
All that proves is that he thinks his audience are easily fooled idiots, ( or he is )
That screen grab is 2 minutes into this video (http://)
-
Markjo: so; you admit that I DID NOT 'miss out a zero' in my interpretation of the BuK missile data?
Nor did I confuse 'maximum operational launching altitude' with 'maximum operational ceiling'.
Ergo; either you were wrong, or you lied.
Just making that clear before we carry on...
Now; of course the stats of the BuK don't state that it pushes on air, you dim-wits; why should they?
& besides, have you never heard of the Official Secrets Act?
Honestly; you are an embarrassment.
But they DO state that it will not take off above 3000 metres; now why should this be so?
All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?
The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.
& don't mention the Trident; that's as fake as tits on a bull too.
Thus, even at sea-level the BuK is teetering on the verge of being unable to achieve launch velocity; in the rarefied air above 3000 metres altitude it has no chance.
Why?
BECAUSE IT RELIES ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, YOU IDIOTS.
It's really very simple; you just have to apply a bit of logic. Besides which, all the facts on the matter have been known since at least the 1920s.
Well; to real rocket designers, that is...
But not to NASA-cultists.
Why?
Because they have reptiles in their minds, & their space-horns won't fit through the door.
LOL!
P.s. Rayzor/ausGeoff: you are just SO bad at this.
But keep it up; we all need the laughs.
Hubbard, Crowley & Parsons; CULT-LEADERS all!
-
Why do water rockets work better when you put water in them, opposed to just air?
-
Markjo: so; you admit that I DID NOT 'miss out a zero' in my interpretation of the BuK missile data?
Nor did I confuse 'maximum operational launching altitude' with 'maximum operational ceiling'.
Ergo; either you were wrong, or you lied.
To be honest, I checked a different source that listed the performance specs of the missile itself, not the support system.
Just making that clear before we carry on...
Now; of course the stats of the BuK don't state that it pushes on air, you dim-wits; why should they?
& besides, have you never heard of the Official Secrets Act?
Why would the US need to keep Russia's "Official Secrets"?
But they DO state that it will not take off above 3000 metres; now why should this be so?
No, they didn't say that. They said:
The missile system can operate in temperatures up to ± 50°C and wind speeds up to 30m/s. Its maximum operating altitude above sea level is 3,000m.
Do you not understand the difference between a missile system and a missile? I'll give you a hint: one is a part of the other.
All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?
Who said that the rest of the system is capable of working at higher altitudes? So you have a source that you would be willing to share with the rest of the class?
Why is the maximum operating altitude of the system 3000 meters? I honestly don't know. I don't have any personal experience with that system, and I'm guessing that you don't either. However, I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that humans have a harder time breathing above 10,000 feet.
The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.
& don't mention the Trident; that's as fake as tits on a bull too.
Okay, then how about the MX missile? Or the Minuteman III? How about the SA-2?
Thus, even at sea-level the BuK is teetering on the verge of being unable to achieve launch velocity; in the rarefied air above 3000 metres altitude it has no chance.
Why?
Citation, please. I've seen videos of BuKs launching just fine.
BECAUSE IT RELIES ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, YOU IDIOTS.
It's really very simple; you just have to apply a bit of logic. Besides which, all the facts on the matter have been known since at least the 1920s.
None of that explains why air to air missiles can be launched at altitudes much higher than 3000 meters.
-
All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?
The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.
Nice of you to confirm that your ignorance of rocket engineering extends to solid fuel rockets. You really need to do your research. Go look at APCP rocket design criteria.
While we are talking Russian surface to air operational altitude limits, what use would a surface to air missile system be that couldn't shoot down a Cessna 150, because it couldn't reach that high. For god's sake keep it to yourself, we wouldn't want Putin to know about the fatal weakness in his air defence capability.
Which prompts me to ask how high was MH17 flying when it was shot down by a Buk operated by Russians operating in Eastern Ukraine?
Even the amateur's manage to get APCP rockets past 120,000 ft http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html (http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html)
-
Even the A-Darter co-produced by Brazil and RSA gets fired from 13 700m. The A-Darter is the short range version.
I am no longer sure why rocket height is still an argument if you are prepared to believe anything at all.
There are loads and loads of examples of rockets going really really high . . . even to space ;D
-
You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.
Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.
But you're too stupid to realise that.
I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.
You'll hate it!
Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?
Just LOL!!!
-
You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.
Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.
But you're too stupid to realise that.
I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.
You'll hate it!
Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?
Just LOL!!!
Que?
-
Hey Pappa Legba, here is the differences between NASA rockets and missiles:
NASA rockets use multiple stages.
NASA rockets use more efficient liquid fuel instead of solid fuel.
NASA rockets go slowly in the lower atmosphere and start gaining speed once they get enough altitude that aur friction won't be a probelem.
-
You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.
Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.
But you're too stupid to realise that.
I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.
You'll hate it!
Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?
Just LOL!!!
Que?
Weird. Maybe he finally blew a fuse?
-
I fail to see how attempting to invent more efficient ways of space travel is 'not owning a spaceship'.
All experiments have the possibility of failure. You see all these failings on the news because debris from an exploded rocket gets plenty of news coverage. Mainstream media sources find success in science to be boring, simply because explaining it is so difficult to uneducated simpletons like OP.
The success of NASA rockets it not just a humanity-level achievement, it's a galactic achievement. Proving that we could get to the moon was the first step in a beautiful future of inter-stellar travel.
-
While it is true most do not own spaceships, I know for a fact that some of us do in fact own one, and have for some time.
-
The Jetsons are irrelevant. They're still above the planet's surface, and they only have flying cars because they have to.
-
The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.
But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).
Whatever; all that's par for the course here.
But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...
So keep it up!
Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.
Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.
Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.
Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.
& that is LOL!!!
-
But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).
I already told you that I have no personal experience with the Buk system so I don't know why it's limited to 10,000 feet. If you want know the reason, then I suggest that you contact a Buk crew member or the manufacturer. Maybe the GM-569 diesel powered chassis is the limiting factor. Truck engines have to breathe too, you know.
Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.
Should we expect questions like: what do man portable anti-tank rockets have to do with not being able to own a space ship?
-
The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.
But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).
Whatever; all that's par for the course here.
But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...
So keep it up!
Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.
Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.
Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.
Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.
& that is LOL!!!
Bazookas? I think he might have lost the plot. Time to call in Gag Halfrunt?
Why did you sidestep the question about MH17?
-
Bazookas? I think he might have lost the plot.
Agreed. What does a bazooka have to do with space ships?
(http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/465/bob_burns.jpg)
-
The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.
But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).
Whatever; all that's par for the course here.
But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...
So keep it up!
Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.
Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.
Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.
Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.
& that is LOL!!!
Is there any particular reason this juvenile troll hasn't yet been banned? ::)
-
Is there any particular reason this juvenile troll hasn't yet been banned? ::)
(https://sidoxia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pot-kettle-black.jpg)
-
Uh..... When have I called you a troll BJane? In actuality, I don't believe you are. No need for apologies. :P
-
Hey Pappa Legba, here is the differences between NASA rockets and missiles:
NASA rockets use multiple stages.
NASA rockets use more efficient liquid fuel instead of solid fuel.
NASA rockets go slowly in the lower atmosphere and start gaining speed once they get enough altitude that aur friction won't be a probelem.
What do thunderbird rockets use? please don't say they aren't real.
-
Uh..... When have I called you a troll BJane? In actuality, I don't believe you are. No need for apologies. :P
...How could you possibly get that from what I said?
-
One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.
This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.
This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.
The atmosphere has mass (stick your hand out of a car window at 80mph for a demonstration of how much).
Ergo my explanation for how a rocket works, i.e. by pushing on an outside mass, has definitive evidential proof.
Now show me similar proof for yours & NASA's explanation.
Go on; shouldn't be too hard should it?
P.s. ausGeoff: LOL!!! You wish!
P.p.s. Markjo: double-LOL!!! Off you go, Mr. 'Awesome'...
-
go fuck yourself.
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
-
Yes; Jrowedodgy; do you agree with my post on 'backblast' proving rockets thrust on an outside mass or not?
You wouldn't be TROLLING, would you?
Someone did that with a false analogy about Australia earlier; you, however, seem to prefer a cruder method...
Whatever; stay on topic, everyone: I have provided proof for my claims of how rockets function; can you provide similar proof for NASA's explanation?
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
...You know he's a FEer, right?
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
...You know he's a FEer, right?
Yes, I do.
-
Bijane: So he claims...
But so what? We simply want to know how he interprets the laws of physics regarding rocketry.
Perfectly simple question, no need to rush to your latest flame's aid; when we need comedy gold we'll let you know.
Now buzz off back to Australia.
Unless you have evidence to prove NASA's rocketry claims versus mine?
Nah; didn't think so; off to Australia with you.
Next!
-
One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.
This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.
This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.
I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/vs5Bf.jpg)
-
One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.
This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.
This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.
Float behind a rocket in space and you'd see the same effect. The bazooka doesn't get any additional thrust from you begin knocked A over T 20 ft behind the rocket, at which time the rocket is a mile away in the oopposite direction. Jrowe, had the right activity planned for you.
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.
He's not a flat Earther and neither are you. You're a pretender and were under your other names; "iwanttobelieve" being the stand out one until you retired it a whle back. You were just as nasty in that name, acting like a fanny.
The thing is; what Papa is saying, goes against mainstream lies and yet you seem to have a problem with it whilst trying to push your stuff onto others.
You're a game player who likes to play them all, except those that are in on the carry on, like some flat earther's.
I've seen this crap before on a good few occasions.
-
go fuck yourself.
What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?
i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.
He's not a flat Earther and neither are you. You're a pretender and were under your other names; "iwanttobelieve" being the stand out one until you retired it a whle back. You were just as nasty in that name, acting like a fanny.
The thing is; what Papa is saying, goes against mainstream lies and yet you seem to have a problem with it whilst trying to push your stuff onto others.
You're a game player who likes to play them all, except those that are in on the carry on, like some flat earther's.
I've seen this crap before on a good few occasions.
i still have no idea who that is. pay attention.
i don't give a damn about taking sides, i am here for the sake of the truth. you are a liar, pap smear is a liar, and you are open about it. what he posts is clear bs intended to take attention away from honest theories, and focus it on his absurd idiocy and tedious behavior. some of us care about this site. you are clearly one of those who do not.
i have a problem with people spreading lies for the sake of discrediting a serious movement. you fall into that category. your model is one of the biggest piles of shit i have ever seen, and everyone knows it: even you have to know it by now, and you don't even go through the motions of improving it. you are a moron.
i am here for the sake of the truth. all you are capable of is lies, so i will call you and your ilk out all i want.
-
I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/vs5Bf.jpg)
Um, bad news. That photo? It's from an example of when they successfully propelled a boat with a fan on it. (http://)
-
I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/vs5Bf.jpg)
Um, bad news. That photo? It's from an example of when they successfully propelled a boat with a fan on it. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo)
Lol they got going 3 mph, at that rate they'll be to the moon in 3000 years. Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?
-
Work in a vacuum? It hardly worked on water and the only reason it did was because the fan had an open back to push air through to the sail which counter-acted it which is why it went as slow as it did.
It's as effective as trying to row a boat suspended from a crane.
-
Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?
No, there's no air for it to use. That's why rockets don't use propellors.
-
Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?
No, there's no air for it to use. That's why rockets don't use propellors.
Good point. Propellers are a lot more efficient than rockets, which is why rocket engines are only used for certain things within the atmosphere.
-
Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.
-
Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.
Well, it's kinda hard to say that you're wrong when you're that ambiguous.
-
Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.
Well, it's kinda hard to say that you're wrong when you're that ambiguous.
You don't get more out than what you put in, basically.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
You sound as if you are confusing conservation of energy with efficiency.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
You sound as if you are confusing conservation of energy with efficiency.
I'm not confusing anything. I've told you exactly what I mean.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.
I'm talking about only getting out of something what you put into it, pound for pound.
I'm not talking about petrol v diesel and what not.
I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.
-
"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.
It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.
Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.
I'm talking about only getting out of something what you put into it, pound for pound.
I'm not talking about petrol v diesel and what not.
I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.
Can you state an example?
-
I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.
That's not efficiency. Efficiency is about how much of the right kind of energy you get out. Yes, you'll get the same amount of energy total out, but that's not really relevant: only some of it can be used for the relevant process, so only some of it counts towards efficiency.
-
I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.
That isn't efficiency, that's the first law of thermodynamics.
In the case of propellers vs rockets, a propeller driven airplane is more efficient because it can go a lot farther than a rocket driven airplane on the same amount of fuel. This is why you don't see rocket powered airliners.
-
To get back to my question, which you all ignored except for markjo, who posted a photo of a pimped-up sail-boat for some bizarre reason:
I have provided solid evidence that a rocket can thrust against an outside mass.
The atmosphere has mass.
Ergo a rocket can thrust against the atmosphere.
Now; please provide similar evidence for your & NASA's claim that a ROCKET (NOT a boat, markjo!) pushes, not on the atmosphere, but ONLY ON ITSELF.
I'm waiting...
-
I would like to see the proof that rockets will even ignite higher than 200,000 feet.
-
If space was truly a vacuum, as soon as the valves opened to feed the fuel and oxidizers to the combustion chamber, all the liquid would get sucked out into the 'vacuum' of space.
-
I would like to see the proof that rockets will even ignite higher than 200,000 feet.
watch any rocket flight then
-
iWitness: I'd say it depends on what type of rocket is used & how low the atmospheric pressure is at 200,000 feet.
Hypergolic liquid-fuelled rockets should be able to function, though whether they'd create useful thrust is open to question.
The same goes for most types of modern solid-fuel rockets.
Non-hypergolic liquid-fuelled rockets are another matter, but as they are mainly fantasy items I'd not bother too much with them.
There is a chance that Free Expansion would occur, or even that the fuel tanks would explode, if atmospheric pressure was low enough though.
Now: does anyone have solid, real-world evidence that NASA's rockets work as they claim, by 'pushing on themselves'?
You know, the phrase 'pushing on themselves' is so laughable when thought about logically that I'll use it a lot from now, until the absurdity of it sinks in...
By the same logic, I should be able to grab myself by my ear & simply lift myself up to space!
Sadly, I can't... so Zero evidence for the space-cultist's model so far eh?
Pythagoras: if you cannot work out that most 'space-rocket' launches are either completely sfx, or that the rocket trajectory reaches apogee at an altitude far too low for it to achieve orbit, then you are out of your depth here.
Go learn how these things work, then return.
Or just remove your space-horns & enter the door marked 'Freedom'...
-
Il make the decision on me being in or out of my depth thank you very much. Have you ever seen a rocket launch in person just out of curiosity?
-
Fine; you make that decision. Good for you.
But I'll make the decision on whether you've provided similar evidence for NASA's rocketry model that I have for mine.
& I've decided that you have NOT.
So off you go & find some; you won't get it at one of their rocket launches though, much as you may wish it so..
-
Have you ever watched a launch in person?
-
Papa Legba, what do you expect would happen if a light object and a heavy object were to push away from each other in a zero G vacuum like space?
-
You speak of TWO objects pushing on each other.
But a rocket is ONE object.
What, then, is the SECOND object against which the rocket pushes?
Oh dear! Painted yourself into a corner here, haven't you?
-
You speak of TWO objects pushing on each other.
But a rocket is ONE object.
What, then, is the SECOND object against which the rocket pushes?
Oh dear! Painted yourself into a corner here, haven't you?
The second object is the exhaust.
-
So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?
What are you trying to say here?
-
So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?
What are you trying to say here?
It's interesting (and embarrassing) that—like many flat earthers—you seem to have no idea at all as to the forces acting on a rocket.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Rocket_thrust.svg/768px-Rocket_thrust.svg.png)
Rocket thrust is caused by pressures acting
on both the combustion chamber and nozzle
The mistake that you all make is erroneously assuming that the rocket's exhaust has to "push" against something—such as air. This is easily disproved by the fact that rockets work in the (near) vacuum of space.
-
I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.
Two down; next?
Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.
Just pure belief.
Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...
Why is evidence "pure belief"? Do you feel the same about everything you have not witnessed first hand?
No ,but I dont go round premoting hear say ether . If I haven't personally experienced it ,then it remains hear say until verifiable by my reasoning not simply more hear say .
-
To get back to my question, which you all ignored except for markjo, who posted a photo of a pimped-up sail-boat for some bizarre reason:
I have provided solid evidence that a rocket can thrust against an outside mass.
The atmosphere has mass.
Ergo a rocket can thrust against the atmosphere.
Now; please provide similar evidence for your & NASA's claim that a ROCKET (NOT a boat, markjo!) pushes, not on the atmosphere, but ONLY ON ITSELF.
I'm waiting...
If was standing behind a rocket, which way would the back blast push me? Towards the rocket or away from the rocket?
-
Ausgeoff: Nice drawing.
Shame it proves nothing.
Also a shame that you are yet another entity who cannot distinguish between Words & Reality.
I demonstrated, through the back-blast of man-portable rockets, clear evidence that a rocket exhaust will thrust against a mass placed behind it.
The atmosphere has mass.
Ergo, rockets can push on the atmosphere.
There are many videos available of just such an occurrence, & every person with any military knowledge or experience reading this thread will know that what I say is true.
Now: please provide similar evidence of a rocket 'pushing on itself'.
Not drawings & pompous bluster; not boats with fans on the back; not false analogies...
CLEAR, DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT ROCKETS PUSH ONLY ON THEMSELVES.
-
So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?
What are you trying to say here?
It's interesting (and embarrassing) that—like many flat earthers—you seem to have no idea at all as to the forces acting on a rocket.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Rocket_thrust.svg/768px-Rocket_thrust.svg.png)
Rocket thrust is caused by pressures acting
on both the combustion chamber and nozzle
The mistake that you all make is erroneously assuming that the rocket's exhaust has to "push" against something—such as air. This is easily disproved by the fact that rockets work in the (near) vacuum of space.
No your making the assumption thats whats assumed. The rocket propels its self by displacing matter . http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/Images/newton3r.gif (http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/Images/newton3r.gif)
Wrong
For every action , there is an equally & opposite reaction ,applied to the point of equlibreum.
-
Yes for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mass leaves the rocket in one direction so the rocket moves in the other. Glad you agree.
-
So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?
What are you trying to say here?
Not quite. You do remember what old man Newton said about forces creating equal and opposite reactions, don't you? Just think of it as the rocket engine throwing exhaust gasses out the back. Since the exhaust gasses have mass, the force that pushes those gasses out the back of the engine also produces an equal and opposite reaction pushing the rocket forwards.
-
Ausgeoff: Nice drawing.
Shame it proves nothing.
Also a shame that you are yet another entity who cannot distinguish between Words & Reality.
I demonstrated, through the back-blast of man-portable rockets, clear evidence that a rocket exhaust will thrust against a mass placed behind it.
The atmosphere has mass.
Ergo, rockets can push on the atmosphere.
There are many videos available of just such an occurrence, & every person with any military knowledge or experience reading this thread will know that what I say is true.
Now: please provide similar evidence of a rocket 'pushing on itself'.
Not drawings & pompous bluster; not boats with fans on the back; not false analogies...
CLEAR, DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT ROCKETS PUSH ONLY ON THEMSELVES.
Sure, momentum physics on vacuum seems to be my most recurring argument against antiscience on this forum. I can take this dance. See this video?
(http://)
On it, a compressed air rocket is fired on a vacuum. It produces thrust. Care to explain?
-
Wrong, Sokarul; engaged in your own little 'war on science' are you?
Newtons 3rd does apply to rockets, but NASA have moved the action/reaction pairing back a step so that it is somehow halfway inside & halfway outside of the rocket.
The correct placement for the action/reaction pairing is between where the exhaust column strikes an outside mass & the base of the rocket.
Really; it's pretty simple stuff, & what's more the phenomenon of back-blast provides clear, demonstrable evidence for my reasoning.
I have yet to see any of you provide evidence of similar quality for your notion that a rocket 'pushes on itself'.
Please do so.
-
Wrong, Sokarul; engaged in your own little 'war on science' are you?
Newtons 3rd does apply to rockets, but NASA have moved the action/reaction pairing back a step so that it is somehow halfway inside & halfway outside of the rocket.
The correct placement for the action/reaction pairing is between where the exhaust column strikes an outside mass & the base of the rocket.
Really; it's pretty simple stuff, & what's more the phenomenon of back-blast provides clear, demonstrable evidence for my reasoning.
I have yet to see any of you provide evidence of similar quality for your notion that a rocket 'pushes on itself'.
Please do so.
In order to succesfully analyze rockets, you must step back from the point of view of force, into the momentum analisys. Keeping in mind conservation of momentum, think about this: you have a very masive cilinder on space, that rapidly loses mass in a direction. That mass is expelled at velocity v. What happens to the cilinder?
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-in-Explosions (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-in-Explosions)
-
The exhaust has left the rocket, how can it then apply a force to make the rocket move?
Here is a mobile link to a video that demonstrates what really happens.
They use a medicine ball because it's heavier. If they used a balloon of same volume it would not be the same effect. You can do this experiment yourself. I await your rebuttal.
(http://)
-
Conker: I have already seen that video; it ended up having all the comments deleted, then disabled, because people were laughing at it so much.
I invite every reader to watch it & judge for themselves its worth as evidence; cos if that's the best you can do I'd say you're in a lot of trouble.
As for my being 'anti-science, I am not; I am anti-scientism.
Big difference.
Now, provide me with some real, clear & demonstrable evidence of a rocket 'pushing on itself'.
Also; what use is momentum without any initial velocity? As a rocket cannot achieve velocity without an outside mass to thrust against, then any talk of momentum with regard to a rocket in a vacuum is moot.
But I know where you're trying to go with this; we'll get there eventually.
& make poor old Isaac spin in his grave in doing so...
Sokarul: I already destroyed that false analogy earlier in this thread; go back & find it. If you are incapable of that, I will be glad to repeat myself as neutral readers will find it useful in battling space-cultists.
Whatever; back to my point: evidence, please!
-
I'm at the bar watching hockey. Enlighten me. I would love to read how you disproved an experiment anyone can do. I'll wait.
-
Conker: I have already seen that video; it ended up having all the comments deleted, then disabled, because people were laughing at it so much.
I invite every reader to watch it & judge for themselves its worth as evidence; cos if that's the best you can do I'd say you're in a lot of trouble.
As for my being 'anti-science, I am not; I am anti-scientism.
Big difference.u
Now, provide me with some real, clear & demonstrable evidence of a rocket 'pushing on itself'.
Also; what use is momentum without any initial velocity? As a rocket cannot achieve velocity without an outside mass to thrust against, then any talk of momentum with regard to a rocket in a vacuum is moot.
But I know where you're trying to go with this; we'll get there eventually.
& make poor old Isaac spin in his grave in doing so...
Sokarul: I already destroyed that false analogy earlier in this thread; go back & find it. If you are incapable of that, I will be glad to repeat myself as neutral readers will find it useful in battling space-cultists.
Whatever; back to my point: evidence, please!
Great post, friend! You managed to wrote a longer post than mine, yet not a single argument is contained on it. Now, tell me, what is the inicial velocity of the pieces of a bomb? Or a cannon that recoils backwards? What the rocket does is expel lots of gas very fast, which causes the rocket to recoil on the opposite direction fast. Explain why doesnt this work in a vacuum. If your post is going to be "but rockets.cant achieve ignition pressure on a vacuum", I suggest you take innertia and injection pressure into account. If your post is going to be "vacuum is a perfect isolator, no spark can occur!", I will inform you that neither vacuum is a perfect isolator, nor the inside of a working rocket chamber is a vacuum (with all that fuel going around)
-
It's obvious that any logical attempts to explain the relatively simple principles of rocket dynamics—to these flat earthers—is falling on deaf ears or dull-witted minds LOL. Any high-school kid studying science would be able to explain it knowledgeably and convincingly.
And poor old Charles Bloomington has completely misinterpreted the rocket diagram he linked to..... as is his usual MO. It actually proves neatly what we round earthers have been trying to explain all along.
(http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/Images/newton3r.gif)
—I'm still laughing! ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mass leaves the rocket in one direction so the rocket moves in the other. Glad you agree.
If evey action had an equal & oppersite reaction . There would be no acting .
-
Sokarul: Yes; you will wait.
Conker: & so will you. Try learning the difference between an 'insulator' & an 'isolator' while you do so.
ausGeoff: Fail LOL.
Goodnight.
-
Actually when you walk you are acting on the earth equal and oppositely. But you know, the earth has a tad bit more mass.
-
Yes for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mass leaves the rocket in one direction so the rocket moves in the other. Glad you agree.
If evey action had an equal & oppersite reaction . There would be no acting .
Equal force doesnt mean equal action. Kicking a ball causes the same force on your leg and the ball. Try kicking a football. Try kicking a cannon ball.
Sokarul: Yes; you will wait.
Conker: & so will you. Try learning the difference between an 'insulator' & an 'isolator' while you do so.
ausGeoff: Fail LOL.
Goodnight
Well excuuuse me, princess. Im not a native speaker. I can engage in relativelly complex conversation on english, yet my two native languages keep getting on the way from time to time. You still didnt answer me. A simple "I guess you are right" would have sufficed.
-
Actually when you walk you are acting on the earth equal and oppositely. But you know, the earth has a tad bit more mass.
demonstrate your point of equlibreum. In other words your point of resistance. Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
-
Newtons 3rd does apply to rockets, but NASA have moved the action/reaction pairing back a step so that it is somehow halfway inside & halfway outside of the rocket.
If there is no action/reaction going on in the rocket's combustion chamber, then what exactly is going on in there?
The correct placement for the action/reaction pairing is between where the exhaust column strikes an outside mass & the base of the rocket.
How exactly is the exhaust column acting/reacting with the base of the rocket? A diagram might be helpful.
I have yet to see any of you provide evidence of similar quality for your notion that a rocket 'pushes on itself'.
The rocket doesn't "push on itself". The the action of exhaust gasses being pushed out of the back of the combustion chamber produces a reaction that pushes the rocket forwards. How many times do you have to be told that before you finally get it straight?
-
Sokarul: Yes; you will wait.
Conker: & so will you. Try learning the difference between an 'insulator' & an 'isolator' while you do so.
ausGeoff: Fail LOL.
Goodnight.
Please explain to me word by word how a rocket can push away air AND produce thrust like that. How would the force be transferred to the rocket?
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
-
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Get a long neck in ya.
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Not only your point has nothing to do with what we were discussing, you are wrong.
(http://)
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
What your really saying is you have created a resistance an equal opposite reaction heating up the finals & burning them out .
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
What your really saying is you have created a resistance an equal opposite reaction heating up the finals & burning them out .
No. That is not what Im saying. Im saying that wrong lenghts of antenna cause resonance mismatch, which causes current blowback (current flowing backwards, not current disipating as in resistance).
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Not only your point has nothing to do with what we were discussing, you are wrong.
(http://)
Have to sign into veiw it . No wet pen no signing in . So you will run me through the importance of this clip & my wrong .
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
What your really saying is you have created a resistance an equal opposite reaction heating up the finals & burning them out .
No. That is not what Im saying. Im saying that wrong lenghts of antenna cause resonance mismatch, which causes current blowback (current flowing backwards, not current disipating as in resistance).
Church it up anyway you like bud . You just proved my case.
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Not only your point has nothing to do with what we were discussing, you are wrong.
(http://)
Have to sign into veiw it . No wet pen no signing in . So you will run me through the importance of this clip & my wrong .
I didnt have to, but ok. The video contains some idiots pouring distilled water on a plate, setting up some metal things for spark effects, putting their hand on it, then firing a taser. Nothing happens. Then salt water is added. Guess what happens?
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
What your really saying is you have created a resistance an equal opposite reaction heating up the finals & burning them out .
No. That is not what Im saying. Im saying that wrong lenghts of antenna cause resonance mismatch, which causes current blowback (current flowing backwards, not current disipating as in resistance).
Shit don't try to get Blooming Charlie to understand rf resonance or complex numbers, give us a break.
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Not only your point has nothing to do with what we were discussing, you are wrong.
(http://)
Have to sign into veiw it . No wet pen no signing in . So you will run me through the importance of this clip & my wrong .
I didnt have to, but ok. The video contains some idiots pouring distilled water on a plate, setting up some metal things for spark effects, putting their hand on it, then firing a taser. Nothing happens. Then salt water is added. Guess what happens?
high currant electricity means its high in amperage , not voltage. There is no such thing as 100% purewater . Its a solvent , which makes it impossable to achieve .
-
Show me the equal & opposite reation with two cans tied to a length of stretched string. The sound wave travels along the string to the other end .where is the opposite reaction ?
Sound waves are transmitted along the string via vibration. When a vibration nodule suffers a force in a direction that makes it vibrate in that direction, the nodules directly after and below are vibrating on the opposite direction. The rapid succession of changing forces ensues a zero net force. This is the reason why antennas only work on specific lenghts, if the lenght does not have a matching number of nodules, there is a force mismatch, and the curent will blow back on the amplifier, potentially blowing it up. Im not kidding.
What your really saying is you have created a resistance an equal opposite reaction heating up the finals & burning them out .
No. That is not what Im saying. Im saying that wrong lenghts of antenna cause resonance mismatch, which causes current blowback (current flowing backwards, not current disipating as in resistance).
Shit don't try to get Blooming Charlie to understand rf resonance or complex numbers, give us a break.
jrowesceptic you really need to see a dr for that schizophrenia . Would you like my card , I could book you in for that lobotomy next turdsday .
-
Every action having an equally & opposite reaction is nonsense .with out a point of epulibreum.A resistance.
Why?
Directions of force . Example tuning fork .Example , two blocks of tool steel same mass & weight, one then tempered . When impacted together. The reaction is not equal & opposite, point of equlibreum is in a different location . Change in resistance. Theses are just two of hundreds of examples .
You are adding other forces, to a partially inelastic impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision)
Try again. The equations are still derived from newtonian motion.
& your talking shit. Your newton hypothesis is based on a fictional purity that does not exsist. Exsample chemically h2o on the chalkboard is a none conductor of electricity. The problem with that understanding is, fantasy hypathetical chalkboard pure h2o dosen't exsist. All water (h2o) contains impurities , so I wouldn't go phucking around water with high currant electricity believing the chalk board version .
Not only your point has nothing to do with what we were discussing, you are wrong.
(http://)
Have to sign into veiw it . No wet pen no signing in . So you will run me through the importance of this clip & my wrong .
I didnt have to, but ok. The video contains some idiots pouring distilled water on a plate, setting up some metal things for spark effects, putting their hand on it, then firing a taser. Nothing happens. Then salt water is added. Guess what happens?
high currant electricity means its high in amperage , not voltage. There is no such thing as 100% purewater . Its a solvent , which makes it impossable to achieve .
Actually, V = I*R. High current over a resistance means high voltage. Nothing to do with my point, nevertheless, since a taser is (mostly) an imperfect constant voltage generator. With respect to "there is no 100% purewater", correct. However, 99,9999999999999% water is. That means 0,000000000001% * K conductivity. Not even vacuum is a perfect insulant. However, the loss of electric current through such a medium makes current enter the real of static, not current, charges. Such comparativelly low voltage (200kv?) can't provide percepible current through such a high resistance (Ultra high distilled water has about 18 MΩ·cm resistivity, which would mean that I = 200kv /(18 MΩ * 10 cm) = aprox 1 mA ; but its clear that the liquid they are using is cleaning distilled water, not ultra high quality pure water)
-
Way out west where the injin's roam , l road my pony to the rodeo.
I wore my chapps & l wore my spurs , danced around with all those pretty girls.
Drank corn whiskey till the sun went down , thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
Till they stuck me on that bull, o' what a fool. Mumma please get me out of here. ;D
Ba de ba de ba de ba thats all folks.
-
Way out west where the injin's roam , l road my pony to the rodeo.
I wore my chapps & l wore my spurs , danced around with all those pretty girls.
Drank corn whiskey till the sun went down , thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
Till they stuck me on that bull, o' what a fool. Mumma please get me out of here. ;D
Ba de ba de ba de ba thats all folks.
QED
-
Conker ?lol not today cowboy , your bull got the better of ya.
-
thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
More poetry. I bet you looked good in that gingham dress, too!
-
Way out west where the injin's roam , l road my pony to the rodeo.
I wore my chapps & l wore my spurs , danced around with all those pretty girls.
Drank corn whiskey till the sun went down , thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
Till they stuck me on that bull, o' what a fool. Mumma please get me out of here. ;D
Ba de ba de ba de ba thats all folks.
QED
Now, you've done it, You've broken Charles.
-
Wow, this discussion is getting a long way away from not owning a space ship.
-
thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
More poetry. I bet you looked good in that gingham dress, too!
Well its not the best thing in the world to type with, screens small letters are worn off the keys.
In saying that , I'm trully grateful to have been given it & the 2Gig a month by a kind soul.
So whats your problem ? Am I not worthy to post on the same forum as you ? Should I not participate because you feel some how repulsed by my presents & a need to belittle me .?
-
Beth Hart - A Change Is Gonna Come (Rockpalast): (http://)
-
thought I was the best dame cowboy in town.
More poetry. I bet you looked good in that gingham dress, too!
Well its not the best thing in the world to type with, screens small letters are worn off the keys.
In saying that , I'm trully grateful to have been given it & the 2Gig a month by a kind soul.
So whats your problem ? Am I not worthy to post on the same forum as you ? Should I not participate because you feel some how repulsed by my presents & a need to belittle me .?
No, no... some simple errors, and the images they conjure up, are just too good to pass up!
It was meant as a good-natured jab, and I do enjoy the poetry (really!) I should have followed the remark with a wink ;), but thought that would ruin it.
Sorry. :-[
-
I should have followed the remark with a wink ;), but thought that would ruin it.
Umm.. you do realize that winking at Charles wearing a gingham dress might be open to misinterpretation. ;D
I don't mind the poetry either, nice change of pace.
-
For my first official post I'm just going to leave this right here...
http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/space/one-step-closer-to-commercial-human-spaceflight-nasa-awards-first-mission/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=MythBusters (http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/space/one-step-closer-to-commercial-human-spaceflight-nasa-awards-first-mission/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=MythBusters)
-
Yes its all fantastic, here's the fight crew
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Lost_In_Space.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Lost_In_Space.jpg)
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
Nasa has enough money to pull it off.
the bright thing that you supposedly see or other people see is a shooting star.
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
Nasa has enough money to pull it off.
the bright thing that you supposedly see or other people see is a shooting star.
A shooting star with a periodically know pattern, that never actually falls down to earth, and can be seen through a telescope to something resembling the ISS
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
Did you know that there are actors who exist in the world? They are paid to make you believe things that are not real. The people involved in the space adventures are simply acting in a long running soap opera. Characters come and go, but the narrative endures. Idiots like you think you'll one day be up there with them! But your mistake is to mistake fantasy for reality. Sad really, but expected of those with feeble minds.
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
-
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?
-
Legion,
You can see where the ISS is here:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/ (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
Next time it's passing over where you live (at night) just look up. It's very easy to see.
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
Its no different to the implamenting of agenda 21, that has taken place since 1992 .By thousands of secretive group members . Same deceptive lying deal as NASA.
-
Anyone considering owning a Spaceship should first of all check the brakes and how they are functioning. Is it the pedal in the middle? And how do they work?
Heat-shield and air brakes. Pretty simple stuff, however all the pedals are used to control the rudder. You should consider getting a ride on a space ship, commercial space travel is a quickly growing industry. Speaking of which, how is that possible if space travel is not real? You might as well be selling tickets to Narnia and somehow tricking people into thinking they have actually been there.
Or you buy people to say they were in space
And don't forget to buy the people who hide them while they say they're in space. You'll also need to buy people to say they sent them to space. You still need to buy flight-qualified hardware and people to say it went into space.
This is quickly getting pretty expensive so someone can not go to space.
What is that bright fast-moving thing that looks like the ISS, in exactly the location the ISS is supposed to be? Has everyone who says they have seen it been bought, too? Where's my check?
Did you know that there are actors who exist in the world? They are paid to make you believe things that are not real. The people involved in the space adventures are simply acting in a long running soap opera. Characters come and go, but the narrative endures. Idiots like you think you'll one day be up there with them! But your mistake is to mistake fantasy for reality. Sad really, but expected of those with feeble minds.
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
Rockets have been proven to work in vacuum, so your argument on that topic has failed. http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
what evidence do you have to support your assertion that the ISS is fake? In simple terms, it's time to put up or shut up.
-
What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the ISS is fake?
The ISS is not really a Spaceship (topic) but rather a satellite orbiting Earth. I think the ISS is just a big silver balloon sent up by NASA to impress the sheeple. Nobody is there.
I have of course seen pictures/videos of Spaceships visiting the ISS, i.e. the various US Shuttles all is fake! Why?
Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.
-
Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.
Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud. It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works. If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.
-
Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.
Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud. It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works. If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.
I have my doubts about landing Spaceships on Earth, e.g. the Shuttle. If you ask NASA for details they will tell you that their Shuttles used their rocket engines to slow down from 7 500 m/s to some lower speed - the Shuttles were flying backwards - and then they flipped 180° to nose forward to allow for acrobatic flying braking by a pilot using some wing flaps - like a plane. It doesn't sound realistic.
And NASA cannot say how much fuel is used to brake, etc, etc. According NASA the Shuttle is virtually empty up at the ISS - only bringing some crew, waste and some research stuff back. No fuel! So how did they brake and land?
-
Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.
Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud. It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works. If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.
I have my doubts about landing Spaceships on Earth, e.g. the Shuttle. If you ask NASA for details they will tell you that their Shuttles used their rocket engines to slow down from 7 500 m/s to some lower speed - the Shuttles were flying backwards - and then they flipped 180° to nose forward to allow for acrobatic flying braking by a pilot using some wing flaps - like a plane. It doesn't sound realistic.
Apparently you are ignorant of reaction control thrusters as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Shuttle_front_RCS.jpg)
(http://www.zerognews.com/galleria/images/shuttle/sts-39/10064166.jpg)
And NASA cannot say how much fuel is used to brake, etc, etc. According NASA the Shuttle is virtually empty up at the ISS - only bringing some crew, waste and some research stuff back. No fuel! So how did they brake and land?
Apparently you don't understand that the OMS engines had a separate fuel supply from the main engines.
These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS systems both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems.[4] When full, the pods together carried around 8,174 kilograms (18,021 lb) of MMH and 13,486 kilograms (29,732 lb) of N2O4, allowing the OMS to produce a total of around 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s) of delta-v with a 65,000-pound (29,500 kg) payload.[4][5]
-
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?
You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.
If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.
And that's not good enough.
-
markjo, I was going to reply something similar, but you did a better job :)
Something I was wondering about, do people here know how to use google? Or do they think searching on the internet is means asking simple questions on forums and getting answers there?
Not saying people should not ask, but at least try.
-
Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.
Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud. It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works. If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.
I have my doubts about landing Spaceships on Earth, e.g. the Shuttle. If you ask NASA for details they will tell you that their Shuttles used their rocket engines to slow down from 7 500 m/s to some lower speed - the Shuttles were flying backwards - and then they flipped 180° to nose forward to allow for acrobatic flying braking by a pilot using some wing flaps - like a plane. It doesn't sound realistic.
Apparently you are ignorant of reaction control thrusters as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Shuttle_front_RCS.jpg)
(http://www.zerognews.com/galleria/images/shuttle/sts-39/10064166.jpg)
And NASA cannot say how much fuel is used to brake, etc, etc. According NASA the Shuttle is virtually empty up at the ISS - only bringing some crew, waste and some research stuff back. No fuel! So how did they brake and land?
Apparently you don't understand that the OMS engines had a separate fuel supply from the main engines.
These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS systems both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems.[4] When full, the pods together carried around 8,174 kilograms (18,021 lb) of MMH and 13,486 kilograms (29,732 lb) of N2O4, allowing the OMS to produce a total of around 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s) of delta-v with a 65,000-pound (29,500 kg) payload.[4][5]
No, I am fully informed about the Shuttle ... except how to brake. The average Shuttle has mass 78 000 kg and velocity 7 500 m/s in orbit around Earth at 400 000 m altitude. How to slow down and land it?
NASA says you start flying nose backwards and fire your rocket engines to slow down. But there is no fuel for it!
Then you arrive at 100 000 m altitude, where the atmosphere starts to heat you up by friction and your velocity has increased!!
What do you do now?
You flip 180° over into a nose forward position and dip down. But you are at 8000 m/s velocity!
How to brake?
NASA says acrobatic flying will slow you down.
With a 78 000 kg Spaceship? To land?
Sorry. I wonder what NASA twerp has made this Shuttle shit up?
Any ideas?
-
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?
You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.
Instead of listening to my description what I saw, you're telling me what I saw, even though you didn't see it? Lack of evidence hasn't ever kept you from saying whatever you want any other time. At least you're consistent.
If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.
And that's not good enough.
Meh. Nothing I do is going to be good enough for you. You'd still have nothing but my word, since there's no way to prove that I took it, and that I hadn't photoshopped it. As I recall, someone here did show their photos of the ISS and it was met with exactly the reaction expected: denial and complaints that they weren't very sharp. Unfortunately, I can't find the post and don't remember whose it was.
You could see it yourself, which might be good enough, but you won't. To do so takes knowledge, effort, and curiosity. All of which you lack.
-
Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.
Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?
You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.
Instead of listening to my description what I saw, you're telling me what I saw, even though you didn't see it? Lack of evidence hasn't ever kept you from saying whatever you want any other time. At least you're consistent.
If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.
And that's not good enough.
Meh. Nothing I do is going to be good enough for you. You'd still have nothing but my word, since there's no way to prove that I took it, and that I hadn't photoshopped it. As I recall, someone here did show their photos of the ISS and it was met with exactly the reaction expected: denial and complaints that they weren't very sharp. Unfortunately, I can't find the post and don't remember whose it was.
You could see it yourself, which might be good enough, but you won't. To do so takes knowledge, effort, and curiosity. All of which you lack.
So in light of all that, why do you bother? You freely admit that no "evidence" you offer will be conclusive or even worthy of consideration.
What is your purpose in presenting your anecdotal "evidence?" Is it a religious conviction perhaps...?
I think many of you on here are far worse than people like iWitness. iWitness always gives a frame of reference (scripture) to justify his beliefs. What do you offer? Your popular beliefs? Well, your beliefs are handed to you from mainstream science which changes all the time.
Come back when you have something worthy of debate.
-
So in light of all that, why do you bother? You freely admit that no "evidence" you offer will be conclusive or even worthy of consideration.
He was commenting more on your capacity to have a serious conversation than the worth of his evidence. Sorry you missed that.
What is your purpose in presenting your anecdotal "evidence?" Is it a religious conviction perhaps...?
What do you think?
I think many of you on here are far worse than people like iWitness. iWitness always gives a frame of reference (scripture) to justify his beliefs. What do you offer? Your popular beliefs? Well, your beliefs are handed to you from mainstream science which changes all the time.
Come back when you have something worthy of debate.
Oh my. You have banished him. Whatever shall he do?
-
No, I am fully informed about the Shuttle ... except how to brake.
Evidently you aren't fully informed, otherwise you wouldn't need ask how the shuttle brakes.
The average Shuttle has mass 78 000 kg and velocity 7 500 m/s in orbit around Earth at 400 000 m altitude. How to slow down and land it?
Like I told you, by firing the OMS engines to put you into an orbit that intersects the atmosphere.
NASA says you start flying nose backwards and fire your rocket engines to slow down. But there is no fuel for it!
Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.
Then you arrive at 100 000 m altitude, where the atmosphere starts to heat you up by friction and your velocity has increased!!
What do you do now?
You flip 180° over into a nose forward position and dip down. But you are at 8000 m/s velocity!
No, you flip back over to nose forward before you start hitting the atmosphere.
How to brake?
Friction from the atmosphere. How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in?
NASA says acrobatic flying will slow you down.
Citation, please. I don't think that NASA ever said that.
With a 78 000 kg Spaceship? To land?
Yes, that's pretty much the point of making a reusable shuttle.
Sorry. I wonder what NASA twerp has made this Shuttle shit up?
Any ideas?
The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.
-
Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.
...
The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.
-
Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.
...
The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.
Or... You made the mistake. Hmmm, who made the mistake? The guy who misuses basic engineering terminology like speed/velocity or mass/weight; the same guy who does not know how to properly apply the rocket equation? Or the guys who have a proven track record of building machines that work and provide documentation to bear that out?
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
-
Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.
...
The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.
It hardly needs to slow down at all to deorbit, it hardly takes any fuel.
-
Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.
...
The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.
You don't need to slow the shuttle down completely in order to land- you only need to slow it down to where its orbit intersects the atmosphere. That cuts more the 85% of the energy required.
How can you deny space travel so outright yet you obviously are completely ignorant about its most basic concepts?
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
-
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Let's recall some of your words :
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.
Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?
-
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Let's recall some of your words :
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.
Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?
What are you about?
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.
On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc.
I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.
-
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Let's recall some of your words :
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.
Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?
What are you about?
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.
On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc.
I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.
Why would the rocket be surrounded by exhaust gases?
The exhaust would be ejected at speed x, whilst the rocket would be travelling at speed y. Speed x will always be greater than y so the exhaust gases will travel away from the rocket.
-
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Let's recall some of your words :
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.
Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?
What are you about?
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.
On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc.
I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.
Nice deflection. Can you just answer clearly to my questions ?
Do you still believe that the Tsiolkovsky equation does not work with decelerating bodies ?
Why don't you use you world class energetic equation to get the results ?
-
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
Not if you enter the proper reentry corridor at the right speed and align your heat shield properly.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
Ummm... You understand that 5m/s2 is about 1/2 g of deceleration, don't you? You probably experience more than that when you slam on the brakes in your car.
-
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Let's recall some of your words :
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.
Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?
What are you about?
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.
On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc.
I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.
Why would the rocket be surrounded by exhaust gases?
The exhaust would be ejected at speed x, whilst the rocket would be travelling at speed y. Speed x will always be greater than y so the exhaust gases will travel away from the rocket.
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
Do we know if Heiwa actually has a degree in Marine Engineering, or is it Marine Architecture? This claim alone makes it clear that he doesn't understand vector addition, which is the basis for any kind of engineering. Or maybe he really was an engineer once (possibly even a good one) but now he's going senile. Poor dear.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
That's called diverting the question, you didn't know about free return trajectories, aerobraking, gravity assist orbits. Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.
You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn, and then when shown that it does, you start a diversion. You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
That's called diverting the question, you didn't know about free return trajectories, aerobraking, gravity assist orbits. Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.
You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn, and then when shown that it does, you start a diversion. You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.
Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
That's called diverting the question, you didn't know about free return trajectories, aerobraking, gravity assist orbits. Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.
You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn, and then when shown that it does, you start a diversion. You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.
Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.
Here's a really simple question for you Anders, what do you understand by the term "escape velocity".
-
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on. The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down.
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
(https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
That's called diverting the question, you didn't know about free return trajectories, aerobraking, gravity assist orbits. Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.
You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn, and then when shown that it does, you start a diversion. You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.
Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.
Here's a really simple question for you Anders, what do you understand by the term "escape velocity".
Easy. It is the velocity that your Spaceship (topic) needs to get away from Earth to explore the Universe. If you cannot attain that speed, you will not get away from Earth, so you cannot explore the Universe. You can at one "escape velocity" reach the Moon and another, bigger, planet Mars, i.e. you really go fast ... but you cannot ever stop or brake.
-
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on. The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down.
What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?
-
Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.
If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s. How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down? ???
When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.
That's called diverting the question, you didn't know about free return trajectories, aerobraking, gravity assist orbits. Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.
You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn, and then when shown that it does, you start a diversion. You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.
Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.
Here's a really simple question for you Anders, what do you understand by the term "escape velocity".
Easy. It is the velocity that your Spaceship (topic) needs to get away from Earth to explore the Universe. If you cannot attain that speed, you will not get away from Earth, so you cannot explore the Universe. You can at one "escape velocity" reach the Moon and another, bigger, planet Mars, i.e. you really go fast ... but you cannot ever stop or brake.
Escape velocity is completely dependent on the body of which you are escaping... If I reach escape velocity around Earth, I will still be orbiting the Sun. If I reach the Sun's escape velocity (I can still be near Earth) then I will be orbiting the Galaxy.
-
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on. The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down.
What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?
What about it?
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
(https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
7 500 m/s is speed at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.
I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.
-
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on. The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down.
What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?
What about it?
They indicate they had to turn and twist up, down, right, left in order to slow down their 78 tons Spaceship during reentry. Fantastic guys. While the wife of one of them were shot at, blowing half her brain away, at some street meeting at Arizona. Anything happens in USA according to media.
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png (https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
7 500 m/s is speed at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.
I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.
Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.
First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.
Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.
Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.
-
Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on. The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down.
What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?
What about it?
They indicate they had to turn and twist up, down, right, left in order to slow down their 78 tons Spaceship during reentry. Fantastic guys.
As I've mentioned before, the reaction control system is a number of small rockets used to steer the shuttle when aerodynamic forces are not available. What is so fantastic about that?
While the wife of one of them were shot at, blowing half her brain away, at some street meeting at Arizona. Anything happens in USA according to media.
Please refrain from such irrelevant, off topic and offensive comments. They do nothing to support your argument and make you look like an insensitive clod.
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
7 500 m/s is speed at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.
I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.
Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.
First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.
Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.
Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.
Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
7 500 m/s is speed at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.
I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.
Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.
First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.
Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.
Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.
Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.
Awww, it's too complicated to you therefore it's fake?
That's adorable.
-
Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.
Computer programmers make computer programming look easy even though computers are among the most complicated devices ever built by man. What's your point?
-
But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.
Please show your calculations to justify your assertion. How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?
I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET) :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2,800 m/s. m1 = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!
Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.
Read my comment above.
Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.
NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/s². No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5) . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!
It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?
(https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png)
Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.
7 500 m/s is speed at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.
I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.
Those tiles form the heat shield. Since the Shuttle was a spaceplane, it could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle. This allowed for the protection to be usable again, since it didn't ablate, but the tiles were indeed inspected after each mission. The hard part of spaceships isn't thrusting. It's keeping the equipment working on a very high-temperature, 4-degrees-above-absolute-zero temperature, high-shock, high-vibration, high-radiation, low pressure, high pressure ambient. All while keeping cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.
Second, the escape velocity is the speed needed to obtain a orbit whose apogee is on the infinite, not the speed needed for a Hohmann transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity)
Also, correct, you have a higher orbital speed on your perigee than in your apogee. This is a consequence of the vis-viva equation, which is a nice simplification in orbital mechanics for the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy and viceversa.
For example, lets use it on the comet Halley. We know that its aphelion is at 35.1 AU, and its perihelion is at 0.6 AU, with a semi-major axis on its orbit of 17.8 AU
The speed at the perihelion = ~54000 m/s
The speed at the aphelion = ~800 m/s
When you aproach the perihelion to start aerobraking, of course your speed increases respect the aphelion.
-
So: with the phenomenon of 'back-blast', I gave indisputable, verifiable real-world proof that the Action of a rocket exhaust will create a Reaction against an outside mass.
Thus showing solid evidence that the action/reaction pairing necessary to fulfil Newtons 3rd & produce thrust can be created outside the rocket.
Ergo: No outside mass, No reaction.
& as there is no outside mass in a vacuum, then no thrust can be produced.
Q.E.D.
You, however, in defence of your own & NASA's concept of how a rocket works (i.e. 'it pushes on itself'; LOL!!!), provided ZERO similarly indisputable, verifiable real-world evidence.
Instead, you offered drawings, a photo of a fan on a boat & yet more false analogies.
Oh, & some 'thought experiments'... LOL!!!
Basically, you got NOTHING.
Plus, none of you have been to space yet, have you?
Yeah; I ain't forgot that either!
Looks like it's Two-Nil to Papa Legba...
However, I'll give you a chance; here's a question for all you Rocket Experts: does the exhaust of a rocket provide any propulsive thrust at all once it has left the nozzle?
Go ahead, Experts; enlighten me!
-
So: with the phenomenon of 'back-blast', I gave indisputable, verifiable real-world proof that the Action of a rocket exhaust will create a Reaction against an outside mass.
No, you didn't. You just think that you did.
-
So; denying reality now, Markjo?
Fair enough; play it like that then.
I doubt neutral readers will believe you though; especially anyone who's been in the armed forces!
But whatever; please tell me: does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?
-
Those tiles form the heat shield. Since the Shuttle was a spaceplane, it could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle. This allowed for the protection to be usable again, since it didn't ablate, but the tiles were indeed inspected after each mission. The hard part of spaceships isn't thrusting. It's keeping the equipment working on a very high-temperature, 4-degrees-above-absolute-zero temperature, high-shock, high-vibration, high-radiation, low pressure, high pressure ambient. All while keeping cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.
I have never heard of a spaceplane that could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle.
Can you tell us more about it. And at the same time tell us more about the cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.
Thanks!
On what drugs are you? They seem fantastic!
-
does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?
No.
Are you still insisting rockets don't work in space? That's already been proven, maybe you were sleeping?
-
So; denying reality now, Markjo?
No, I'm denying your creative interpretation of reality.
I doubt neutral readers will believe you though; especially anyone who's been in the armed forces!
I've been in the armed forces (USMC) and have personally witnessed the effects of backblast from a SMAW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon).
please tell me: does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?
As the exhaust is leaving the nozzle? Yes. After the exhaust leaves the nozzle? No.
-
So; that's a 'no' from Rayzor.
Markjo didn't really answer though. As usual.
Perhaps he'd like to try looking down the back of a SMAW as it fires, to demonstrate his contention that the ACTION of the rocket exhaust will NOT create a REACTION against the MASS of his cranium?
How do you think that'd work out for you, Markjo?
But let me rephrase my question, in the perhaps forlorn hope of getting a straight answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed THE RIM of the nozzle?
-
Here you go Papa Legless, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
-
Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.
-
Here you go Papa Legless, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.
This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.
-
Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.
The only way that gas can push back is if it hits an external barrier.
If you throw a tennis ball at a wall it will come back at you and hit you in the face. This is because it's hitting a barrier that is more dense than the ball is.
Your heated gas does the same against a denser atmosphere and is squeezed upwards as the rocket spews out those BURNING hot gases.
Inside the rocket, nothing is happening except a mix of fuel that ignites upon opening to external atmosphere.
You people pretend to be clever. You actually may be clever in your own way. You may be able to calculate the silly things in life, like the equations and formula for the perfect cup of tea or the perfect slice of toast, or even making up numbers and bullshit to calculate things that aren't even physically there. I accept you people can spend countless hours, days, weeks, entire lifetimes doing this stuff.
The reality is a mystery to you people. The simplicity of things is a mystery to you people. The logic behind many things is lost on your people. It's naivety in the extreme and yet you refuse to accept this because there's no way in hell that you could ever admit that you have been barking up the wrong tree all your life.
Getting back to those mythbusters. Do you know how you can tell they are bullshitting us?
I'll tell you but really I'm telling those who have a logical brain, I'm just doing it through your quote.
If you watch any mythbusters show that is just about ordinary stuff...you know, stuff like, pissing on a rail line and getting a shock, or making a crossbow out of cardboard and stuff in prisons...you know, stuff like that. You'll find that they will be quite surprised and happy, etc.
However; you watch them when they come to do a conspiracy, like moon landings or rockets in vacuums, etc, they will clearly cheat their way through it to get the results they want and the results that dupe the public, then as they do this, they will go into frenzy mode...a sort of..."stick that in your pipe, you conspiracy retards."
If anyone's noticed this...respond and if not, look at the videos with critical eye on these people when they do this stuff.
-
Thank you, Mikeman, though I have to disagree that a rocket would have high pressure behind it in a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent.
Free Expansion, you know?
Still, you're getting the idea.
But enough of that; please answer my simple question: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Rayzor has already voted 'no', so his further input is not required for now.
Markjo voted kinda yes & kinda no (lol!).
What do the rest of you say?
Let's get some consensus here.
-
Here you go Papa Legless, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.
This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.
Have you ever built vacuum chambers? I have. Looked genuine to me.
You just won me $20 by the way... I had a bet going that you or Papa Legba would say it's faked. Thanks for being an idiot.
-
Not many people seem to want to answer Papa legba's questions. I wonder why? ;D
It's all ummmm's and arrrrr's. Come on you tefal heads; answer the questions put to you.
-
Here you go Papa Legless, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.
This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.
Have you ever built vacuum chambers? I have. Looked genuine to me.
You just won me $20 by the way... I had a bet going that you or Papa Legba would say it's faked. Thanks for being an idiot.
I just won £500. I said you would pipe in by saying you had just won a bet on me or Papa saying it was faked. Cheers for being predictable and a total clown.
Anyway, here's something to chew on. See if you're as daft as you appear.
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
-
Yet again, my very simple question is: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Yes or No?
Please educate me on this subject.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
-
Yet again, my very simple question is: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Yes or No?
Please educate me on this subject.
I think that the mass and velocity (or change of velocity) of the exhaust of a rocket produces a thrust that affects the rocket itself regardless where it takes place - in your backgarden or vacuum space.
-
Interesting! Thank you, Heiwa.
So; thus far we have: Heiwa - Yes.
Rayzor - No.
markjo - Kinda Yes & No.
Mikeman - Refuses to answer.
Hmm... seems this rocketry business isn't as straightforward as you'd all have me believe...
But that's okay, cos you all agree that rockets will work perfectly well in vacuum conditions, even though you cannot agree on even the simplest aspects of their functioning!
Anyone else want to try answering the question: Does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Btw, Heiwa; the VELOCITY aspect of your explanation is duly noted. I will return to it later, after I have explored all the possibilities raised by my current question.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
I think we're about done. You clearly have nothing left to say and clearly cannot comprehend reality. Go and play with your little globalite dummies.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
I think we're about done. You clearly have nothing left to say and clearly cannot comprehend reality. Go and play with your little globalite dummies.
Good, it's about time you just admitted that rockets work in vacuum, and give up this looney conspiracy crap. Join the human race for a change.
-
Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.
No they don't. Rockets work by the principle of conservation of momentum.
velocity of exhaust gases multiplied by mass of exhaust gases = mass of rocket multiplied by velocity of rocket. In order for the total momentum of the system to remain unchanged (conserved) the velocity of the rocket is in the opposite direction to the velocity of the gases.
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
I think we're about done. You clearly have nothing left to say and clearly cannot comprehend reality. Go and play with your little globalite dummies.
Good, it's about time you just admitted that rockets work in vacuum, and give up this looney conspiracy crap. Join the human race for a change.
Why is it so hard for people to admit thrust exists? Like, maybe if thrust exists, the Earth MIGHT be round. SO SCARYYYY.
-
Anyone else want to try answering the question: Does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
No. Once the exhaust gasses have passed the rim of the nozzle, those gasses have no way of interacting with the rocket. Only when the gasses are within the combustion chamber or nozzle can those gasses interact with the rocket. Once they leave the nozzle, those gasses may be able to interact with other things within its environment, but the rocket itself is no longer part of that environment.
-
Thank you markjo.
So: markjo - No.
Rayzor - No.
Heiwa - Yes.
Mikeman - Refused to answer.
mathsman - Also did not answer.
Though mathsman did say something interesting, i.e: 'the velocity of the rocket is in the opposite direction to the velocity of the gases'.
Thank you mathsman; duly noted for future reference.
Now; anyone else care to answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Oh, & bill_the_pretender: calm down. No-one is saying thrust does not exist; we are merely attempting to discover where & how thrust is produced in a rocket.
If you have an answer to my above question, then provide it; if not, then please read the thread & catch up with everyone else.
Thank you.
-
Thank you markjo.
So: markjo - No.
Rayzor - No.
Heiwa - Yes.
Mikeman - Refused to answer.
mathsman - Also did not answer.
Though mathsman did say something interesting, i.e: 'the velocity of the rocket is in the opposite direction to the velocity of the gases'.
Thank you mathsman; duly noted for future reference.
Now; anyone else care to answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Oh, & bill_the_pretender: calm down. No-one is saying thrust does not exist; we are merely attempting to discover where & how thrust is produced in a rocket.
If you have an answer to my above question, then provide it; if not, then please read the thread & catch up with everyone else.
Thank you.
Your questions have been answered. My understanding of physics is limited, my expertise lie in biology and phylogeny. My understanding of thrust is that it propels the object at the point of inertia, which would be where it exists the rocket, not any time after that. Am I incorrect? This would NOT prevent a rocket from working in a vaccuum (space). This is why we actually made it to Mars, and the Moon.
-
In case you haven't noticed, bill, my question has been receiving several different answers.
Do you not consider this at all odd?
In any case, I believe you are also a 'No'.
So: markjo, rayzor, bill - No.
Heiwa - Yes.
mikeman & mathsman - did not answer.
That's 3 'no', 1 'yes' & 2 rather curious abstentions. Seems the 'nos' will have it; but I'd prefer a wider sample before going further.
So; anyone else care to answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after passing the rim of the nozzle?
-
Here you go Papa Legless, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.
This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.
This comment reminds me - how's that scale model of the Ice Dome coming along? In case you've forgotten what you wrote last October, the plan was to have inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, with a vacuum between them.
Have you managed that diagram of how sunsets occur under your ice dome yet?
Yep. I'm also 70% into building of a dome with all the necessary stuff built into it, including small camera's set up inside of it. It's looking extremely promising.
All my drawings and pictures are done.
I look forward to seeing them. Of course I won't be too disappointed if it turns out you are talking out of your arse again, and you haven't actually got any diagrams....
I actually class you as having a lot more logical savvy than you make out as regards alternative thinking. You arre scared to show it because the masses are ruling your thoughts, basically.
One day when you start to use a more out of the box thought to things, you may...I say, "may" get the opportunity to see things differently through my experiments and model, plus drawings.
Just to give you the scale of my model. It's 12 feet in diameter, set in the grounds of my home. The dome is double skinned with the inner being a clear perspex mould and the outer being a fibre glass matt black coated dome with a 3 inch gap between. Like a flask, which in time will be evacuated to closely match what space would be to people's minds.
Inside looks like a sort of mini Earth, or will do when it's fully set up, complete with mini oceans and greenery, etc.
22 mini camera's will be set up around the surface.
There a massive amount more I could say but it would take pages and pages. It's looking exciting and I wouldn't have spent the money on it if I didn't believe in it.
It's been more than eight months since you said you were 70% done. I don't recall any mention of this project since that thread's time. Have you tried pulling the vacuum yet? If you recall, I politely recommended not doing that, but you declined the recommendation. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62152.msg1634362#msg1634362)
How's that going?
I await your results.
I wouldn't hold your breath....
When you see the final results you will slap yourself for believing in a silly globe model, I assure you of that.
I still await your results.
-
Hello alpha2omega; that was all a bit off-topic, but still, while you're here, could you tell me if you think a rocket exhaust will produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
I'm doing a survey, sorta thing... Cheers!
-
No it wont.
Thrust is exerted on the rocket by the pressure of the exhaust gases still within the nozzle. Exhuast gas that leaves the nozzle will not exert any pressure on the rocket at all.
-
Excellent, mainframes; thank you for that comprehensive reply!
Four-to-one now; seems the 'nos' are definitely winning...
Anyone else want to answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after passing the rim of the nozzle?
-
Say that your Spaceship is doing 10 000 m/s and you want to increase it to 20 000 m/s by firing your rocket engine for say 1 000 s (and that it actually works in e.g. vacuum space).
Say that your average Spaceship speed is 15 000 m/s during those 1 000 seconds; then you travel 15 000 000 m, while firing the rocket engine. The exhaust gas cloud that you produce will thus be at least 15 000 000 m long = plenty of pollution. Maybe the Sun will break it down into something later.
That exhaust pollution cloud has its own velocity but it will be "attached" to the Spaceship until you stop polluting = firing the rocket engine.
So when you are polluting away, your Spaceship and your spaceshit (the pollution) form one spaceshipshit unit in space, which is not vacuum any longer. It is mostly shit!
-
Indeed, Heiwa; it IS 'mostly shit!'.
But enough of your 1950's pulp sci-fi copy-&-paste; nostalgia-inducing as it was, I already have your answer, & it was 'yes'.
Anyone else care to respond: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
There is a point to this question btw; I just need more data before I get to it.
-
That exhaust pollution cloud has its own velocity but it will be "attached" to the Spaceship until you stop polluting = firing the rocket engine.
How can exhaust gasses (or any gasses, for that matter) "attach" themselves to anything? Do you even understand the physical properties of gasses? Do you understand the difference between attaching to something and pushing something?
-
That exhaust pollution cloud has its own velocity but it will be "attached" to the Spaceship until you stop polluting = firing the rocket engine.
How can exhaust gasses (or any gasses, for that matter) "attach" themselves to anything? Do you even understand the physical properties of gasses? Do you understand the difference between attaching to something and pushing something?
Use your imagination. If the Spaceship is say 15 m long and it produces a 15 000 000 m long trail of an exhaust gas cloud in space while speeding up, you will hardly see the little Spaceship producing (sh)it. But it is there - at the forward end of the trail/cloud and joined to (sh)it.
-
Well; I'll leave you two to your little debate - which could be titled '1950's sci-fi paradigm vs. 1980's sci-fi paradigm' - & return when you're done.
Unless anyone else cares to throw their hat in the ring re: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
The vote currently stands at: 4 'no'; 1 'yes'; 2 inexplicable abstentions...
It's an important question if we're going to arrive at the truth of the matter; so get thinking & let us know!
-
Well; I'll leave you two to your little debate - which could be titled '1950's sci-fi paradigm vs. 1980's sci-fi paradigm' - & return when you're done.
Unless anyone else cares to throw their hat in the ring re: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
The vote currently stands at: 4 'no'; 1 'yes'; 2 inexplicable abstentions...
It's an important question if we're going to arrive at the truth of the matter; so get thinking & let us know!
No.
-
That exhaust pollution cloud has its own velocity but it will be "attached" to the Spaceship until you stop polluting = firing the rocket engine.
How can exhaust gasses (or any gasses, for that matter) "attach" themselves to anything? Do you even understand the physical properties of gasses? Do you understand the difference between attaching to something and pushing something?
Use your imagination. If the Spaceship is say 15 m long and it produces a 15 000 000 m long trail of an exhaust gas cloud in space while speeding up, you will hardly see the little Spaceship producing (sh)it. But it is there - at the forward end of the trail/cloud and joined to (sh)it.
What does the length of the exhaust trail have to do with anything? ???
-
To up the vote count, I will say "no".
The reason is based on the word "produce" in the question. After the exhaust has passed the rim of the nozzle, I submit that any further thrust would have to be "re-produced" by some other force that would then also produce more exhaust in the process.
-
Yes, but only gravity due its their mass, and that's negligible for all intents and purposes. So, for the topic under discussion, no, the gas exerts no meaningful force on the rocket once it has passed the nozzle. How could it?
-
Thank you, Mikeman, though I have to disagree that a rocket would have high pressure behind it in a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent.
Free Expansion, you know?
Still, you're getting the idea.
But enough of that; please answer my simple question: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?
Rayzor has already voted 'no', so his further input is not required for now.
Markjo voted kinda yes & kinda no (lol!).
What do the rest of you say?
Let's get some consensus here.
Sorry I didn't answer before, but I have been moving into a new house and I havn't had a lot of spare time.
The answer to your question is no. The thrust is produced when the molecule of gas interacts with the rocket for the last time.
-
Sorry I didn't answer before, but I have been moving into a new house and I havn't had a lot of spare time.
Except to write about 18 nonsensical posts/day at the FES forum.
-
Sorry I didn't answer before, but I have been moving into a new house and I havn't had a lot of spare time.
Except to write about 18 nonsensical posts/day at the FES forum.
You must be thinking of any Flat Earther, EVER. Sorry, Mike's pretty honest.
-
So; seems the 'nos' have it & the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
In which case, let us now turn to the V2 rocket; www.v2rocket.com (http://www.v2rocket.com) has all the technical details we require.
Note that the combustion chamber & nozzle are fixed & immobile.
Then note the 4 carbon graphite exhaust rudders placed outside the rim of the nozzle.
The purpose of these rudders is THRUST VECTORING (definition of vectoring: 'directing to a desired point') in order to steer the rocket, by directing the exhaust gases.
Even wikipedia agrees on this.
But, according to the model of all those who answered 'no', this is clearly impossible as you all agree that the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
So; logically, as there would be no THRUST to VECTOR, either the steering system of the V2 did not & could not work as claimed, or you are wrong.
Which one is it?
-
The rudders are connected to the rocket, so any force applied by the exhaust as it gets deflected by the rudder is applied to the rocket. Pretty simple, what seems to be the problem?
Seems you have forgotten the basics, yet again.
-
The rudders are connected to the rocket, so any force applied by the exhaust as it gets deflected by the rudder is applied to the rocket. Pretty simple, what seems to be the problem?
Seems you have forgotten the basics, yet again.
what is your profession rayzor ? and how do you know in so many fields ?
-
So; seems the 'nos' have it & the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
In which case, let us now turn to the V2 rocket; www.v2rocket.com (http://www.v2rocket.com) has all the technical details we require.
Note that the combustion chamber & nozzle are fixed & immobile.
Then note the 4 carbon graphite exhaust rudders placed outside the rim of the nozzle.
The purpose of these rudders is THRUST VECTORING (definition of vectoring: 'directing to a desired point') in order to steer the rocket, by directing the exhaust gases.
Even wikipedia agrees on this.
But, according to the model of all those who answered 'no', this is clearly impossible as you all agree that the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
So; logically, as there would be no THRUST to VECTOR, either the steering system of the V2 did not & could not work as claimed, or you are wrong.
Which one is it?
The thrust itself is not being vectored.
The exhaust that has exited the nozzle chamber is no longer producing thrust on the V2, that is quite correct. However, when the exhaust gases then impact the exhaust rudder there is a transfer of momentum from the gases to the rudder assembly producing a force perpendicular to surface of the control surface. They operate in the same way as any aerodynamic control surface does, such as a set of flaps or rudder on an aircraft.
The advantage of placing the control surface inside the exhaust stream is that it would still work in a vacuum, as the rocket uses its own exhaust to produce aerodynamic force. There is a slight disadvantage in that the exhaust impacting on the control surface will actually create a slight force opposite the main thrust of the V2 creating a slight drag effect.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
But how else could the exhaust rudders work if the exhaust were not thrusting upon them?
I agree that transfer of momentum could be a partial explanation for how they operate.
But not entirely; the words 'THRUST VECTORING' are pretty conclusive; for mainframes to claim that, in an acknowledged thrust vectoring system, 'the thrust is not being vectored' is a quite extraordinary act of denial.
It would be called a 'thrust transferring' system if he were correct. But it is not.
In any case, for the transfer of momentum hypothesis to be true, it must also be true that the mass of a rocket exhaust will create an action-reaction pairing with another outside mass (i.e. the exhaust rudders), as required by Newtons 3rd; a thing I have been stating all along & which you all deny.
You cannot have it both ways, nor can you pick & choose which laws of physics to apply as & where you see fit in order to maintain your model of rocket propulsion...
-
The rudders are connected to the rocket, so any force applied by the exhaust as it gets deflected by the rudder is applied to the rocket. Pretty simple, what seems to be the problem?
Seems you have forgotten the basics, yet again.
what is your profession rayzor ? and how do you know in so many fields ?
His profession as such is in having the ability to look up the answers to every query against mainstream science. He's better known, like most others who are like him...as a parrot.
-
Papa - the problem here is use of terms.
Thrust can be used interchangeably for two elements of the rocket.
1) Thrust can mean the actual forward force produced on a vehicle, and is a term used in any vehicle; cars, boats, aircraft, rockets etc. it is the opposite of drag. In a rocket the thrust is produced by exploding gases in a nozzle.
2) Thrust can also mean the expelled gases or accelerated medium used to create forward thrust as used in term (1) above. Thrust vectoring refers to the use of this accelerated medium to impart force on a control surface. A ship with a rudder placed behind its propellor is a good example.
The term thrust vectoring is used as the thrust itself is used to apply force to the control surface, as opposed to flaps and rudder on an aircraft which just used the medium it is passing through ie the air.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
Exact - the mass of the exhaust gas is producing the thrust applied on the Spaceship, when leaving the nozzle at high velocity. Afterwards the exhaust gas is just pollution.
-
The rudders are connected to the rocket, so any force applied by the exhaust as it gets deflected by the rudder is applied to the rocket. Pretty simple, what seems to be the problem?
Seems you have forgotten the basics, yet again.
what is your profession rayzor ? and how do you know in so many fields ?
His profession as such is in having the ability to look up the answers to every query against mainstream science. He's better known, like most others who are like him...as a parrot.
Unlike sceptimatic who is better know for being unable to put more than three brain cells into action at any one time, without short circuiting his tin foil hat. In the world of looney conspiracists, sceptimatic stands alone for his inability to comprehend simple concepts.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
But how else could the exhaust rudders work if the exhaust were not thrusting upon them?
As I already pointed out:
Once they leave the nozzle, those gasses may be able to interact with other things within its environment, but the rocket itself is no longer part of that environment.
The exhaust gasses are interacting with the steering vanes, the gasses are not producing any additional thrust because of the vanes.
-
Sorry I didn't answer before, but I have been moving into a new house and I havn't had a lot of spare time.
Except to write about 18 nonsensical posts/day at the FES forum.
There were many threads that I didn't have time to get to including this one.
-
So; seems the 'nos' have it & the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
In which case, let us now turn to the V2 rocket; www.v2rocket.com (http://www.v2rocket.com) has all the technical details we require.
Note that the combustion chamber & nozzle are fixed & immobile.
Then note the 4 carbon graphite exhaust rudders placed outside the rim of the nozzle.
The purpose of these rudders is THRUST VECTORING (definition of vectoring: 'directing to a desired point') in order to steer the rocket, by directing the exhaust gases.
Even wikipedia agrees on this.
But, according to the model of all those who answered 'no', this is clearly impossible as you all agree that the exhaust of a rocket produces no thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle.
So; logically, as there would be no THRUST to VECTOR, either the steering system of the V2 did not & could not work as claimed, or you are wrong.
Which one is it?
The thrust is produced when the molecule interacts with the rocket for the last time and then thrust is applied based off of their speed and direction, and if there are rudders then many of the molecules interact with that for the last time instead of just the engine.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
Exact - the mass of the exhaust gas is producing the thrust applied on the Spaceship, when leaving the nozzle at high velocity. Afterwards the exhaust gas is just pollution.
Actually in standard hydrogen-oxygen rockets the exaust is just water vapor which is not pollution.
-
It's quite amusing how you apparently think rockets are the only possible means of space travel.
Believe me, you should be glad space travel isn't widely accessible. It shouldn't be. Certain technologies are required for other technologies to work. If you want to build a rocket, you need to understand explosives. Even if your rocket time travel was the only way to reach space, it should not be publicly available. Imagine the harm.
All the ways to reach space are far too grand to be owned by any one person. The required components have far more applications, which could prove awful in consequence.
-
Yet again, you all ignore what is staring you in the face: that, for the exhaust gases to 'interact' or 'impart force' upon the steering vanes, then the action of the exhaust gasses mass must be producing a reaction against the mass of the steering vanes; thus proving that the exhaust of a rocket will produce an action-reaction pairing against an outside mass.
Really; what have you all got against the laws of physics?
Tell you what; I'm getting bored with this, so I'll just revise newton's 3rd law for you, so that you can have your Space-Adventures: 'For every Action there may/may not be an equal/unequal & opposite/un-opposite/non-existent (as required) Reaction'.
There you go; happy now, sci-fi cultists? Naow yuo can hazz spasse-shippz!!!!!!
-
There are no rockets in my time, I apologize, my knowledge is incomplete. However, one thing seems clear: to reach space, the rocket must first ascend through the atmosphere. The steering vanes are important here, otherwise it would spin out of control. Air produces the action: it also resists the exhaust, slowing it. The term is order 2, with respect to velocity, so for a high-speed rocket this force will be great.
Your V-2 example is a strictly in-atmosphere rocket.
Though I have had little to do with rockets, I am familiar with paper airplanes. The shape and construction of what serve as vanes allow for steadier, longer, easier flight.
Thrust vectoring in vacuum relies on altering the nozzle itself.
-
Learn off Electric John; he's a troll with class.
You, John Titor, are not.
Meh... whatever; I am ready to move on to my next demonstration of how NASA's model of rocketry is utterly flawed; but as a time-travelling know-all you are already aware of that, aren't you?
Care to tell us what I'm about to say?
-
You, John Titor, are not.
Meh... whatever; I am ready to move on to my next demonstration of how NASA's model of rocketry is utterly flawed; but as a time-travelling know-all you are already aware of that, aren't you?
Care to tell us what I'm about to say?
You are not nearly interesting enough to be remembered. How could I know?
-
Yet again, you all ignore what is staring you in the face: that, for the exhaust gases to 'interact' or 'impart force' upon the steering vanes, then the action of the exhaust gasses mass must be producing a reaction against the mass of the steering vanes; thus proving that the exhaust of a rocket will produce an action-reaction pairing against an outside mass.
Really; what have you all got against the laws of physics?
No one is denying that exhaust gasses can interact with outside masses. We're just saying that, for the most part, those outside masses do not affect the rocket.
It's one thing to say that exhaust gasses interacting with steering vanes attached to a rocket will significantly affect the rocket. It's quite another thing to say that exhaust gasses interacting with the atmosphere will significantly affect the rocket. Do you honestly not see the difference?
-
No, I don't markjo; what do you not understand about the concept of an action-reaction pairing?
Really; Newton's 3rd ain't hard to understand!
The atmosphere has a LOT of mass you know?
Stick your hand out of a car window at 70mph & you can feel it; now imagine how it'd feel at 5,000mph or more...
But whatever you need to believe in order to sustain your sci-fi fantasies is what you'll stick with, I guess.
& that's your problem, not mine.
-
No, I don't markjo; what do you not understand about the concept of an action-reaction pairing?
Really; Newton's 3rd ain't hard to understand!
Then why do you deny the action/reaction pairing within the combustion chamber and nozzle of a rocket engine?
The atmosphere has a LOT of mass you know?
Yes, but not much density or solidness.
Stick your hand out of a car window at 70mph & you can feel it; now imagine how it'd feel at 5,000mph or more...
Just out of curiosity, is my hand supposed to represent the exhaust gasses or the atmosphere? Also, try it with your fingers together and with them spread apart. Did you notice a difference?
-
Okay, markjo; you're getting desperate & firing lots of disconnected, illogical & irrelevant nonsense at me in an attempt to divert the issue & create complexity where none actually exists.
But that's fine; you have to, if you wish to sustain your fantasies...
For starters; do you think it'd make any difference at all whether your fingers were spread or not in a 5,000 mph wind?
Really?
As for the action/reaction pairing occurring within the combustion chamber & nozzle: PROVE IT.
Off you go...
-
PL: Looks like the thread has taken a turn for the interesting. Could you bring me up to date with developments?
-
Hi, Legion.
Basically, I'm trying to teach the cultists how Newton's 3rd Law actually works & how to correctly apply it to the subject of rocket thrust.
It'll all be old news to yourself, but this lot are a bit stubborn.
They're all long on Talk, but short on genuine Evidence...
-
Yet again, you all ignore what is staring you in the face: that, for the exhaust gases to 'interact' or 'impart force' upon the steering vanes, then the action of the exhaust gasses mass must be producing a reaction against the mass of the steering vanes; thus proving that the exhaust of a rocket will produce an action-reaction pairing against an outside mass.
Really; what have you all got against the laws of physics?
Tell you what; I'm getting bored with this, so I'll just revise newton's 3rd law for you, so that you can have your Space-Adventures: 'For every Action there may/may not be an equal/unequal & opposite/un-opposite/non-existent (as required) Reaction'.
There you go; happy now, sci-fi cultists? Naow yuo can hazz spasse-shippz!!!!!!
Wait, you believe in the Newtonian laws of motion? With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and throwing gas out of an engine is an action so rockets should work in space. Also, this means that the act of jumping would cause the Earth to move down by amounts so small that it's impossible to measure so the Earth can't be stationary.
-
Yet again, you all ignore what is staring you in the face: that, for the exhaust gases to 'interact' or 'impart force' upon the steering vanes, then the action of the exhaust gasses mass must be producing a reaction against the mass of the steering vanes; thus proving that the exhaust of a rocket will produce an action-reaction pairing against an outside mass.
Really; what have you all got against the laws of physics?
Tell you what; I'm getting bored with this, so I'll just revise newton's 3rd law for you, so that you can have your Space-Adventures: 'For every Action there may/may not be an equal/unequal & opposite/un-opposite/non-existent (as required) Reaction'.
There you go; happy now, sci-fi cultists? Naow yuo can hazz spasse-shippz!!!!!!
Wait, you believe in the Newtonian laws of motion? With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and throwing gas out of an engine is an action so rockets should work in space. Also, this means that the act of jumping would cause the Earth to move down by amounts so small that it's impossible to measure so the Earth can't be stationary.
mikeboy, you jump up and land on the ground. The force you exert on the ground is equal to the force the ground exerts on you. No net force, no earth moving down. Equal and opposite. To suggest that your puny little body has moved the mass of the earth downward is retarded even beyond all the other retarded posts you have made.
-
Mikeman: when you jump up & down on the earth your legs are thrusting against the MASS of the ground; when you try that in the MASS-LESS VACUUM of space, what then do your legs (or a rocket exhaust for that matter) thrust against?
Really; we have been here before. & you made a fool of yourself then, as you are doing now.
Please; leave this 'debate' to better rhetoricians than yourself - cos you're out of your depth & will only damage your cause.
Oh, & yeah; what Legion said too... I ain't got to the 'equal & opposite' part of Newton's 3rd yet; but when I do, you won't like it!
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
We seem to be doing quite well chumpy. Intellect beats indoctrination every time chumpy!
Edit: chumpy, please be consistent with your whitespace following punctuation. Do you really need four characters after a question mark? It makes you appear even more stupid.
-
Mikeman: when you jump up & down on the earth your legs are thrusting against the MASS of the ground; when you try that in the MASS-LESS VACUUM of space, what then do your legs (or a rocket exhaust for that matter) thrust against?
Really; we have been here before. & you made a fool of yourself then, as you are doing now.
Please; leave this 'debate' to better rhetoricians than yourself - cos you're out of your depth & will only damage your cause.
Oh, & yeah; what Legion said too... I ain't got to the 'equal & opposite' part of Newton's 3rd yet; but when I do, you won't like it!
In a vacuum, if a stationary object is hit by a moving object what happens?
-
So: here's a simple experiment you can do at home to provide evidence for my model of rocket thrust (i.e. they push on an outside mass).
When you breath out, you exhale air; i.e. you exhaust a gas.
Hold a piece of paper 6 inches or so from your mouth. Paper has mass.
Exhale (i.e. exhaust a gas) upon the paper.
Watch it move away from the direction of the thrust of the exhausted gasses you exhaled upon it.
Understand that an action-reaction pairing, in accordance with Newton's 3rd Law, was created by the exhausted gasses you directed upon the mass of the paper.
End of experiment.
Now: can any of you NASA-huggers show me a similarly simple experiment to demonstrate your model of rocket propulsion?
Well, if you've even decided what your model actually is yet...
P.s. mainframes; before I waste any more time on you, please explain again how thrust vectoring does not actually involve the vectoring of thrust?
-
Mikeman: when you jump up & down on the earth your legs are thrusting against the MASS of the ground; when you try that in the MASS-LESS VACUUM of space, what then do your legs (or a rocket exhaust for that matter) thrust against?
The rocket and gas thrust against each other making the gas fly backwards and rocket fly forwards.
mikeboy, you jump up and land on the ground. The force you exert on the ground is equal to the force the ground exerts on you. No net force, no earth moving down. Equal and opposite. To suggest that your puny little body has moved the mass of the earth downward is retarded even beyond all the other retarded posts you have made.
When you fall down the Earth moves up again the same amount of moved down because it's gravitationally attracted to you. The force you feel that pulls you down is your weight in the Earth's gravity field and the Earth's weight in your gravity field. Both values are exactaly the same. Is this to complicated for your tony flat earther brain?
-
So: here's a simple experiment you can do at home to provide evidence for my model of rocket thrust (i.e. they push on an outside mass).
When you breath out, you exhale air; i.e. you exhaust a gas.
Hold a piece of paper 6 inches or so from your mouth. Paper has mass.
Exhale (i.e. exhaust a gas) upon the paper.
Watch it move away from the direction of the thrust of the exhausted gasses you exhaled upon it.
Understand that an action-reaction pairing, in accordance with Newton's 3rd Law, was created by the exhausted gasses you directed upon the mass of the paper.
End of experiment.
Now: can any of you NASA-huggers show me a similarly simple experiment to demonstrate your model of rocket propulsion?
Well, if you've even decided what your model actually is yet...
P.s. mainframes; before I waste any more time on you, please explain again how thrust vectoring does not actually involve the vectoring of thrust?
You have just demonstrated how conservation of momentum works. If you blow air onto a piece of paper the impact of the air molecules imparts momentum onto the paper and therefore it moves.
The same principle works inside the combustion chamber and nozzle of a rocket. Fuel and oxidiser are added to the chamber and are ignited. The ignition imparts a huge amount of energy and therefore velocity to the resultant exhaust gases. The resultant pressure pushes out in all directions. Pressure against the combustion chamber pushes the rocket forward, pressure against the exit nozzle allows exhaust gases to be ejected from the nozzle.
In the case of the v2 rocket, the gases that have been ejected then impact the control surfaces causing force to be imparted onto the control surface and resulting in a change in direction of the rocket. It is called thrust vectoring because it uses the thrust from the exhaust to impart force onto the control surfaces as opposed to using the media, through which the object is travelling. Thrust vectoring also includes systems whereby the actual nozzle itself is mounted on a gimbal.
-
As for the action/reaction pairing occurring within the combustion chamber & nozzle: PROVE IT.
Are you saying that the gasses produced by the burning of a fuel/oxidizer mix aren't under pressure and pressing against the walls of the combustion chamber (action) and the walls of the combustion chamber aren't pressing back to resist that pressure (reaction)?
-
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.
Yes.
Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.
How hard did he pull the vac down? Or weren't you paying attention.
Which is why you can't comprehend stuff. If he didn't make a vacuum, or close to one, then his experiment is bullshit. Can't you get this into your head or are you just happy to play ignorant?
Seriously, is that the best you've got? Just call it bullshit, and not offer any reason why, then follow it up with a clear demonstration that you've never built or used any vacuum equipment. I was hoping for something a bit better than that, you'll be wallowing in the gutter with Papa Legba and Legion before too long.
We seem to be doing quite well chumpy. Intellect beats indoctrination every time chumpy!
Edit: chumpy, please be consistent with your whitespace following punctuation. Do you really need four characters after a question mark? It makes you appear even more stupid.
Sorry, I didn't realize primitive brains can't process white space. You live and learn.
So, your intellectual refutation of the mythbusters proof that rockets do in fact work just fine in a vacuum, is to call me chumpy. I must admit that's a level higher than I thought you were capable of. And puts you behind sceptimatic's refutation, which was to call it "bullshit" and then go on to demonstrate he had no actual knowledge of what a vacuum was.
The only one lagging so far behind that he isn't even in the field is Papa Legba, who is blue in the face from blowing on pieces of paper, he doesn't know what vacuum is either.
Here it is again, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/ (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/)
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
That and there is a higher pressure differential between the combustion chamber and the outside environment.
Another fun fact: SpaceX has 2 different versions of their Merlin engine. One for atmospheric operation and another for vacuum operation. This is because exhaust nozzles are designed for optimal performance at certain altitudes.
http://www.slideshare.net/sabirahmed796/nozzles-45206272 (http://www.slideshare.net/sabirahmed796/nozzles-45206272)
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/nozzles-150226222959-conversion-gate01/95/nozzles-44-638.jpg?cb=1425011496)
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
-
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
When a rocket fires it's engine it creates really high pressure behind it while there is no pressure in front of it. When similar circumstances are created inside the barrel of a gun the bullet is rapidly pushed forward. How would this not make the rocket be pushed forwards?
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
Makes sense, because humans don't eject exaust to swim.
-
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
When a rocket fires it's engine it creates really high pressure behind it while there is no pressure in front of it. When similar circumstances are created inside the barrel of a gun the bullet is rapidly pushed forward. How would this not make the rocket be pushed forwards?
I'd explain it all but you're not up to being explained to. You're far too busy being a 17 year old persona on a forum when it's as clear as day you aren't that age.
I don't know what your full game is and I don't really care. All I'll say is, it's a waste of time dealing with shit like you, just as it is dealing with shit people just like you.
-
I'd explain it all but you're not up to being explained to. You're far too busy being a 17 year old persona on a forum when it's as clear as day you aren't that age.
I don't know what your full game is and I don't really care. All I'll say is, it's a waste of time dealing with shit like you, just as it is dealing with shit people just like you.
Translation. sceptimatic doesn't have any idea about physics and even less about interpersonal relationships, lives alone, thinks people are shit, and is bitter about life, because of his own personal failings.
More fun facts: Just to help you join the human race, the earth is round, rockets do work in a vacuum, the Apollo program was real and one of mankind's greatest achievements.
Plus you never adequately answered any questions about vacuum.
-
I'd explain it all but you're not up to being explained to. You're far too busy being a 17 year old persona on a forum when it's as clear as day you aren't that age.
I don't know what your full game is and I don't really care. All I'll say is, it's a waste of time dealing with shit like you, just as it is dealing with shit people just like you.
Translation. sceptimatic doesn't have any idea about physics and even less about interpersonal relationships, lives alone, thinks people are shit, and is bitter about life, because of his own personal failings.
More fun facts: Just to help you join the human race, the earth is round, rockets do work in a vacuum, the Apollo program was real and one of mankind's greatest achievements.
Plus you never adequately answered any questions about vacuum.
I remember ausGeoff used to do this with starman. Whenever I'd have a little dig at starman, you could bet your life that ausGeoff would jump right in to his rescue.
Starman was a sort of timid being like Mike and ausGeoff was a snappy little croc like you. Strange that, isn't it? ;D
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
Straight question. How is it even possible for objects to move in a vacuum?
The only reason we can move at all on earth is due to density, friction and pressure....
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
iWitness has just basically answered your question.
Have a think about it. Just have a think about how anything can move when there is no matter/medium to actually move through.
To sand wood you need to apply friction. This is normally done by using a sanding sheet directly applied to the wood surface.
However, you could still smooth down that same wood if you were to subject it to enough speed against atmosphere.
What you cannot do is subject it to a vacuum and expect it to be smoothed down, even if you could somehow place the wood in a one (which you can't).
Why?
Because there is no matter to interact with the wood at any speed, so no friction. BUT...and this is a big BUT...as I said before: you need energy to create movement/friction to create an opposite equal force of friction and it just cannot ever happen in a true vacuum, nor can it happen in a fictional place called space that is supposed to be a near vacuum of so called SCATTERED particles.
Scattered particles in reality would consist of scattered matter through a MEDIUM and a medium is made up of matter, so space cannot have scattered particles in NO medium, just floating about, because that means there's no attachment or purpose to any movement or wave pattern.
No wave pattern or at least a purpose of travel, means no work done, meaning no energy expended which also means there is no reaction to any action in any measures, never mind equal.
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
iWitness has just basically answered your question.
Have a think about it. Just have a think about how anything can move when there is no matter/medium to actually move through.
To sand wood you need to apply friction. This is normally done by using a sanding sheet directly applied to the wood surface.
However, you could still smooth down that same wood if you were to subject it to enough speed against atmosphere.
What you cannot do is subject it to a vacuum and expect it to be smoothed down, even if you could somehow place the wood in a one (which you can't).
Why?
Because there is no matter to interact with the wood at any speed, so no friction. BUT...and this is a big BUT...as I said before: you need energy to create movement/friction to create an opposite equal force of friction and it just cannot ever happen in a true vacuum, nor can it happen in a fictional place called space that is supposed to be a near vacuum of so called SCATTERED particles.
Scattered particles in reality would consist of scattered matter through a MEDIUM and a medium is made up of matter, so space cannot have scattered particles in NO medium, just floating about, because that means there's no attachment or purpose to any movement or wave pattern.
No wave pattern or at least a purpose of travel, means no work done, meaning no energy expended which also means there is no reaction to any action in any measures, never mind equal.
I'm sorry but my babelfish doesnt translate from bollocks to english.....
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
iWitness has just basically answered your question.
Have a think about it. Just have a think about how anything can move when there is no matter/medium to actually move through.
To sand wood you need to apply friction. This is normally done by using a sanding sheet directly applied to the wood surface.
However, you could still smooth down that same wood if you were to subject it to enough speed against atmosphere.
What you cannot do is subject it to a vacuum and expect it to be smoothed down, even if you could somehow place the wood in a one (which you can't).
Why?
Because there is no matter to interact with the wood at any speed, so no friction. BUT...and this is a big BUT...as I said before: you need energy to create movement/friction to create an opposite equal force of friction and it just cannot ever happen in a true vacuum, nor can it happen in a fictional place called space that is supposed to be a near vacuum of so called SCATTERED particles.
Scattered particles in reality would consist of scattered matter through a MEDIUM and a medium is made up of matter, so space cannot have scattered particles in NO medium, just floating about, because that means there's no attachment or purpose to any movement or wave pattern.
No wave pattern or at least a purpose of travel, means no work done, meaning no energy expended which also means there is no reaction to any action in any measures, never mind equal.
I'm sorry but my babelfish doesnt translate from bollocks to english.....
No problem. I didn't expect you to understand anything that goes against your indoctrinated upbringing so just carry on in your naive little world, kid.
-
Fun fact: rockets are actually more efficient and powerful in lower pressures then in higher pressures because the air doesn't slow down the gas exiting the engine.
Fun fact: rockets are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard in very low pressures at high altitude; never mind a so called space vacuum.
Fun facts: humans find it hard to swim in empty swimming pools.
So much fail.
Rockets do not push against a medium ie air/water, they create an explosive force from fuel and oxidiser that creates a net force in the nozzle of the rocket. The force is imparted on the rocket by the high velocity impact of the molecules accelerated in the explosive ignition process.
Straight question. If an object hits another object in a vacuum does it transfer some/all of its momentum to that object?
iWitness has just basically answered your question.
Have a think about it. Just have a think about how anything can move when there is no matter/medium to actually move through.
To sand wood you need to apply friction. This is normally done by using a sanding sheet directly applied to the wood surface.
However, you could still smooth down that same wood if you were to subject it to enough speed against atmosphere.
What you cannot do is subject it to a vacuum and expect it to be smoothed down, even if you could somehow place the wood in a one (which you can't).
Why?
Because there is no matter to interact with the wood at any speed, so no friction. BUT...and this is a big BUT...as I said before: you need energy to create movement/friction to create an opposite equal force of friction and it just cannot ever happen in a true vacuum, nor can it happen in a fictional place called space that is supposed to be a near vacuum of so called SCATTERED particles.
Scattered particles in reality would consist of scattered matter through a MEDIUM and a medium is made up of matter, so space cannot have scattered particles in NO medium, just floating about, because that means there's no attachment or purpose to any movement or wave pattern.
No wave pattern or at least a purpose of travel, means no work done, meaning no energy expended which also means there is no reaction to any action in any measures, never mind equal.
I'm sorry but my babelfish doesnt translate from bollocks to english.....
No problem. I didn't expect you to understand anything that goes against your indoctrinated upbringing so just carry on in your naive little world, kid.
I'm sorry, i know such bizarre concepts such as evidence are alien to you....
-
I'm sorry, i know such bizarre concepts such as evidence are alien to you....
Real evidence would be great. Even logical theories are welcome. You and your like-minded cronies provide nothing logical.
Merely reading books that give you all the answers you crave but can never verify, is not a true reflection of what's happening in life if you cannot physically back it up.
The closest you can come to verification or at the very least, potential truth, is by applying a logical mindset to what you are part of.
Merely telling me that you know how all the crimes were solved in Enid Blyton's famous five books, does not mean that the people mentioned in those books, were real and actually did solve those crimes.
A lot of your science books are basically similar to this, so it's no wonder you're so smitten with the fantasy they offer you.
-
Straight question. How is it even possible for objects to move in a vacuum?
Why shouldn't things move in a vacuum? ???
The only reason we can move at all on earth is due to density, friction and pressure....
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
That and every other happening in a medium.
Try not to use my answer as a means of proving rocket propulsion without an external atmospheric resistance, please, otherwise I'll have to come back and explain what's going on and it could extend to many pages of back and forth tit for tat.
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
That and every other happening in a medium.
Try not to use my answer as a means of proving rocket propulsion without an external atmospheric resistance, please, otherwise I'll have to come back and explain what's going on and it could extend to many pages of back and forth tit for tat.
Please do, and we can then point out how badly wrong you are.
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
That and every other happening in a medium.
Try not to use my answer as a means of proving rocket propulsion without an external atmospheric resistance, please, otherwise I'll have to come back and explain what's going on and it could extend to many pages of back and forth tit for tat.
Please do, and we can then point out how badly wrong you are.
Your problem is that you cannot point out how badly wrong I am. You can spend all your time telling me I'm wrong and following a pattern given to you by mainstream science books that tell you to accept that rockets work in a way that sounds logical when told in it's raw term, but is soon found out when common sense and logic come to the fore about atmosphere.
One thing I will give those in mainstream indoctrinated science circles is, they pushed a clever ruse out to cater for rockets in vacuums and knew that most people would never be able to test out whether it was true or not, due to nobody having a sufficient testing area for a rocket.
They use second rate actors to calm those people down who do not buy into the trash by the pretence of testing out so called issues with objects in supposed vacuum chambers and declaring them BUSTED as per normal, each time, making sure they twist up their faces and shout, " in your face, conspiracy theorists", or " get over it, conspiracy theorists."
Any other query that has nothing to do with the major ruses, they simply say, "myth busted" or " myth confirmed" or " plausible."
Mention any conspiracy and they go into a frenzy. It's comical to watch them do this because it tells me just how far people will go to play a part in acting, in the full knowledge that they are acting out something that is deliberately doctored to fit a criteria.
I remember watching Brian Cox and the little supposed crew who man the so called huge vacuum chamber at NASA and they done the bowling ball and feather trick. Something which has apparently been done so many times before so as to become the norm and no big deal at the outcome.
Not Brian Cox and his little vacuum chamber team. they were looking at each other all excited as if a frigging clanger has materialised out of thin air and whistled to them. They were literally pretending to look shocked as if they'd never seen a bowling ball and feather, fall in a vacuum.
Maybe it's because they haven't, eh? but they'd like good old naive Joe public to believe it, as well as the super naive budding scientists who will literally piss their own pants at the sight before them.
Let's make something clear. If people can use their minds to see the world for the simplicity it actually is and can push aside the mind numbing bullshit space science clap trap and all what goes with it...including a frigging warped ball for an Earth, then they will literally start to feel their brains actually switch on into logical mode.
From that point on, as long as peer pressure doesn't infest the workings of that brain, then people are going to start seeing things in a totally different light, seriously.
Hanging onto equations and complete utter un-provable bullshit that answers nothing realistic will literally warp any persons brain to the point of meltdown, rendering that person about as much use as a legless mute, scrapyard guard dog.
-
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to explain how rockets work....
-
So; unlike myself, none of you have any easily-repeatable experiments or evidence whatsoever to demonstrate how your model of rocketry works.
& mainframes; your post re. conservation of momentum was a bald-faced LIE, as was your previous 'thrust-vectoring does not involve the vectoring of thrust' post.
You will be ignored from now on.
You are all an embarrassment; you have no respect for the laws of physics specifically or science generally.
You offer no evidence for any of your claims, no experiments, nothing.
Just semantic & rhetorical acrobatics, all to defend your Great God NASA.
I can only conclude that you ARE the brain-washed Cultists that I have been implying you were all along.
None of you have been to space & none of you ever will. Because the laws of physics simply do not allow it.
So enjoy your sci-fi fantasies & special-effects extravaganzas; because that's the closest you will ever get.
Oh, & Rayzor; yes, you are ausGeoff. & you are a stain on Occam's good name.
Pathetic, the lot of you...
-
Papa - how is my comment on conservation of momentum a lie?
Please explain in detail.
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
That and every other happening in a medium.
Other than exhaust gasses, what medium is inside a rocket engine combustion chamber?
Try not to use my answer as a means of proving rocket propulsion without an external atmospheric resistance, please, otherwise I'll have to come back and explain what's going on and it could extend to many pages of back and forth tit for tat.
I'm not sure of what you're trying to get at. Right now I'm just trying to get an idea of what you think is going on inside a rocket engine combustion chamber.
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
The force from the hot gasses is balanced with the force from the internal walls of the combustion chamber (due to the interaction between the two masses). If they weren't balanced, the hot gasses would blow a hole in the chamber.
Look:
(http://i.imgur.com/7lYTu2w.jpg)
-
Markjo: until you have looked down the back end of a SMAW as it is fired to prove your ridiculous claim that that action of the mass of it's exhaust will not create a reaction with the mass of your cranium, then please butt out.
Same for you, mainframes; we all know that conservation of momentum cannot work without action-reaction pairings, so your word no longer carries weight here.
Goodbye!
I have provided simple, verifiable experiments & evidence for my model of rocket propulsion; if you all have none to show in return to support YOUR model, then please do not post.
But you will, won't you?
-
Umm... You do realize that friction is the resistance to movement, don't you?
Yes and you also understand that for it to be a resistance to movement, it also has to be an energy to start movement, which equates to what everything always equates to. Every action (energy/friction) creates an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance/friction).
Do you mean like when hot gasses push against the combustion chamber wall in a rocket engine?
The force from the hot gasses is balanced with the force from the internal walls of the combustion chamber (due to the interaction between the two masses). If they weren't balanced, the hot gasses would blow a hole in the chamber.
True, but the combustion chamber already has a hole in it, so the forces will not be balanced. These unbalanced forces within the combustion chamber is what causes thrust and pushes the rocket forwards.
Markjo: until you have looked down the back end of a SMAW as it is fired to prove your ridiculous claim that that action of the mass of it's exhaust will not create a reaction with the mass of your cranium, then please butt out.
I never said that exhaust gasses couldn't react with anything after they leave the rocket engine nozzle. I said that reactions after those gasses leave the nozzle (give or take any steering vanes) won't affect the rocket. I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference, but I'm not sure how to make it any more plain.
If I throw a baseball and it hits you in the head, how will that affect me?
-
I have provided simple, verifiable experiments & evidence for my model of rocket propulsion; if you all have none to show in return to support YOUR model, then please do not post.
I already posted the rocket in a vacuum video, scepti and legion both blubbered and fluffed their response, now it's your turn.
Although I'm not ausGeoff , he seems like a good guy, smarter than the likes of Papa Legba, and in any case I'm not as nice and tolerant of fools as he is.
-
Markjo: until you have looked down the back end of a SMAW as it is fired to prove your ridiculous claim that that action of the mass of it's exhaust will not create a reaction with the mass of your cranium, then please butt out.
Same for you, mainframes; we all know that conservation of momentum cannot work without action-reaction pairings, so your word no longer carries weight here.
Goodbye!
I have provided simple, verifiable experiments & evidence for my model of rocket propulsion; if you all have none to show in return to support YOUR model, then please do not post.
But you will, won't you?
Obviously you need to be taught some basic physics. Then we'll apply that physics to a rocket nozzle example.
Conservation of momentum - basic concept, in a closed system all momentum must be conserved and remain the same total net value. It is important to note that a closed system is either (a) an object that splits apart or (b) two objects at the point of collision. Here is an example of each:
(a) an object that splits - a gun firing. Initially the gun, its internal mechanism and the bullet inside have a net momentum of zero. It is at rest. When the gun is fired an explosive force fires the bullet forwards and the gun will also recoil. If the bullter weighs 5g and is fired 100m/s forwards then it has a momentum of 500 g.m/s. Conservation of momentum states that the gun will have a momentum of 500 g.m/s in the opposite direction or -500g.m/s. If the gun weighs 250g then it will have a velocity of 500/250 = 2 m/s.
(b) two objects that collide. Slightly more complex as there are two options. The objects might stick together after collision or they may just ricochet.
(i) If the objects stick together then simply add both their respective momentums at point of collision and divide by new total mass to get velocity.
Object A is 1kg and moving forwards at 5m/s and therefore has momentum of 5kg.m/s, object B is 1kg and is moving forwards (ie same direction) at 15m/s and has momentum of 15kg.m/s. At the point of collision their combined momentum is 5+15 = 20kg.m/s and combined mass is 2kg. Therefore their velocity is now 20/2 = 10m/s.
(ii) if the object collide then there is a transfer of momentum dependant upon the objects masses and relative directions of travel. Easiest example is two pool balls. Ball A is stationary and is hit by ball B travelling a 1m/s. Both have equal mass. Ball B will now be stationary and Ball A will move at 1m/s.
You then get into objects of different masses and angle of impact which make the transfer more complicated.
The thing to note in all of the examples is the there is a, as you call it Papa, action - reaction pairing. When the two ball collide Ball B exerts force on Ball A which causes it to accelerate, in turn Ball A exerts force on Ball B causing it to decelerate (or accelerate in the opposite direction). Perfect Action and Reaction.
The same principle operates in a rocket nozzle. Firstly the fuel ignites and accelerates in all directions equally. Momentum is conserved. Some of the exhaust passes straight out the nozzle exit and does nothing. However a large portion will impact the nozzle chamber wall and will rebound. The exhaust particle will exert a force on the rocket nozzle causing acceleration whilst the rocket nozzle exert force on the particle rebounding it back out the chamber. Again there is action and reaction and momentum is conserved.
-
Mainframes: your explanations are fine but you're missing the point in terms of a rocket; especially in so called space.
You see, a rocket is not a gun firing a bullet or to put it more simpler...it is not a machine gun firing bullet after bullet at speed. This is the con job that we get told about as an action/reaction inside the combustion chamber.
The burning fuel is being made out to be exploding like a bullets from a shell casing's. It's not true and people should see it's not true because if that was the case; the rocket would be vibrated to pieces on the launch pad.
There's a very good reason as to why rocket nozzles are cone shaped. It's because the burning fuel coming out of it, is designed to spread or expand into the atmosphere WITHOUT....REPEAT...WITHOUT too much strain put onto the walls of the nozzle and allowing as much of the burning fuel to actually hit the atmosphere below it, to create a massive compression of the much denser atmosphere by being compressed to hell by the EXPANDING MATTER IN THE BURNING FUEL.
Imagine having a long bus. Inside the bus it is crammed full of people. It's crammed so tight that it's in danger of being bowed out.
Equate this to the fuel and oxygen inside the rocket.
To relieve the pressure inside that bus, the back doors have to be opened wide if you want to create a situation where as many people can leave that bus in as fast a time as possible.
Now here's the key so concentrate on this.
When the first few people actually jump off the bus to the floor and into the atmosphere, the bus hardly registers this happening because those first few people are no match for the weight of the bus as well as all the bus passengers crammed into it.
Once more people jump onto the other people, those people have created another barrier and it's now that the bus is becoming less resistant to the force of those people jumping out.
Now here's where the duping comes in, so pay attention people.
When the people are jumping out of the bus, they are all naturally using the bus as a leverage to jump away from it. This can be construed as fuel actually kicking a rocket up it's arse to move it...except it's not being used in the right context. It's used to con you into believing that this is the action/reaction or recoil happening.
Let's think carefully for a moment and rationally think on what I'm about to say, which is actual reality.
Imagine tipping that bus upright so the nose is in the air and it's suspended over a hole on some kind of staging so the back doors can easily be opened.
Ok, now those back doors open and out pours the people, only this time they are falling out as mush as pushing against each other to get out. The problem is, the pushing inside the bus is not doing anything to the bus in terms of vertical movement.
The only time that bus will vertically move is when more and more people pile out and actually compress into each other, creating a mound that others fall onto until the compression is such, that the people piling out and pushing against the people in the bus coming behind them and using those that are compressed into the ground as leverage, we now see the bus start to move vertically.
Can anyone see what's happening here?
It's fuel on atmosphere. It's external expansion of fuel into compressed atmosphere, which compresses it more until the rocket's fuel has a strong springboard to push against, mainly the atmosphere.
Now I'm going to show you a video of something that you may not realise is related to rockets lifting off. This shows you what's happening to a rocket as it builds up enough expansion under it to create a compression that aids in springing it into the air.
The sensible people will see this analogy and the naive as hell one's will refuse to see past their own noses.
Watch this video and when you do, I'd like anyone (preferably those with a clear mind - not shills) to tell me if they understand what I'm trying to tell them.
! No longer available (http://#)
Just to expand on the video; observe as the zombies climb onto each other and fall due to not enough build up of strength but as they build, you see them fanning out at the bottom and getting thinner as they make their way up that wall, vertically.
Picture this as a rocket taking off from a launch pad and the wall being the sky and let's say that the top of the wall is where the sky becomes too thin of atmosphere for the rocket to go any further. What happens after that?
Can anyone see what I'm saying. I expect shills never to see anything so shills: please don't bother coming into this to try the put downs. ;D
-
What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that the atmosphere does push on the rocket with regards causing thrust.
When the exhaust expands out of the nozzle chamber the exhaust particles will hit particles of air. The only thing that will happen is that the exhaust will exert force on the air and the air will exert force on the exhaust. Now look at what each particle is doing. Air particles are effectively stationary (lots moving in random directions but net effect is stationary) and the exhaust particles are moving at high velocity. When they collide, the force on the air particles accelerates them to a degree and the force on the exhaust particles decelerates them to a degree. The overall effect is a slightly slowed column of exhaust and highly accelerated column air moving away from the nozzle.
You are almost right regarding the cone shape of the nozzle. This is designed as a trade off between developing maximum thrust and retaining structural integrity. the cone shape is also changed dependent upon the operating altitude of the rocket, as air pressure has a large effect on the efficiency. It is different still if designed to work in a vacuum.
The explosions analogy is slightly lost on you, as it not a series of explosions but one continuous explosion which is fed by inputting fuel/oxidiser mixture to maintain a steady pressure. Early rockets did indeed have issue with being destroyed by vibrations when the turbo pumps feeding the fuel/oxidser mixture were not efficient enough.
The irony in your arguments is that you think that air is required for a rocket to work but in reality rockets are FAR MORE efficient in a vacuum.
-
What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that the atmosphere does push on the rocket with regards causing thrust.
When the exhaust expands out of the nozzle chamber the exhaust particles will hit particles of air. The only thing that will happen is that the exhaust will exert force on the air and the air will exert force on the exhaust. Now look at what each particle is doing. Air particles are effectively stationary (lots moving in random directions but net effect is stationary) and the exhaust particles are moving at high velocity. When they collide, the force on the air particles accelerates them to a degree and the force on the exhaust particles decelerates them to a degree. The overall effect is a slightly slowed column of exhaust and highly accelerated column air moving away from the nozzle.
You are almost right regarding the cone shape of the nozzle. This is designed as a trade off between developing maximum thrust and retaining structural integrity. the cone shape is also changed dependent upon the operating altitude of the rocket, as air pressure has a large effect on the efficiency. It is different still if designed to work in a vacuum.
The explosions analogy is slightly lost on you, as it not a series of explosions but one continuous explosion which is fed by inputting fuel/oxidiser mixture to maintain a steady pressure. Early rockets did indeed have issue with being destroyed by vibrations when the turbo pumps feeding the fuel/oxidser mixture were not efficient enough.
The irony in your arguments is that you think that air is required for a rocket to work but in reality rockets are FAR MORE efficient in a vacuum.
I don't think there's much hope for you. I've just explained perfectly well, in basic language how a rocket works in atmosphere and how it can't in thin to no atmosphere and it's gone right over your head, probably due to the fact that you never even absorbed it.
I'll leave it for the common sense people to grasp it. You carry on and live in your fantasy world, made for you by your hero's that go by the names of NASA and all the rest of the rigged up scientific family that spews out garbage.
-
There's a very good reason as to why rocket nozzles are cone shaped. It's because the burning fuel coming out of it, is designed to spread or expand into the atmosphere WITHOUT....REPEAT...WITHOUT too much strain put onto the walls of the nozzle and allowing as much of the burning fuel to actually hit the atmosphere below it, to create a massive compression of the much denser atmosphere by being compressed to hell by the EXPANDING MATTER IN THE BURNING FUEL.
Actually, most rocket engine nozzles are bell shaped, not cone shaped. However, cone and spike shaped nozzles can also be used depending on the intended operating environment. Also, the shape of the nozzle is designed so that the pressure of the exhaust gasses will more or less equalize with the ambient air pressure. For booster stages, this winds up being a compromise because pressure equalization only occurs briefly at one specific altitude.
To relieve the pressure inside that bus, the back doors have to be opened wide if you want to create a situation where as many people can leave that bus in as fast a time as possible.
Now here's the key so concentrate on this.
When the first few people actually jump off the bus to the floor and into the atmosphere, the bus hardly registers this happening because those first few people are no match for the weight of the bus as well as all the bus passengers crammed into it.
Tell me Scepti, would there be any difference if the people were forcibly thrown off the bus instead of just walking off the bus?
Once more people jump onto the other people, those people have created another barrier and it's now that the bus is becoming less resistant to the force of those people jumping out.
What happens if the people decide that they would rather get out of the way than have other people jump on top of them?
Now here's where the duping comes in, so pay attention people.
When the people are jumping out of the bus, they are all naturally using the bus as a leverage to jump away from it. This can be construed as fuel actually kicking a rocket up it's arse to move it...except it's not being used in the right context. It's used to con you into believing that this is the action/reaction or recoil happening.
So you're saying that the action of someone jumping out the back of a bus doesn't result in the reaction of pushing the bus forwards?
Let's think carefully for a moment and rationally think on what I'm about to say, which is actual reality.
Imagine tipping that bus upright so the nose is in the air and it's suspended over a hole on some kind of staging so the back doors can easily be opened.
Ok, now those back doors open and out pours the people, only this time they are falling out as mush as pushing against each other to get out. The problem is, the pushing inside the bus is not doing anything to the bus in terms of vertical movement.
The only time that bus will vertically move is when more and more people pile out and actually compress into each other, creating a mound that others fall onto until the compression is such, that the people piling out and pushing against the people in the bus coming behind them and using those that are compressed into the ground as leverage, we now see the bus start to move vertically.
If the "piling up of gasses" is what pushes the rocket upwards, then why do launch pads generally have blast deflectors that keep the gasses from piling up?
Can anyone see what's happening here?
It's fuel on atmosphere. It's external expansion of fuel into compressed atmosphere, which compresses it more until the rocket's fuel has a strong springboard to push against, mainly the atmosphere.
That's like saying that the action of me throwing a baseball won't result in a reaction until the ball hits something.
-
Is this the moment that sceptimatic finally loses it and implodes? Imagine a bus full of zombie flat earthers, way out in space, they run and jump off the back of the bus, hence propelling the bus forward.
Is that what scepti was trying to describe?
Still no response from Papa Legba to the mythbusters rocket in a vacuum video?
Since no amount of hard evidence is going to convince a closed mind, why not do your own experiment using a vacuum chamber and see what happens.
Do you still have a half built dome in the back yard?
-
Some of us have jobs, rayzor, you impatient buffoon & obvious ausGeoff alt.
As I recall, you could not tell the difference between the words 'you'/'yours' & 'me'/'mine' earlier in this thread.
Thus, your intellectual credibility is not high.
The mythsbusters video is laughably fraudulent; sceptimatic already explained why.
But it is no surprise that you can not see this.
Markjo; if I'd asked you to stand in front of a SMAW, then your baseball analogy would make sense; so you really could make things plainer... were that your intention.
But it is not - clearly.
As it is, only an idiot could deny that back-blast demonstrates an action-reaction pairing between the rocket & an outside mass.
Thing is, markjo, that you are not an idiot; so what actually are you?
Whatever... Now; who else?
Mainframes; nah - you are a proven liar. Keep spamming if you must, but do not expect me to read a word of it.
Anyway, to return to the point; I asked for simple experiments & evidence to prove your model, & as usual you provided none.
As such, I will declare this part of the debate over; the exhaust of a rocket clearly does produce thrust after leaving the nozzle, meaning you are all wrong & making yet another victory for myself.
When I am ready, we will move on to the next lesson; you'll really hate it!
-
Are you ever going to explain how two molecules hitting each other 5 feet from a rocket can propelle the rocket?
-
Ever heard of an Exhaust Column, sokarul?
There's a clue in the name...
But nice try!
-
As it is, only an idiot could deny that back-blast demonstrates an action-reaction pairing between the rocket & an outside mass.
Does this mean that you finally admit that back blast action/reaction with the mass of the atmosphere (an outside mass) has no effect on the rocket? After all, the atmosphere is just as much an outside mass to the rocket as some poor schmuck standing in the path of the back blast.
-
No it does not; what is WRONG with you?
What do you not understand about the words 'action-reaction pairing'?
A rocket & its fuel is 1 object.
When the rocket ignites its fuel the exhaust creates an ACTION.
What, then, does the exhaust ACT against in order to create a REACTION?
Itself? Somehow? Magically..??
LOL!!!
It truly is not hard to grasp...
I know you really, really want it to be...
But it isn't.
Ok?
-
A rocket & its fuel is 1 object.
Let me stop you there.
Take a balloon. That's one object. Inflate it. It now contains air. Is it still one object?
If it is, as your logic demands, it's a different object to the balloon it once was, so all you've done is some hasty redefining.
-
What?!?
No, I will not let you stop me there.
As I already asked you earlier in this thread, please explain how your gibberish applies to a solid fuel rocket.
You failed then; so why do you try again now?
Is this your tactic? To just go round in circles?
Not cool, b.j; really not cool.
-
No, I will not let you stop me there.
Tough.
As I already asked you earlier in this thread, please explain how your gibberish applies to a solid fuel rocket.
Does the fuel stay within the rocket? Yes or no?
If yes, please let us all know where that plume of smoke and fire out the back comes from.
If no, point made.
If you're obsessed with having it solid, fill a glass with water, put it in the freezer. Is that one object? Yes or no?
-
Once ignited, the fuel departs the rocket, creates a reaction against an outside mass such as the atmosphere, then transfers that reaction back to the rocket via the exhaust column.
Action-Reaction pairings, you know?
It's all pretty simple stuff, b.j, & accords perfectly with Newtons 3rd.
But I don't expect you to understand it... because you don't want to.
& that is your problem, not mine.
P.s. your new avatar - LOL!!!
-
<evasion>
Ok, let's try this again.
You are saying the fuel and the rocket are one entity. Are you sticking to that claim, or do you now concede you're just engaging in pointless redefining?
If you concede, we can continue. If you are sticking to the claim, address what I've said.
-
Once ignited, the fuel departs the rocket, creates a reaction against an outside mass such as the atmosphere, then transfers that reaction back to the rocket via the exhaust column.
Just curious, do you actually believe the crap you write. Or are you a pretender. In other words, are you a genuine looney, or just up for the debate?
-
I would ask the same of you, if I did not already know the answer.
Now; rather than off-topic abuse, instead provide me with experimental evidence of your model for rocket propulsion.
-
Papa,
First show when I have lied.
Second how exactly does the exhaust column exert force on the rocket?
-
mainframes: I already have, & I just told you.
Next!
-
I already have, & I just told you.
Going to answer me any time? It's a very simple question.
-
Bijane: I already did & you couldn't comprehend it.
Next!
& LOL!!!
-
Bijane: I already did & you couldn't comprehend it.
Next!
& LOL!!!
Nope, try again.
You are saying the fuel and the rocket are one entity. Are you sticking to that claim, or do you now concede you're just engaging in pointless redefining?
If you concede, we can continue. If you are sticking to the claim, address what I've said.
Are the fuel and rocket one entity? Yes or no.
If yes, please answer, with reference to how the fuel does not remain in the rocket.
If no, why can they not act on one another?
This should be simple. Apparently I'm not the oen struggling with comprehension.
-
Bijane; I already told you.
Learn to read.
Or be next on my 'ignore' list.
-
Bijane; I already told you.
Learn to read.
Or be next on my 'ignore' list.
You told me, then I gave a reason why it couldn't be so, which you have not addressed.
This trolling is getting tedious, even for you. Not even a yes or no answer?
-
Bijane: Congratulations! You & your horrid new avatar are now on my 'ignore' list.
Well done; you really are oblivious to facts & evidence, aren't you?
Whatever; goodbye!
-
Bijane: Congratulations! You & your horrid new avatar are now on my 'ignore' list.
Well done; you really are oblivious to facts & evidence, aren't you?
Whatever; goodbye!
Bye! Have fun evading everyone else.
-
Bijane: LOL!!!
Have fun evading Truth, Science, Logic, Reason, etc...
Basically what you've been doing for this entire thread.
You won't be missed.
Now: anyone got any actual EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for NASA's model of rocket propulsion?
Or is that really too much to ask?
-
Papa legba you are wrong in one thing: you have a job doing your realistic things rayzor has a job also - he sits in a office with all the round earther and try to convince people by bullshit and lies that the round earth is correct.
-
Papa legba you are wrong in one thing: you have a job doing your realistic things rayzor has a job also - he sits in a office with all the round earther and try to convince people by bullshit and lies that the round earth is correct.
Correction "Air conditioned office if you please" and Modestman, don't get fooled by my collegue Papa Legba he's working undercover at present, so mum's the word.
Mind you, I'll have to pull rank if he doesn't start getting results. Hear that Papa, you performance review is on the line here, you let little Thomas Larsen escape... don't let me down again!
-
None of them can show how their rockets work. They simply say that they work by basic recoil action/reaction and pretend that is all there is to it. No atmosphere needed for this type of stuff because NASA and affiliates, do not require atmosphere for anything they manifest from fantasy land.
When you get shown around NASA, you usually follow a camera to some room that's full of frigging lego. ;D
You get some bozo sitting there with a rigged up lego effigy of something and they tell you that this is the place where the boffins invent stuff. ;D
The naive gawping wannabe scientists...basically a model of the big bang acting crew's antics...believe anything told, as long as it's told by a blue shirt or a red shirt or someone with a massive frigging forehead.
"Wahoo we went to the moon in a rocket." " Wahoo we went to mars and dropped off a rover."
Now let's act like right dicks and explain this bullshit to the press in some kind of way whilst acting like boisterous clowns and ignorant people who just can't pick out an expert in this fairly small room, when some reporter puts them under pressure.
Comical as hell and yet people swallow it for some strange reason.
Rockets have been proven not to work in a thin atmosphere, never mind a so called vacuum. This video is just one video where it spreads the icing on the fake space cake.
The only way that people can't see that these dipshits are lying their arses off, is because it's not rubber stamped on their foreheads for them, due to severe naivety or denial or the ability to actually not understand when people are blatantly lying in their faces.
I laughed like hell at this. It's so clear that these people have been paid to act like geniuses and yet ....WELLL....TAKE A FRIGGING LOOK. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
! No longer available (http://#)
-
None of them can show how their rockets work. They simply say that they work by basic recoil action/reaction and pretend that is all there is to it. No atmosphere needed for this type of stuff because NASA and affiliates, do not require atmosphere for anything they manifest from fantasy land.
When you get shown around NASA, you usually follow a camera to some room that's full of frigging lego. ;D
You get some bozo sitting there with a rigged up lego effigy of something and they tell you that this is the place where the boffins invent stuff. ;D
The naive gawping wannabe scientists...basically a model of the big bang acting crew's antics...believe anything told, as long as it's told by a blue shirt or a red shirt or someone with a massive frigging forehead.
"Wahoo we went to the moon in a rocket." " Wahoo we went to mars and dropped off a rover."
Now let's act like right dicks and explain this bullshit to the press in some kind of way whilst acting like boisterous clowns and ignorant people who just can't pick out an expert in this fairly small room, when some reporter puts them under pressure.
Comical as hell and yet people swallow it for some strange reason.
Rockets have been proven not to work in a thin atmosphere, never mind a so called vacuum. This video is just one video where it spreads the icing on the fake space cake.
The only way that people can't see that these dipshits are lying their arses off, is because it's not rubber stamped on their foreheads for them, due to severe naivety or denial or the ability to actually not understand when people are blatantly lying in their faces.
I laughed like hell at this. It's so clear that these people have been paid to act like geniuses and yet ....WELLL....TAKE A FRIGGING LOOK. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
<snip>
Do you actually have ANYTHING, any tiny little miniscule piece of evidence to support your lunatic ravings, just one... would that be too much to ask?
I don't know this macek677, but it seems he's in the moon projection camp like ccrow777 that rules out any chance of rational thought patterns.
That you would believe someone like that as a reliable source of information pretty much says it all, as far as your ability to discriminate between fact and fiction.
-
Do you actually have ANYTHING, any tiny little miniscule piece of evidence to support your lunatic ravings, just one... would that be too much to ask?
I don't know this macek677, but it seems he's in the moon projection camp like ccrow777 that rules out any chance of rational thought patterns.
That you would believe someone like that as a reliable source of information pretty much says it all, as far as your ability to discriminate between fact and fiction.
I don't have anything that you require. I'd have to turn into a snivelling arse licking globalite to give you what you require and I'm afraid it's just never gonna happen. EVER.
If you're feeling up to it though. How about trying to explain what a jet propulsion laboratory is at NASA.
Let me make it a bit easier for you so you don't get stumped.
In that video; these blue shirted high fore-headed bozo's supposedly work for the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
What exactly does jet propulsion do?...as in, how does it work?
-
Do you actually have ANYTHING, any tiny little miniscule piece of evidence to support your lunatic ravings, just one... would that be too much to ask?
I don't know this macek677, but it seems he's in the moon projection camp like ccrow777 that rules out any chance of rational thought patterns.
That you would believe someone like that as a reliable source of information pretty much says it all, as far as your ability to discriminate between fact and fiction.
I don't have anything that you require. I'd have to turn into a snivelling arse licking globalite to give you what you require and I'm afraid it's just never gonna happen. EVER.
If you're feeling up to it though. How about trying to explain what a jet propulsion laboratory is at NASA.
Let me make it a bit easier for you so you don't get stumped.
In that video; these blue shirted high fore-headed bozo's supposedly work for the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
What exactly does jet propulsion do?...as in, how does it work?
You should read up on the history of JPL, then you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. And from your lack of response, I conclude you have no rational basis for your statements.
-
Do you actually have ANYTHING, any tiny little miniscule piece of evidence to support your lunatic ravings, just one... would that be too much to ask?
I don't know this macek677, but it seems he's in the moon projection camp like ccrow777 that rules out any chance of rational thought patterns.
That you would believe someone like that as a reliable source of information pretty much says it all, as far as your ability to discriminate between fact and fiction.
I don't have anything that you require. I'd have to turn into a snivelling arse licking globalite to give you what you require and I'm afraid it's just never gonna happen. EVER.
If you're feeling up to it though. How about trying to explain what a jet propulsion laboratory is at NASA.
Let me make it a bit easier for you so you don't get stumped.
In that video; these blue shirted high fore-headed bozo's supposedly work for the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
What exactly does jet propulsion do?...as in, how does it work?
You should read up on the history of JPL, then you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. And from your lack of response, I conclude you have no rational basis for your statements.
We'll leave it at that. I didn't expect you to answer. ;D
-
Papa - you haven't told what I lied about and you still are unable to explain how exhaust moving away from a rocket nozzle is able to transfer force to that nozzle.
-
JPL was founded by Jack Parsons; google him, L Ron Hubbard & Aleister Crowley to get an idea of what these psychos were up to.
I already told you this, though...
P.s: Rayzor; LOL!!!
P.p.s: sceptimatic; what can you do with people who refuse to think for themselves?
Make em work for you is one answer...
P.p.p.s: mainframes; yes I did & yes I did. Stop lying; neutral readers will become even more disgusted with you than I am.
-
The force from the hot gasses is balanced with the force from the internal walls of the combustion chamber (due to the interaction between the two masses). If they weren't balanced, the hot gasses would blow a hole in the chamber.
True, but the combustion chamber already has a hole in it, so the forces will not be balanced. These unbalanced forces within the combustion chamber is what causes thrust and pushes the rocket forwards.
What you are referring to is a pressure gradient force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-gradient_force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-gradient_force):
The pressure gradient force is the force which results when there is a difference in pressure across a surface. In general, a pressure is a force per unit area, across a surface. A difference in pressure across a surface then implies a difference in force, which can result in an acceleration according to Newton's second law, if there is no additional force to balance it. The resulting force is always directed from the region of higher-pressure to the region of lower-pressure.
That nicely explains why the gas exits the rocket at high speed. What it doesn't explain is why someone would expect another force to be generated in the opposite direction, giving forward thrust. The force pair is clear:
1. Gas hits internal walls of combustion chamber and is pushed in the opposite direction (as per Newton). <<< This is the force pair.
2. Gas increases in velocity due to reducers that reduce the pressure in the gas but increase its velocity, thus causing a higher pressure behind the forward motion of the exiting gas.
3. So, where does the forward motion of the rocket come from due to the above two points?
-
Legion - the gas pushes against the rocket nozzle and the rocket nozzle pushes back against the gas. This rocket goes forwards and gas goes backwards.
Papa - I have no idea what you think I lied about.
-
Legion - the gas pushes against the rocket nozzle and the rocket nozzle pushes back against the gas. This rocket goes forwards and gas goes backwards.
Papa - I have no idea what you think I lied about.
By what mechanism "does the gas push against the nozzle and the nozzle pushes back against the gas?"
-
Legion - the gas pushes against the rocket nozzle and the rocket nozzle pushes back against the gas. This rocket goes forwards and gas goes backwards.
Papa - I have no idea what you think I lied about.
By what mechanism "does the gas push against the nozzle and the nozzle pushes back against the gas?"
The same mechanism that makes cars work and makes explosions dangerous: gas applies pressure on things.
-
Mikeman said: 'gas applies pressure on things'.
Correct.
And the gas of a rocket exhaust (Object A) applies pressure to an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere (Object B), creating an action-reaction pairing & producing Thrust.
Simple, isn't it?
Of course, when there is no Object B, as in a vacuum, then there will be no Thrust.
Ergo no Space-Adventures.
-
Mikeman said: 'gas applies pressure on things'.
Correct.
And the gas of a rocket exhaust (Object A) applies pressure to an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere (Object B), creating an action-reaction pairing & producing Thrust.
Simple, isn't it?
Of course, when there is no Object B, as in a vacuum, then there will be no Thrust.
Ergo no Space-Adventures.
Why couldn't gas put pressure on the rocket? There is very high pressure behind it and no pressure in front of it, how would that not work?
-
Yes; but WHY is there high pressure behind a rocket?
It is because the exhaust gas (object A) is striking another mass (object B), thus creating the aforementioned high pressure via Newton's 3rd law.
Action - Reaction, remember?
You really need to contemplate the properties of a vacuum, one of which is the absence of mass; thus, no action-reaction pairing can be created & no high pressure produced.
Of course, this is all basic stuff; the fact that a gas can do no work in a vacuum was experimentally proven over a century ago.
For so-called science-fans, you all seem lamentably unaware of these facts; & your continued inability to correctly apply something as basic as Newton's 3rd to a device as simple as a rocket is frankly baffling.
But that's your problem, not mine.
I wish to move on soon; however, before I do so can we at least all agree that Newton's 3rd DOES apply to the production of thrust in a rocket, no matter what model we use?
Let's get some clarity here!
-
Yes; but WHY is there high pressure behind a rocket?
Because of that controlled explosion going on behind it. Duh.
It is because the exhaust gas (object A) is striking another mass (object B), thus creating the aforementioned high pressure via Newton's 3rd law.
The gas expands in all directions, including forwards which pushes the rocket.
Action - Reaction, remember?
Then why wouldn't the action of ejecting gas from a rocket create a reaction of pushing the rocket forward?
You really need to contemplate the properties of a vacuum, one of which is the absence of mass; thus, no action-reaction pairing can be created & no high pressure produced.
It's a closed system, meaning that the center of mass of the whole system including the gas always has it's center of mass in the same place. If gas is ejected the only way to keep the center of mass in the same place the rocket must move forwards. The only way the rocket wouldn't move is if the center of mass of the whole closed system magically moved forward despite the laws of motion.
Of course, this is all basic stuff; the fact that a gas can do no work in a vacuum was experimentally proven over a century ago.
Yeah, obviously. If there is gas in a vacuum then it's no longer a vacuum, so gas can't be in a vacuum to do work. Behind rockets it's not a vacuum because there is gas there.
For so-called science-fans, you all seem lamentably unaware of these facts; & your continued inability to correctly apply something as basic as Newton's 3rd to a device as simple as a rocket is frankly baffling.
But that's your problem, not mine.
I wish to move on soon; however, before I do so can we at least all agree that Newton's 3rd DOES apply to the production of thrust in a rocket, no matter what model we use?
Let's get some clarity here!
The action of ejecting gas causes a reaction of the rocket moving forwards. I don't see what's so hard to understand here.
-
Mikeman: Whether you are missing every single point I make on purpose or not is a decision I shall leave up to the neutral reader.
Suffice to say that I shall not repeat myself for your further non-benefit & non-education.
The utter lack of logic or reason in your post is testimony enough to your inability - or refusal - to think rationally or apply simple laws of physics.
So I'll just let it stand unopposed for others to laugh at.
But enough of that; I wish to move on anyway, so please answer me this: does Newton's 3rd apply to the production of rocket thrust, no matter what model is used?
-
The utter lack of logic or reason in your post is testimony enough to your inability - or refusal - to think rationally or apply simple laws of physics.
Or perhaps it's your renowned inability to follow simple logic and understand the most basic of high school physics.
But in the light of your recent posts, I think I'm starting to see your problem, it's a matter of reading comprehension, it seems that you don't understand the written word, or maybe it's a form of dyslexia that stops you from understanding.
Which makes me wonder, do you speak English?
-
Rayzor; do you believe that Newton's 3rd law suffices as an explanation for the production of rocket thrust, no matter what model is used?
Please stay on-topic.
-
Rayzor; do you believe that Newton's 3rd law suffices as an explanation for the production of rocket thrust, no matter what model is used?
Please stay on-topic.
First, let me ask, do you understand the principle of conservation of momentum? If yes please give an example.
-
No, rayzor; I will not let you answer my question with another question.
Judging by your posts today, I would say you are unwell, or suffering some kind of mental distress; as such I will ignore you until you are feeling better.
Now: does anyone else believe that Newton's 3rd suffices as an explanation for the production of thrust in a rocket, no matter what model is used?
-
No, rayzor; I will not let you answer my question with another question.
Judging by your posts today, I would say you are unwell, or suffering some kind of mental distress; as such I will ignore you until you are feeling better.
Now: does anyone else believe that Newton's 3rd suffices as an explanation for the production of thrust in a rocket, no matter what model is used?
I'm suffering from a severe case of Legbaphobia, caused by the inability to reach into the computer screen and give someone a clip under the ear for being an obnoxious little creep.
Consider yourself clipped.
A 5000 kg rocket is floating free in the vacuum of space, The rocket has on board 3000 kg of fuel, initally the momentum is zero, the rocket engine fires and the exhaust gases leave the nozzle at a velocity of 1000 m/s over a period of time till all the fuel is spent, So when all the fuel has been spent, there has been 3000 kg blasted out the exhaust at a velocity of 1000 m/s, so the total momentum of the exhaust gases is 3,000x1,000 = 3,000,000 kg.m/s in the direction away from the rocket, meanwhile the rocket itself gains exactly the same momentum but the velocity is in the opposite direction. The rockets momentum is the same magnitude as the exhaust gas, but the sign of the velocity is opposite, so the rocket's velocity is now 1500 m/s away from the exhaust.
This is called conservation of momentum. Please advise if you follow so far.
-
But enough of that; I wish to move on anyway, so please answer me this: does Newton's 3rd apply to the production of rocket thrust, no matter what model is used?
What do you mean by "no matter what model is used"?
In the case of the standard and correct model that has been proved countless times, the answer is yes.
-
Yes, rayzor; I follow you perfectly - you are attempting to perform mathe-magical tricks in order to sustain the illusion of the existence of things that the laws of physics do not support.
Get some rest & come back when you feel better.
We can discuss this then.
Meanwhile, I ask again: does Newton's 3rd law suffice as an explanation for the production of rocket thrust, no matter what model is used?
P.s: thank you, mikeman, for voting 'yes'. Anyone else care to reply?
-
Yes; I follow you perfectly - you are attempting to perform mathe-magical tricks in order to sustain the illusion of the existence of things that the laws of physics do not support.
Conservation of momentum is one of the laws of physics. Especially applicable to rocketry. You seem not to know or understand this fundamental law. I guess if you did, you wouldn't be on a public forum making a complete fool of yourself.
-
The topic's Newton's 3rd, rayzor, not your crazed attempts to create something out of nothing, hurl abuse, derail, misrepresent & answer questions with yet more questions...
Now; does Newton's 3rd suffice as an explanation for the production of thrust in a rocket?
-
Legion - the gas pushes against the rocket nozzle and the rocket nozzle pushes back against the gas. This rocket goes forwards and gas goes backwards.
Papa - I have no idea what you think I lied about.
By what mechanism "does the gas push against the nozzle and the nozzle pushes back against the gas?"
It is the same effect as when you push against a table or wall. You apply force against the wall and the wall applies force on your hand. We know this happens otherwise you hand would continue to move forwards. Force from the wall slows your hand to a stop.
If you want to get really technical then the mechanism is the strong nuclear force which repels at extremely short distance. It is why objects that are essentially empty space cannot pass through each other.
-
Here is a force diagram show the forces that work inside a rocket nozzle. The arrows show the direction and strength of the forces. You'll note how the force through the front of nozzle is the greater, and therefore causes acceleration forwards.
The forces imparted on the nozzle chamber are caused by the impact of accelerated combusted fuel particles. These particles will then subsequently exit the nozzle as exhaust.
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png (http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
-
Yet again, you propose the same deluded nonsense as NASA, i.e. that both forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object.
This is impossible, & simply repeating your claim ad infinitum will not change that absolutely indisputable fact.
-
The topic's Newton's 3rd, rayzor, not your crazed attempts to create something out of nothing, hurl abuse, derail, misrepresent & answer questions with yet more questions...
Now; does Newton's 3rd suffice as an explanation for the production of thrust in a rocket?
You are wrong again, the topic is rockets in a vacuum. Maybe, with your psyche as an interesting aside, on second thoughts, that's not all that interesting either, you aren't even a real conspiracist, just a wannabe looney.
The law of conservation of momentum derives directly from Newtons third law, conservation of momentum is sufficient to explain the experimental observed thrust on rockets in space.
So understanding Newtons Third law is a key component in understanding how rockets work.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
Exact - the mass of the exhaust gas is producing the thrust applied on the Spaceship, when leaving the nozzle at high velocity. Afterwards the exhaust gas is just pollution.
Actually in standard hydrogen-oxygen rockets the exaust is just water vapor which is not pollution.
Mikeman, I know you mean well, but once again, you give incorrect information. Let us say that the fuel used by the rocket is pure hydrogen and oxygen, and the exhaust that is produced is in fact pure water. Where did the hydrogen come from? Generally speaking, the hydrogen comes from sending an electric current through water. So, we start with water and end with water. This sounds very clean, but where did the electricity come from? Burning coal maybe? Solar panels sound very clean, but people do not realize just how much pollutants are generated during their production. I could go on, but there just are not any real clean ways of producing hydrogen, so your hydrogen rocket polluted something, somewhere, in order to use its fuel. It is just how things work.
-
Rayzor; if, as you state, understanding Newton's 3rd law is a key component in understanding how rockets work, then for you all to keep repeatedly making the same mistake as NASA of claiming that both the forces described by said law are created on the same object shows you do not understand either.
Also, you are very bad at insults; getting a sense of humour may help you in this regard.
-
This video still shows the law to be true.
(http://)
As he releases the ball he moves backwards. The same principle is why water rockets work better with water in them. They need the extra mass of the water leaving to provide more thrust.
-
You all agreed the exhaust gases would produce no thrust once past the rim of the nozzle.
Exact - the mass of the exhaust gas is producing the thrust applied on the Spaceship, when leaving the nozzle at high velocity. Afterwards the exhaust gas is just pollution.
Actually in standard hydrogen-oxygen rockets the exaust is just water vapor which is not pollution.
Mikeman, I know you mean well, but once again, you give incorrect information. Let us say that the fuel used by the rocket is pure hydrogen and oxygen, and the exhaust that is produced is in fact pure water. Where did the hydrogen come from? Generally speaking, the hydrogen comes from sending an electric current through water. So, we start with water and end with water. This sounds very clean, but where did the electricity come from? Burning coal maybe? Solar panels sound very clean, but people do not realize just how much pollutants are generated during their production. I could go on, but there just are not any real clean ways of producing hydrogen, so your hydrogen rocket polluted something, somewhere, in order to use its fuel. It is just how things work.
You're obviously ignoring the assertion "Afterwards the exhaust gas is just pollution" which drew the response "the [exhaust] is just water vapor which is not pollution." Whether the process used to generate the fuel was a source of pollution was not in the scope of the assertion, which was only concerned with whether the exhaust gas itself was pollution after the fuel is burned (do you see the word "afterwards" in there now?)
Nice try at diversion, but please try to stick to the actual discussion, or maybe start a new thread. If you don't really understand what's being discussed, then maybe not saying anything at all would be best. Thanks!
-
Rayzor; if, as you state, understanding Newton's 3rd law is a key component in understanding how rockets work, then for you all to keep repeatedly making the same mistake as NASA of claiming that both the forces described by said law are created on the same object shows you do not understand either.
Also, you are very bad at insults; getting a sense of humour may help you in this regard.
I can't help it if you don't understand Newtons Laws, Get youself a high school physics text book and do some homework. I don't think I've been insulting, unless you regard being called a wannabee conspiracist an insult.
-
Sokarul: Ah! The good old 'man-on-skateboard' false analogy!
We haven't had a false analogy for a while, & I already debunked this example once on this thread; but as you clearly have not read, or not understood, my post then I will repeat it...
Special for you, like!
So; according to NASA, the skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the engine & the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
This is false.
In fact, it is the man's arm, in thrusting upon the ball, that represents the exhaust, whilst the ball represents an outside mass that the exhaust thrusts upon.
You see what they did there?
Thus, the man on the skateboard represents Object A, the ball represents Object B, & the requirements of Newton's 3rd law are fulfilled.
Rayzor; I don't care if you think I understand Newton's 3rd or not; your behaviour today has confirmed to any neutral reader that nothing you say is worthy of being taken seriously.
-
Sokarul: Ah! The good old 'man-on-skateboard' false analogy!
We haven't had a false analogy for a while, & I already debunked this example once on this thread; but as you clearly have not read, or not understood, my post then I will repeat it...
Special for you, like!
So; according to NASA, the skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the engine & the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
This is false.
In fact, it is the man's arm, in thrusting upon the ball, that represents the exhaust, whilst the ball represents an outside mass that the exhaust thrusts upon.
You see what they did there?
Thus, the man on the skateboard represents Object A, the ball represents Object B, & the requirements of Newton's 3rd law are fulfilled.
Rayzor; I don't care if you think I understand Newton's 3rd or not; your behaviour today has confirmed to any neutral reader that nothing you say is worthy of being taken seriously.
So it's your contention that if the man was sitting in a rocket in space and threw the ball out the back that the rocket wouldn't move? Just a yes or no will suffice.
-
Rockets don't throw balls out the back, rayzor.
You haven't understood my post, have you?
Don't worry though; others will, no matter how hard you try to stop them.
-
Rockets don't throw balls out the back, rayzor.
You haven't understood my post, have you?
Don't worry though; others will, no matter how hard you try to stop them.
Why not? Don't you agree that throwing balls out the back of a rocket would provide propulsion?
-
Why not? Don't you agree that throwing balls out the back of a rocket would provide propulsion?
He seems to be of the opinion that rocket exhaust is still part of the rocket. Somehow.
-
Don't you agree that a rocket does not have a man in the back of it throwing balls out?
We can do this as long as you like, ausGeoff...
& at the end of it I'll just re-post my unrefuted debunking of NASA's silly man-on-skateboard false analogy.
For the third time...
It's up to you.
B.j; I agree, it is a poor analogy for rocket propulsion in the first place.
But I have made it as correct as possible.
Logical minds will see this; whether that includes yourself too, I do not care.
-
B.j; I agree, it is a poor analogy for rocket propulsion in the first place.
But I have made it as correct as possible.
Logical minds will see this; whether that includes yourself too, I do not care.
If your analogy relies on something being forced out of a rocket to still be part of said rocket, it's long since left 'poor analogy' behind and is just wrong.
-
Yes, there are balls flying out the back. Ever heard of atoms?
-
Don't you agree that a rocket does not have a man in the back of it throwing balls out?
We can do this as long as you like, ausGeoff...
& at the end of it I'll just re-post my unrefuted debunking of NASA's silly man-on-skateboard false analogy.
For the third time...
It's up to you.
B.j; I agree, it is a poor analogy for rocket propulsion in the first place.
But I have made it as correct as possible.
Logical minds will see this; whether that includes yourself too, I do not care.
One thing you said there is correct, we can do this for longer than you can, I'm getting to like being mistaken for ausGeoff, maybe I should just play along.
Why not? Don't you agree that throwing balls out the back of a rocket would provide propulsion?
He seems to be of the opinion that rocket exhaust is still part of the rocket. Somehow.
I'm struggling to get a clear statement of any kind out of him, it's mostly incoherent gibberish, and poorly constructed logic. I think he is trying to say something about Newtons Third Law. But god only knows what he wants to say.
-
Like I said, it's a poor analogy for rocket propulsion in the first place; it is more of an analogy for the recoil of a gun.
Still, I have corrected it as best I can, & logical minds will see the truth of what I say.
It is no surprise that you can not understand this, as you also do not understand that a rocket cannot be both Object A and Object B in a Newtonian action-reaction pairing.
But if you need to believe such impossible things in order to keep your space-fantasies alive, so be it.
Believe what you like; just don't get angry when I, or others, refuse to join you in your dream-world.
Misero: Here we go... you, too have missed my point completely; quel surprise!
You lot should take the following as your motto: False Analogies FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
& ausGeoff: what I said is perfectly clear; just shouting that it isn't does not make it true.
Words are not the same as Reality, no matter how desperately you wish they were.
-
It is no surprise that you can not understand this, as you also do not understand that a rocket cannot be both Object A and Object B in a Newtonian action-reaction pairing.
Here we go again, just take deep breaths and try to describe clearly what your point is... Lets's start simple, What is Object A and Object B in your analogy?
-
I already told you.
Learn to read.
-
I suppose it's impossible to retype things for us poor unenlightened sheeples?
-
I'd prefer that you just learn to read.
& I never called any of you 'sheeple'; it is a silly & unhelpful term.
-
Sokarul: Ah! The good old 'man-on-skateboard' false analogy!
We haven't had a false analogy for a while, & I already debunked this example once on this thread; but as you clearly have not read, or not understood, my post then I will repeat it...
Special for you, like!
So; according to NASA, the skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the engine & the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
This is false.
In fact, it is the man's arm, in thrusting upon the ball, that represents the exhaust, whilst the ball represents an outside mass that the exhaust thrusts upon.
You see what they did there?
Thus, the man on the skateboard represents Object A, the ball represents Object B, & the requirements of Newton's 3rd law are fulfilled.
Rayzor; I don't care if you think I understand Newton's 3rd or not; your behaviour today has confirmed to any neutral reader that nothing you say is worthy of being taken seriously.
In a rocket the gas it ejects could be considered an outside force and the rocket pushes on it because the gas is under pressure and trying to expand in all directions including forward. The same thing applies because the same thing is happening. Don't tell me you think conservation of momentum is true unless rockets are involved...
-
I don't think conservation of momentum has any relevance if your model of rocketry is clearly violating Newton's 3rd Law to start with.
Or do you think you can have one without the other?
Bear in mind what I said about Words not being the same as Reality before you answer.
-
I don't think conservation of momentum has any relevance if your model of rocketry is clearly violating Newton's 3rd Law to start with.
Or do you think you can have one without the other?
Bear in mind what I said about Words not being the same as Reality before you answer.
Conservation of momentum is actually derived from Newton's 3rd law, and as long as all the laws of motion are followed the center of mass of a closed system will never move under any circumstances. If rockets work how you suggest then they would break conservation of momentum because the gas would move away from the center of mass while the rocket stayed put, this would mean that the center of mass between the rocket and the gas would magically move despite conservation of momentum.
Rockets do not break Newton's 3rd law, in fact Newton's 3rd law is why people first believed that rockets work in a vacuum. The action of ejecting gas has a reaction of moving the rocket, if that didn't happen then it would break Newton's 3rd law.
-
It is always easier to discuss with numbers, e.g.
Imagine a rocket with total mass m0 10 000 kg of which 5 000 kg is fuel. All fuel is ejected as gas (mass 5 000 kg) at ve 2 500 m/s velocity (relative the rocket) from the nozzle at the aft end of the rocket. Rocket mass becomes m1 5 000 kg, while the rocket attains speed (delta-v) 1 733 m/s according Tsiolkovsky*.
Assume that this takes 100 seconds.
The space ship then travels 86 643 m in one direction leaving a big cloud of exhaust gas extending 336 643 m behind with variable speeds.
Before start the momentum of the rocket with fuel is 0. After accelerating the rocket the momentum of the empty rocket is 8,665 Mkgm and the momentum of the exhaust gas is -8,665 Mkgm. The total momentum remains 0.
Imagine the same rocket having speed 1 733 m/s (it has been given this speed by another rocket). It has a momentum of 17.33 Mkgm. The rocket is now braking for 100 seconds burning 5 000 kg of fuel.
The exhaust is now ejected from the nozzle in the direction of braking and after 100 seconds the speed (delta v) is 0.
The exhaust gas cloud extends 336 643 m as before, but the space ship has travelled 86 643 m into this exhaust cloud. The total momentum of rocket and exhaust remains 17.33 Mkgm.
Any space ship will sooner or later run out of fuel unless you find a way to fill up in space.
*Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
Example - you want to change speed of the 10 000 kg (m0) space ship. You have 5 000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve 2 500 m/s. m1 = 5 000 kg. Delta-v = 1 733 m/s.
-
Sokarul: Ah! The good old 'man-on-skateboard' false analogy!
We haven't had a false analogy for a while, & I already debunked this example once on this thread; but as you clearly have not read, or not understood, my post then I will repeat it...
Special for you, like!
So; according to NASA, the skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the engine & the ball represents the rocket exhaust.
This is false.
In fact, it is the man's arm, in thrusting upon the ball, that represents the exhaust, whilst the ball represents an outside mass that the exhaust thrusts upon.
You see what they did there?
Thus, the man on the skateboard represents Object A, the ball represents Object B, & the requirements of Newton's 3rd law are fulfilled.
Incorrect. The ball is equal to the exhaust gas. How can the ball move the man if it's 5 feet away? This is just like a bullet in a gun. If the ball was the outside mass, then the mass of the ball wouldn't matter. You think he will move if he throws a balloon? No, he won't. This shows that the man moves because he throws a mass. Just like rockets.
The truth is right there in front of you, just open your eyes.
-
LOL!!!
You really don't want to understand what I say, do you?
OF COURSE the movement of the man depends on the size of the mass he throws - because he has to PUSH ON IT HARDER!!!
Thus, the strength of his arms equates to the strength (i.e. velocity) of the exhaust.
THRUST, you know; look up the dictionary definition.
The truth is right there in front of YOU too, sokarul; just keep your eyes CLOSED...
Just LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
You really don't want to understand what I say, do you?
OF COURSE the movement of the man depends on the size of the mass he throws - because he has to PUSH ON IT HARDER!!!
Thus, the strength of his arms equates to the strength (i.e. velocity) of the exhaust.
THRUST, you know; look up the dictionary definition.
The truth is right there in front of YOU too, sokarul; just keep your eyes CLOSED...
Just LOL!!!
This goes against everything you say, thanks for finally seeing rockets work as claimed.
-
No it doesn't.
I know you really want it to.
But it doesn't.
The man's arm, in THRUSTING UPON the OUTSIDE MASS of the ball, represents the rocket exhaust.
So the harder his arm (the exhaust) thrusts upon the outside mass, the further he will travel.
Simple, eh? Newton's 3rd is...
But not for you, inexplicably.
Nice try, though, but Words are not the same as Reality, sadly for you & your space-dreams...
P.s. Heiwa: no, it is not 'easier to discuss with numbers'; especially yours & rayzors!
Just show me some evidence for your model, please....
Oh, wait - you can't!
LOL!!!
-
No it doesn't.
I know you really want it to.
But it doesn't.
Yes it does.
The man's arm, in THRUSTING UPON the OUTSIDE MASS of the ball, represents the rocket exhaust.[/quote]
He is accelerating the ball. He is applying a force to it. In return, the ball also accelerates him. Since the ball has much less mass, he accelerates less.
So the harder his arm (the exhaust) thrusts upon the outside mass, the further he will travel.
This is indeed true. Since a simplified equation is mv=-mv. If the ball leaves with move vidoecity, he will have more velocity.
Simple, eh? Newton's 3rd is...
But not for you, inexplicably.
No, it is.
But not for you. The ball starts as a part of him and then is ejected. Just like rocket fuel.
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
Have you actually done EITHER of these experiments yourself.
-
Legion - the gas pushes against the rocket nozzle and the rocket nozzle pushes back against the gas. This rocket goes forwards and gas goes backwards.
Papa - I have no idea what you think I lied about.
By what mechanism "does the gas push against the nozzle and the nozzle pushes back against the gas?"
It is the same effect as when you push against a table or wall. You apply force against the wall and the wall applies force on your hand. We know this happens otherwise you hand would continue to move forwards. Force from the wall slows your hand to a stop.
If you want to get really technical then the mechanism is the strong nuclear force which repels at extremely short distance. It is why objects that are essentially empty space cannot pass through each other.
According to markjo (and pop science), the gas is exerting a force on the front of the combustion chamber which pushes the rocket forward. If that is true, then the pressure gradient force which is created would mean the gas has a much lower pressure as it exits, at the nozzle. In case you are unaware, low pressure means low contact force. So your hopes of "a push" on the way out seems remote.
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
Have you actually done EITHER of these experiments yourself.
Have you? What would the result be?
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
I already debunked denpressure. Do I need to post my videos again?
-
No it doesn't.
I know you really want it to.
But it doesn't.
The man's arm, in THRUSTING UPON the OUTSIDE MASS of the ball, represents the rocket exhaust.
So the harder his arm (the exhaust) thrusts upon the outside mass, the further he will travel.
Simple, eh? Newton's 3rd is...
But not for you, inexplicably.
Nice try, though, but Words are not the same as Reality, sadly for you & your space-dreams...
P.s. Heiwa: no, it is not 'easier to discuss with numbers'; especially yours & rayzors!
Just show me some evidence for your model, please....
Oh, wait - you can't!
LOL!!!
By definition, if you are thrusting on an outside mass then it's no longer an outside mass. Look up what an outside mass is.
-
Mikeman: wtf?
Sceptimatic: thank you; at last some common sense.
I have been telling these idiots for ages that I am trying to clean up an already flawed analogy, but they will not listen to reason.
Everyone else: EVIDENCE PLEASE!
To suggest that both forces described by Newton's 3rd are created on the same object is without precedent; please give EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to support such an outrageous claim.
You won't, will you?
Yet still you'll argue...
-
According to markjo (and pop science), the gas is exerting a force on the front of the combustion chamber which pushes the rocket forward. If that is true, then the pressure gradient force which is created would mean the gas has a much lower pressure as it exits, at the nozzle. In case you are unaware, low pressure means low contact force. So your hopes of "a push" on the way out seems remote.
Actually, most of the "push" occurs as the the exhaust gasses are exiting the combustion chamber through the throat (the section between the combustion chamber and the nozzle). The throat is smaller in diameter than the combustion chamber and the nozzle, therefore the pressure and velocity of the exhaust gasses increase (Bernoulli's principle). As the high pressure gasses exit the throat, the gasses expand again, some of that gas will push against the wall of the nozzle and provide some additional thrust.
-
& your experimental evidence for that is...
ZERO!!!!
lol.
-
No. If you need to prove everything yourself, what purpose does dopamine serve? Didn't test that yourself, did you? Maybe how your stomach works?
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
Excellent description and clearly defined experiments that disprove all of classical physics since the 1600's I wonder why the Nobel prize committee isn't knocking on your door? Could it be that you've just discovered that air exists? ( Jrowesceptic might disagree, but he left already ) But I see your knowledge of aerodynamics matches up with your skills in other areas.
The board with holes weighs less, and so the momentum transferred to the skate board is less, nothing to do with air resistance.
-
& your experimental evidence for that is...
Right here:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
P.s. Heiwa: no, it is not 'easier to discuss with numbers'; especially yours & rayzors!
Just show me some evidence for your model, please....
Oh, wait - you can't!
LOL!!!
Just read Reply #1222 again.
According my numbers the momentum of a fully tanked Spaceship at 0 speed is 0 and after the Spaceship at a certain speed has consumed all fuel and ejected it as exhaust, the momentum of the Spaceship and exhaust is still 0. Newton, you know.
Same applies when braking the Space ship at a certain speed. The momentum remains constant.
The problem is that you consume fuel and soon run out of fuel, as you cannot fill up in space and never return and land at your base. That's why human space travel is impossible and nobody will ever own a Spaceship.
-
Markjo: nice video of a giant static flamethrower; didn't demonstrate or prove a thing though.
Heiwa: as rockets clearly cannot reach space, your numbers are worthless fantasising.
Keep them to yourself.
Now: show me a simple experiment I can do at home (as I have shown you in support of my model) to support your ridiculous hypothesis that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!), thus somehow being both Object A AND Object B in a Newtonian 3rd scenario.
-
Denpressure adequately explains the Newton carry on with medicine balls and such with people on skates; skateboards or whatever.
Whatever dense object a person is holding, it will have more force against atmospheric resistance due to it resisting that pressure against it's dense mass.
That's why a beach ball doesn't stack up against it, because a beach ball is made up mostly of atmospheric equalized pressure, so all you're throwing is the plastic skin as any dense mass....plus the air fill inside which is minimal against your own dense mass.
Make sense?
Let's make it a bit easier for people to understand. You can do this for pennies.
Get 3 pieces of wood. Some mdf or plyboard or chipboard, etc. about 3 feet by 3 feet should suffice.
Screw two boards together so you now have one board twice as thick as the other board left.
Now cut large holes into the thicker board, so it looks something like a large connect 4 board, until both boards are the same weight.
Ok, now get another person to hold one of the boards while you hold the other. Now race each other over a short distance and see who wins the race.
You'll find that the person with the holed up double board will win easily because he's running into much less resistant force due to his holed board allowing air flow through it.
Now get on a skate board and throw both boards and see how far the skateboard moves backwards. You'll find that the board with no holes, creates a larger resistance on your body when you throw it forward because it's full size has to push all that air away, compressing it, which springs back onto the persons hands.
The holed board will have much less resistance to it because most of the air can compress through the board and be dissipated around the person.
The sooner people get to grips with denpressure, the sooner a lot of things will become clear about a lot of stuff. Gravity and silly space rocketry will be understood for what they are....a con.
Excellent description and clearly defined experiments that disprove all of classical physics since the 1600's I wonder why the Nobel prize committee isn't knocking on your door? Could it be that you've just discovered that air exists? ( Jrowesceptic might disagree, but he left already ) But I see your knowledge of aerodynamics matches up with your skills in other areas.
The board with holes weighs less, and so the momentum transferred to the skate board is less, nothing to do with air resistance.
I've highlighted what you should have observed before jumping in with the different weight garbage. I find it as funny as hell watching people like you do this, time and time again, as if you clearly can't grasp simple explanations.
It's almost like your mind is fixated on complications rather than logical thought.
It's like a woman shouts, " come here Geoffrey and give aunty Maud a loving hug" and you look up at her whilst blinking your eyes as you are scribbling phone book numbers down from what you memorised earlier. Weird.
You see, I haven't discovered that air exists...I've just pointed out to people like you that air actually plays the most important part in the movement of ANYTHING on Earth due to resistance on both sides as in action and reaction in equal resistant measures but always starting with an ACTION.
So go out into the outback and find some boards to work with, then try out what I've just said. You see, the truth is there for you but you are scared of it. Terrified of it, even.
If you were any genuine type of person and wanted to find out the truth, you would be doing this stuff and proving it to yourself. The problem is, just like sokarul, you would rather cheat your way through it and come back with a load of nonsense, rather than admit that you've been duped all your life.
If you have issues, like Mikeman, then I can at least cut you some slack a little. It still shouldn't stop you trying to find the truth though, instead of hiding behind the flared trousers of your global peers who you seem to look up to like a smitten teenager dreaming of the pop band on their wall.
-
I've highlighted what you should have observed before jumping in with the different weight garbage. I find it as funny as hell watching people like you do this, time and time again, as if you clearly can't grasp simple explanations.
It's almost like your mind is fixated on complications rather than logical thought.
It's like a woman shouts, " come here Geoffrey and give aunty Maud a loving hug" and you look up at her whilst blinking your eyes as you are scribbling phone book numbers down from what you memorised earlier. Weird.
You see, I haven't discovered that air exists...I've just pointed out to people like you that air actually plays the most important part in the movement of ANYTHING on Earth due to resistance on both sides as in action and reaction in equal resistant measures but always starting with an ACTION.
So go out into the outback and find some boards to work with, then try out what I've just said. You see, the truth is there for you but you are scared of it. Terrified of it, even.
If you were any genuine type of person and wanted to find out the truth, you would be doing this stuff and proving it to yourself. The problem is, just like sokarul, you would rather cheat your way through it and come back with a load of nonsense, rather than admit that you've been duped all your life.
If you have issues, like Mikeman, then I can at least cut you some slack a little. It still shouldn't stop you trying to find the truth though, instead of hiding behind the flared trousers of your global peers who you seem to look up to like a smitten teenager dreaming of the pop band on their wall.
Wow, did I just touch a nerve?.. I'm deeply flattered. I think you are telling me too much about your personal life. Which reminds me, you really should get one.
-
I've highlighted what you should have observed before jumping in with the different weight garbage. I find it as funny as hell watching people like you do this, time and time again, as if you clearly can't grasp simple explanations.
It's almost like your mind is fixated on complications rather than logical thought.
It's like a woman shouts, " come here Geoffrey and give aunty Maud a loving hug" and you look up at her whilst blinking your eyes as you are scribbling phone book numbers down from what you memorised earlier. Weird.
You see, I haven't discovered that air exists...I've just pointed out to people like you that air actually plays the most important part in the movement of ANYTHING on Earth due to resistance on both sides as in action and reaction in equal resistant measures but always starting with an ACTION.
So go out into the outback and find some boards to work with, then try out what I've just said. You see, the truth is there for you but you are scared of it. Terrified of it, even.
If you were any genuine type of person and wanted to find out the truth, you would be doing this stuff and proving it to yourself. The problem is, just like sokarul, you would rather cheat your way through it and come back with a load of nonsense, rather than admit that you've been duped all your life.
If you have issues, like Mikeman, then I can at least cut you some slack a little. It still shouldn't stop you trying to find the truth though, instead of hiding behind the flared trousers of your global peers who you seem to look up to like a smitten teenager dreaming of the pop band on their wall.
Wow, did I just touch a nerve?.. I'm deeply flattered. I think you are telling me too much about your personal life. Which reminds me, you really should get one.
You've just answered everything I needed to know in this last post, Thanks for that. No more correspondence needed with you, Geoffrey. It's basically back to normal where I decide when to answer you over months and basically ignore you most of the time, then let you blabber on telling all your internet pals that I've ignored you. ;D
See you later sweetheart. :-*
-
[You've just answered everything I needed to know in this last post, Thanks for that. No more correspondence needed with you, Geoffrey. It's basically back to normal where I decide when to answer you over months and basically ignore you most of the time, then let you blabber on telling all your internet pals that I've ignored you. ;D
See you later sweetheart. :-*
Was it my comment about your "denpressure theory" not winning the Nobel Prize? If it was, I'm sorry, you ground breaking scientific geniuses are just too highly strung for us mere mortals.
I'm flattered that you confuse me with ausGeoff, I hope he is not too badly insulted by the slur.
-
So; still no better experimental evidence for the whole 'rockets push on themselves' (lol!) nonsense than a video of a static engine test?
Again: lol!
You lot really do need to contemplate the nature of a vacuum, too: all a vacuum wants is to be filled with something; if the gas of a rocket exhaust is expanding in a vacuum it will do so without any resistance because it has the aid of the vacuum itself.
In other words: you can't get Something from Nothing.
Yet again, this is all experimentally proven; Free Expansion, yes?
-
So; still no better experimental evidence for the whole 'rockets push on themselves' (lol!) nonsense than a video of a static engine test?
Again: lol!
You lot really do need to contemplate the nature of a vacuum, too: all a vacuum wants is to be filled with something; if the gas of a rocket exhaust is expanding in a vacuum it will do so without any resistance because it has the aid of the vacuum itself.
In other words: you can't get Something from Nothing.
Yet again, this is all experimentally proven; Free Expansion, yes?
What? talk about incomprehensible gibberish, could you repeat that in English. Try assembling your thoughts into a coherent form before blurting it all out. Try again.
-
Well, rayzor/ausGeoff/Dame Edna, as you consistently mistake the word 'I' for the word 'You' & therefore cannot tell the difference between the first & second person singular, it is no surprise you could not comprehend my post.
But others will.
Generally speaking, though: obvious troll is obvious. LOL.
-
Well, rayzor/ausGeoff/Dame Edna, as you consistently mistake the word 'I' for the word 'You' & therefore cannot tell the difference between the first & second person singular, it is no surprise you could not comprehend my post.
But others will.
Generally speaking, though: obvious troll is obvious. LOL.
Yada yada... whatever.. hey, do you want to lay a bet on the Ashes?
In other less pressing matters, did you manage to understand conservation of momentum yet, or does that concept still elude your steel trap mind.
-
Free expansion for those who actually have the ability to want to understand how easily they are being duped with space rocketry.
I'll make this as simple as possible, so anyone who is having trouble grasping it can look at it all in it's most simplistic form to get an idea.
Before I start on free expansion i'd like to talk about why matter cannot freely expand in an atmosphere. Now think about this.
If you compress air into a cylinder, it cannot freely expand because it's under compression.
If you were to open the valve to let that compressed air out into the atmosphere, you will see that compressed air EXPAND into the atmosphere...but is this called FREE expansion?
Not really. It could be called a free-er expansion, meaning it's under much less resistance as it comes out of the valve opening against atmospheric pressure already pushing back against it in a less but still formidable resistance.
This is why you hear a huge fizz coming out and why you see the air expand as it comes out, because it's pushing atmosphere away and compressing into that atmosphere and widening out due to this, which is why you see a widening of exhaust the further it pushes into the atmosphere, just like you would when a rocket launches from a launch pad. You see the atmosphere being compressed and that's why you see the thin to widening cloud from the nozzle which is aided by the cone like nozzle shape to allow for a controlled expansion to enable best thrust to lift the rocket into the air.
Ok so what about FREE expansion.
Think about your rocket on the launch pad but this time it's taking off in a fantasy vacuum, meaning it's going to expel it's burning fuel against no RESISTANT force, meaning that the burning fuel coming out of it would IMMEDIATELY fully expand into the vacuum because there is nothing in that vacuum to arrest the oncoming burning expanding fuel. It simply would flow out and expand fully into a vacuum and be lost meaning it's done absolutely no work at all apart from playing last man out stinks.
Same with your compressed air cylinder in a vacuum. Open it and there is no fanning out because there isn't anything to resist this pressure coming out of the open valve. It would merely (in fantasy world) move out in a straight long line that evenly thickened as the gas truly freely expanded, yet it wouldn't fan out like a funnel.
Puzzled?
Ok imagine holding a sponge ball tight in your hand. Now imagine you placed your hand inside a container that contained the very same sponge balls but these sponge balls were only slightly compressed.
You can liken the sponge ball in your hand to it being a compressed air cylinder and the container being atmospheric pressure.
Ok you now open your hand and allow the sponge ball to expand. What you notice is, that sponge ball will expand but not freely, because the sponge balls already under slight compression in that container will create a resistant force against the one expanding out of your fist and it will take the form of those in the container, except slightly...very slightly more compressed due to it being an extra molecule of pressure.
Now do the same thing, except do it in an empty container as you release your compressed sponge ball from your fist. You find that it opens out to its full potential because it's been allowed to freely expand against no resistant force.
I urge anyone that's interested in this space con to read what I've said and you'll realise just why space rockets are fantasy.
-
Scepti and Papa - I would like you to answer these questions honestly if you are capable.
In a container with pressurised gas, do you agree:
1) the gas is exerting equal force on all sections of the walls of the container?
2) if we were to open one side of the container then there would be no force on that part of the container
3) Therefore force on one side of the container is now greater than the force on the opposite side?
4) If the force on the container is greater on one side then the container should experience acceleration in that direction?
-
Scepti and Papa - I would like you to answer these questions honestly if you are capable.
In a container with pressurised gas, do you agree:
1) the gas is exerting equal force on all sections of the walls of the container?
No, I don't agree with this. It depends on the container.
Let me make this clear so we can understand it. If the container is a long cylinder then the pressure is not equal on all sides.
If the container is a sphere then as long as it's closed, then yes it's equal pressure all around the inner skin.
2) if we were to open one side of the container then there would be no force on that part of the container
Of course there would. The gas would expand from the opening, creating a force against the external less pressurised atmosphere.
3) Therefore force on one side of the container is now greater than the force on the opposite side?
No, the force is exactly the same. It's action and reaction in equal terms inside the container. The only difference is that the open end is hitting an atmospheric resistance whilst inside the gas is expanding all around the inside as pressure is released into the less external pressure of atmosphere.
I'll try and make this easier for you.
Imagine you are inside a metal container with a sealed top and this container is dangling from a rope. You are crouched inside it with your feet facing down and your head pushing against the sealed top.
Ok, now the bottom lid of the container is loosened and now you can push it open using your outstretched feet as well as using your head as leverage against the sealed top.
At this point in time, there is no gain, until you actually push that bottom lid away...but as soon as you do, you fall out towards the ground as your feet straighten up. Your head is not pushing against the sealed upper container but your falling body is dense enough to push hard and compress the atmosphere below it as you come out.
Now imagine loads of you coming out like that and hitting each other as you do. You create a compression against each other. You on the ground building up and also you coming out of the bottom of the container. You meet and create a springboard effect. As long as this keeps happening, then you create lift off.
4) If the force on the container is greater on one side then the container should experience acceleration in that direction?
It's not the container that reacts to it, it's the gases expelled from it that meet the atmosphere and create an action/reaction push against resistance.
The rocket gases would be expanding against the atmosphere and compressing it, creating a springboard or a trampoline effect if you like.
The same is with a water bottle rocket. the only difference is in the way expansion and compression is carried out, that's all.
-
Mainframes: when you open one side of the container, the escaping gas would cause an ACTION; what, then, would it REACT against in order to create a force-pairing & thus move the container?
PLEASE try to understand Newton's 3rd law, because if a rocket cannot create an action-reaction pairing in your model (the idea of it 'pushing on itself' is impossible. & lol!) to fulfil the dictates of Newton 3, then any talk of conservation of momentum is pointless (take note, Dame Edna!).
Also; if, as Edna claims, I cannot speak English, then try the Latin: 'Horror Vacui'.
Any clearer?
Sceptimatic: Hi! Well put; this lot just don't want to learn, do they?
-
Mainframes: when you open one side of the container, the escaping gas would cause an ACTION; what, then, would it REACT against in order to create a force-pairing & thus move the container?
PLEASE try to understand Newton's 3rd law, because if a rocket cannot create an action-reaction pairing (the idea of it 'pushing on itself' is impossible. & lol!) to fulfil the dictates of Newton 3, then any talk of conservation of momentum is pointless (take note, Dame Edna!).
Also; if, as Edna claims, I cannot speak English, then try the Latin: 'Horror Vacui'.
Any clearer?
Sceptimatic: Hi! Well put; this lot just don't want to learn, do they?
They refuse to accept it because for them to do so would mean they have to admit they've been duped and no way in hell will most of these so called scientists ever admit to that. It would literally destroy them.
As for the shills, I won't waste much typing on those; we all know the script with those.
If I see just a few people actually start to wake up, it'll be worth it. The one's that refuse to, can carry on until they expire for all I care, because their arguments and attempted ridicule against me , you and other like minded people, render them not worth dealing with.
There's some decent globalists on here who I can deal with but they are in the minority.
-
Indeed; I can understand them having difficulty visualising the nature & properties of a vacuum, but their absolute refusal to comprehend something as utterly basic & simple as Newton's 3rd is baffling.
It really is not hard!
That's what 65+ years of space-propaganda, combined with their own escapist space-fantasies, has done to them, I guess...
Which is LOL!!!
-
Wow - you failed at the first hurdle.
It does not matter what shape the container is. The pressure within the container will be equal on all walls.
No wonder you guys don't get this.
Lets no examine the scenario of opening one side of the container. The gas exerts pressure on the walls of the container, but the side that is open has no wall to exert pressure on so the gas simpley starts escaping through that hole. Meanwhile gas is still exerting pressure on the opposite wall. The result is force on one side of the container but not on the other. This results in acceleration.
A rocket does not push on itself. It is the gaseous pressure inside the rocket that is not equal on all sides.
-
Mainframes: when you open one side of the container, the escaping gas would cause an ACTION; what, then, would it REACT against in order to create a force-pairing & thus move the container?
What action is the escaping gas causing?
All the escaping gas is doing is simply moving out of the container. Remember, gas is simply many molecules bouncing around within a container. When one side is removed then some of the molecules simply pass through the hole. They are not acting on anything. BUT some of the other molecules will still be impacting the opposite side of the container exerting force on that side.
-
LOL!!!
In the Weird & Whacky World of Mainframes, gas has no mass & it's movement causes no action or reaction whatsoever...
Spooky Ghost-Gas for Spooky Ghost-Physics!!!
-
Let's look at two situations, both in vacuum.
One, a rocket with all the fuel still inside.
Two, a rocket after 'launch', with the gas coming out.
Are the forces acting in each case the same?
Yes or no? Why or why not?
-
No, b.j, let's NOT look at two hypothetical & irrelevant situations until we have established exactly how Newton's 3rd law applies to rocket thrust.
I have provided simple experimental proof & evidence in support of my model (i.e. they push on an outside mass, ergo no outside mass, no push); you, however, have NOT.
So get to it!
Maybe scepti or legion will deign to answer your pointless & evasive nit-pickery; I, however, will not.
Again, for the hard of hearing: EVIDENCE, PLEASE!
-
No, b.j, let's NOT look at two hypothetical & irrelevant situations until we have established exactly how Newton's 3rd law applies to rocket thrust.
Nope, not irrelevant at all. We're seeing whether there are actions at play, or if there is just inaction. This is exactly the situation you describe.
A rocket with all the fuel still inside it, a rocket with fuel being ejected from it.
Are the forces at play, in each case, exactly the same, or different?
You don't need to waste time with your aswer: you can do it with just one letter. Y or N. Nice and simple. I promise you, this will answer your question.
Are the forces at play in a rocket will all the fuel inside, and a rocket with the gas coming out, the same?
Y or N.
Evade with lines of insult, or respond with a simple letter. Up to you.
(Also, side note. "push on an outside mass, ergo no outside mass, no push." This doesn't follow. Just because something does push on an outisde mass, doesn't mean it relies on pushing an outisde mass. Anything that exists on Earth displaces an outside mass: air. That doesn't mean everything ceases to exist as soon as it's in vacuum).
-
Aha! So you admit that a rocket DOES push on an outside mass?
Good. Now we're getting somewhere...
Now: what would happen to a gas being injected into a hard vacuum of practically infinite extent?
(google key-words: Free Expansion, Joules-Thomson effect; do some research).
Lastly; I did not insult you. Please do not tell fibs.
No, wait; there's more - EVIDENCE, PLEASE!
-
Aha! So you admit that a rocket DOES push on an outside mass?
Yes, in the atmosphere, same as everything that moves. Doesn't mean it relies on doing so, as I said.
I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. You do seem to enjoying evading my questions.
-
So; a rocket pushes on an outside mass when inside the atmosphere, then somehow magically swaps to another mode of thrust when outside the atmosphere?
Interesting! Care to expand on this hypothesis?
& I am not evading your questions; they are not that piercing or relevant, no matter how much you wish they were.
No; I am ignoring them, just as you all have ignored my repeated requests for simple experiments & evidence to support your model of rocket propulsion.
So don't complain...
Now; what would happen to a gas being injected into a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent?
You all have no respect for Newton; now let's see if you so-called science-fans are equally dismissive of the works of Mr. Joules & Mr. Thomson...
-
So; still no better experimental evidence for the whole 'rockets push on themselves' (lol!) nonsense than a video of a static engine test?
Again: lol!
You lot really do need to contemplate the nature of a vacuum, too: all a vacuum wants is to be filled with something; if the gas of a rocket exhaust is expanding in a vacuum it will do so without any resistance because it has the aid of the vacuum itself.
In other words: you can't get Something from Nothing.
Yet again, this is all experimentally proven; Free Expansion, yes?
Here is the evidence you are looking for.
(http://)
-
So; a rocket pushes on an outside mass when inside the atmosphere, then somehow magically swaps to another mode of thrust when outside the atmosphere?
Nope. Still the same means of thrust. Please tell me when I ever said that pushing on that atmosphere was how it gained thrust. It's not. The only force is where the fuel and the rocket meet, with or without air. No swapping of methods involved. Like everything in the atmosphere however, it exerts a force on air. It does not follow that it relies on exerting that force on air. I have said this before. Look, more of your famed ignoring.
Waiting for one letter from you. Your questions are irrelevant, the behavior of gas when it is not in contact with the rocket is not going to have any effect on the rocket.
Perhaps you could at least do me the courtesy of explaining why my question is irrelevant?
Or, you know, give one letter, and we'll be done.
-
Sokarul: already repeatedly debunked as a deliberately false analogy.
Try again!
B.j: the behaviour of gas in a vacuum is absolutely central to this 'debate'; which is why you all refuse to learn anything about it.
& I'll give you nothing if I choose to; you all have given me ZERO genuine experimental evidence for your model, so why should I give in to your shrill neediness?
Plus, you lied when you claimed I insulted you in my post of 9:32am, so why should I believe anything else you say, or even reply to you at all?
Not cool, b.j; not cool at all...
Still; at least you have finally conceded that rockets do, indeed, push on an outside mass; it took 64 pages to get to this blindingly obvious fact. But it does constitute headway.
So thanks for that.
&, as ever, LOL!!!
-
Hey Papa, we are all waiting for you to answer Bijane's question, stop prevaricating.
-
Still; at least you have finally conceded that rockets do, indeed, push on an outside mass; it took 64 pages to get to this blindingly obvious fact. But it does constitute headway.
Still ignoring, huh? They push on an outside mass. This has nothing to do with how they move. This is what everything that moves in the atmosphere does. Everything that moves in the atmosphere pushed on an outside mass. Are you going to say that, as a result, any movement in vacuum is impossible? I think the moon'll have a problem with that.
Or are you just going to ignore again?
Still waiting for one letter. I mean really, whether or not there's a force acting on a rocket seems to be pretty important. Going to explain why it's not?
One letter. Y or N. Come on now...
-
Sokarul: already repeatedly debunked as a deliberately false analogy.
Try again!
B.j: the behaviour of gas in a vacuum is absolutely central to this 'debate'; which is why you all refuse to learn anything about it.
& I'll give you nothing if I choose to; you all have given me ZERO genuine experimental evidence for your model, so why should I give in to your shrill neediness?
Plus, you lied when you claimed I insulted you in my post of 9:32am, so why should I believe anything else you say, or even reply to you at all?
Not cool, b.j; not cool at all...
Still; at least you have finally conceded that rockets do, indeed, push on an outside mass; it took 64 pages to get to this blindingly obvious fact. But it does constitute headway.
So thanks for that.
&, as ever, LOL!!!
Nope. Shows exactly what happens.
-
Bijane: LOL!!!
'they push on an outside mass.'
'everything that moves in the atmosphere pushes on an outside mass...'
Thank you.
You reveal more genuine information when I ignore you than when I question you; I'll keep it up then!
I've forgotten what your question was, anyway; something about empty or full or off or on rockets in a vacuum I believe?
Whatever; it was not as important a question as 'how is it possible for both forces described by Newton's 3rd law to be created on the same object?'.
& you've all REALLY ignored THAT one, ain't you?!
LOL!!!
Anyhow; research the behaviour of gas in a vacuum & get back to me when you're up to speed - Free Expansion, Joules-Thomson, remember?
Maybe I'll stop ignoring you afterwards...
P.s. what's the moon got to do with the subject of gas-powered rocket thrust in a vacuum?
Do you think it has thrusters?
You're not some kind of tin-foil hat loony conspiracy theorist, are you?
LOL!!!
Sokarul: 'shows exactly what happens' eh? Yes; to a sucker it does!
One born every minute I'm told...
LOL!!!
-
Bijane: LOL!!!
'they push on an outside mass.'
'everything that moves in the atmosphere pushes on an outside mass...'
Thank you.
"Pushes on" and "pushes off of" are to different things.
You reveal more genuine information when I ignore you than when I question you; I'll keep it up then!
I've forgotten what your question was, anyway; something about empty or full or off or on rockets in a vacuum I believe?
Whatever; it was not as important a question as 'how is it possible for both forces described by Newton's 3rd law to be created on the same object?'.
Here. Imagine standing on a skateboard next to a wall. You push against the wall and it doesn't move, thus you go rolling away on your skateboard. Now imagine the wall is also on wheel. You push against it and what happens? You both move some. The force it was once able to apply isn't going to magically disappear. It's just less since the wall moves.
See "inertia" for further studies.
& you've all REALLY ignored THAT one, ain't you?!
LOL!!!
Anyhow; research the behaviour of gas in a vacuum & get back to me when you're up to speed - Free Expansion, Joules-Thomson, remember?
What about it?
Maybe I'll stop ignoring you afterwards...
P.s. what's the moon got to do with the subject of gas-powered rocket thrust in a vacuum?
Do you think it has thrusters?
No one said anything about gas powered rockets. What thread are you reading?
You're not some kind of tin-foil hat loony conspiracy theorist, are you?
You are.
LOL!!!
Sokarul: 'shows exactly what happens' eh? Yes; to a sucker it does!
One born every minute I'm told...
LOL!!!
Name a scenario that you think demonstrates newtons 3rd law.
-
You all have no respect for Newton...
Us? You're the one who seems to have the problem determining action/reaction pairings.
-
You reveal more genuine information when I ignore you than when I question you; I'll keep it up then!
It's always been genuine information. It's also nothing like what you're saying
I've forgotten what your question was, anyway; something about empty or full or off or on rockets in a vacuum I believe?
A rocket with all its fuel still inside.
A rocket with gas coming out.
Are the forces at play exactly the same? Y or N?
Whatever; it was not as important a question as 'how is it possible for both forces described by Newton's 3rd law to be created on the same object?'.
Is a rocket with all the fuel in the same as a rocket with no fuel in?
Y or N?
That also answers your question.
Wonder if you're going to answer either of these. If you don't believe it's relevant, just humour me. All each question needs is a letter. Is that so hard?
-
Whatever; it was not as important a question as 'how is it possible for both forces described by Newton's 3rd law to be created on the same object?'.
Quite simple. As soon as the fuel and oxidizer are sprayed into the combustion chamber and burned, they are no longer part of the same object.
Hmm.. Now that I think about it, it might be an interesting thought experiment to figure out how much thrust is created by the mere act of spraying the fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. Meh, probably not enough to worry about.
Either way, as soon as the fuel and oxidizer break physical contact with the rocket, they become an external entity to the rocket and any resultant exhaust gasses are also an external entity apply an external force to the rocket.
Or do you think that "external" or "outside" can only mean "exterior" when it comes to forces?
-
Here we go; the old peer-pressure cluster-f**k gang-bang tactics, coming to the rescue of Bijane who's messed up bad...
Markjo; Hi! What a surprise to see you here too! Speaking of 'problems determining action-reaction pairings', have you tried looking down the back of a SMAW as it's fired yet?
Whatever; enjoy your 'thought experiments'; they're very important, cos they're the closest you'll ever get to space!
You can apply as much tortuous, convoluted logic & semantic hocus-pocus to your combustion chamber & nozzle as you like, but the fact is that without an outside mass to push against, no pressure can be created therein.
Sadly for you all though, I'm done for the night; you'll find I already answered all your relevant questions earlier in the thread if you care to actually read it.
As for the irrelevant questions - IGNORED.
No; the fact is Bijane has admitted that rockets, as well as everything that moves in the atmosphere, push on an outside mass.
& that's enough headway for me for today.
Though, for neutral readers, it's worth noting that Sokarul is REALLY trying to downplay the importance of the behaviour of gases in a vacuum to this debate.
Yet NASA's 'space rockets' are GAS-POWERED, are they not?
So the subject is definitely worth researching, then, isn't it?
Free Expansion; Joules-Thomson effect; google them & wise yourselves up a bit...
So; goodnight. &, as ever, LOL!!!
-
Here we go; the old peer-pressure cluster-f**k gang-bang tactics, coming to the rescue of Bijane who's messed up bad...
Two letters. Still waiting.
No; the fact is Bijane has admitted that rockets, as well as everything that moves in the atmosphere, push on an outside mass.
No one has denied that. This does not mean that the pushing on an outside mass causes the motion. Are you really still struggling with the concept of air resistance?
Really, if your position was so secure you should not be having so much trouble with answering somple yes-or-no questions...
-
You can apply as much tortuous, convoluted logic & semantic hocus-pocus to your combustion chamber & nozzle as you like, but the fact is that without an outside mass to push against, no pressure can be created therein.
So you have no rebuttal to my assertion that burning fuel and oxidizer is, as far as Newton's 3rd law is concerned, an external force to the rocket engine. Got it.
-
The last few pages of this thread is enlightening. While scepti convinced me well over a year ago that rockets would provide no propulsion in space. Legba is doing a good job in this thread reinforcing the rarely understood principles. Good job legba, it almost seemed as if BJ was going to see the cracks in NASA fairytales.
-
The last few pages of this thread is enlightening.
I know you're incapable of providing any content, but if you feel like making an exception any time, I've got two questions still needing an answer. Clearly Papa's not going to.
-
Hoppy: Yes, well, Bijane also seems to think that the moon is like a rocket: whether that's yet another terrible false analogy, or she believes it's an alien base or summat, I don't know.
Whatever; I wouldn't take much notice of what she says - she sounds like some kind of crackpot conspiracy theorist & may be better off on the David Icke forum than here.
I mean; she even claims that rockets push on the atmosphere for God's sake - that's pure crazy-talk!
LOL!!!
Anyway' I'll now answer her silly question: Bijane, the answer to your question is 'Eh wtf?'.
Why?
Because it is unanswerable.
Because you cannot have 2 rockets sitting in the vacuum of space.
Because they can not reach it.
Because of Newton's 3rd law.
Because even if they somehow did & one of them tried to ignite its engine, nothing would happen.
Because of Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
You know, the experimentally proven scientific elephant in the room that you're all trying so desperately to evade & ignore....
So, b.j; your question is as meaningless as me asking you 'are square blue circles orange?'
Btw, please don't answer that.
You'll only get it wrong...
Inevitably, as ever, LOL!!!
-
Anyway' I'll now answer her silly question: Bijane, the answer to your question is 'Eh wtf?'.
Why?
Because it is unanswerable.
Because you cannot have 2 rockets sitting in the vacuum of space.
Because they can not reach it.
So, in vacuum (or near-vacuum if they can't reach space), all the fuel will say inside the rocket?
Otherwise you can definitely compare two examples...
-
Bijane: LOL!!!
'they push on an outside mass.'
'everything that moves in the atmosphere pushes on an outside mass...'
Thank you.
"Pushes on" and "pushes off of" are to different things.
You reveal more genuine information when I ignore you than when I question you; I'll keep it up then!
I've forgotten what your question was, anyway; something about empty or full or off or on rockets in a vacuum I believe?
Whatever; it was not as important a question as 'how is it possible for both forces described by Newton's 3rd law to be created on the same object?'.
Here. Imagine standing on a skateboard next to a wall. You push against the wall and it doesn't move, thus you go rolling away on your skateboard. Now imagine the wall is also on wheel. You push against it and what happens? You both move some. The force it was once able to apply isn't going to magically disappear. It's just less since the wall moves.
See "inertia" for further studies.
& you've all REALLY ignored THAT one, ain't you?!
LOL!!!
Anyhow; research the behaviour of gas in a vacuum & get back to me when you're up to speed - Free Expansion, Joules-Thomson, remember?
What about it?
Maybe I'll stop ignoring you afterwards...
P.s. what's the moon got to do with the subject of gas-powered rocket thrust in a vacuum?
Do you think it has thrusters?
No one said anything about gas powered rockets. What thread are you reading?
You're not some kind of tin-foil hat loony conspiracy theorist, are you?
You are.
LOL!!!
Sokarul: 'shows exactly what happens' eh? Yes; to a sucker it does!
One born every minute I'm told...
LOL!!!
Name a scenario that you think demonstrates newtons 3rd law.
Still waiting.
-
Sokarul: are you mad or blind or do you just never read any of the posts you reply so boringly to, or what exactly?
Here's a scenario that demonstrates Newton's 3rd law: A ROCKET (OBJECT A) IGNITES ITS FUEL, THUS CREATING AN ACTION. THE EXHAUST COLUMN STRIKES AN OUTSIDE MASS SUCH AS THE ATMOSPHERE (OBJECT B), THUS CREATING A REACTION & PRODUCING THRUST.
Clear enough for you?
& do NOT make me debunk your stupid man-on-skateboard FALSE GODDAMN ANALOGY yet a-bloody-gain.
It's over, okay?
Now go learn how free expansion works, wake up from your space-dreams & personal war on science, & stop spamming me with ignorant nonsense.
& markjo: again, there can be NO pressure inside the combustion chamber & nozzle without an opposing pressure outside the nozzle to create it.
Newton's 3rd, force-pairings, action-reaction, etc, etc...
I guess you just don't want to see that for some bizarre reason.
But it's true!
LOL!!!
-
Sokarul: are you mad or blind or do you just never read any of the posts you reply so boringly to, or what exactly?
Here's a scenario that demonstrates Newton's 3rd law: A ROCKET (OBJECT A) IGNITES ITS FUEL, THUS CREATING AN ACTION. THE EXHAUST COLUMN STRIKES AN OUTSIDE MASS SUCH AS THE ATMOSPHERE (OBJECT B), THUS CREATING A REACTION & PRODUCING THRUST.
So how does the outside mass create a force to propel the rocket? The exhaust is moving in a directing away from the rocket. How can it then change directions to push the rocket?
Clear enough for you?
Nope, do you have a scenario that isn't a rocket?
& do NOT make me debunk your stupid man-on-skateboard FALSE GODDAMN ANALOGY yet a-bloody-gain.
It's over, okay?
You never did the first time. And now you ignored my skateboard wall argument. Just admit you can't.
Now go learn how free expansion works, wake up from your space-dreams & personal war on science, & stop spamming me with ignorant nonsense.
What about it? I know a thing or two about physics.
& markjo: again, there can be NO pressure inside the combustion chamber & nozzle without an opposing pressure outside the nozzle to create it.
Actually to raise pressure you can restrict flow. That is what a nozzle does. That has nothing to do with outside anything. I see you no nothing about physics. In a rockets case, the nozzle increases the velocity the spent fuel, creating more thrust. Watch the movie October Sky.
Newton's 3rd, force-pairings, action-reaction, etc, etc...
I guess you just don't want to see that for some bizarre reason.
But it's true!
LOL!!!
You are so confused it's not funny. I'm not sure why you are laughing.
-
& markjo: again, there can be NO pressure inside the combustion chamber & nozzle without an opposing pressure outside the nozzle to create it.
??? Huh? Just what do you suppose is happening when you rapidly burn a lot of fuel and oxidizer in a small, enclosed chamber?
Newton's 3rd, force-pairings, action-reaction, etc, etc...
Forget Newton, right now I'm not even sure if you understand how combustion works.
-
If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!), then here is a simple experiment you can all do at home to prove or disprove it.
Not an analogy, mind, but a genuine experiment.
1: Stand up.
2: Reach down & grasp yourself by the feet with your hands.
3: Pull upwards.
End of experiment.
Now; if the result of your experiment was that you flew into the sky until you reached space, then congratulations! You have proved NASA's model of rocket propulsion correct.
If, however, you did not, then it looks like NASA are telling porkies...
I haven't tried it yet; maybe tomorrow if I get bored... Oooh! I wonder what SPACE will be like?!? All lovely & floaty & not-at-all-suspiciously heaven-like, with no dead bodies to bum me out... & all the happy, smiley, extra-special astronauts in the ISS will be up there too, throwing water around near vital electronics & never tripping over cables or getting minging filthy after a year without proper toilet facilities & doing super-duper-special space-science that will benefit all mankind eventually, but never quite yet...
& Chris Hadfield has a guitar!!!
I Can. Not. Wait... It will be ACE!
lol.
-
If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!), then here is a simple experiment you can all do at home to prove or disprove it.
When the fuel is outside of the rocket, is it part of the rocket?
-
What is your point, b.j?
Do you have one?
We all know you think that the Moon is like a rocket (lol!) so I doubt it'll be a good one, but get to it anyway.
Your time would be better-spent researching Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum imo, but whatever...
Oh, & did you try the experiment I suggested in my last post? Are you now in space? That would be so cool; talking to someone in SPACE!
Whatever; I'm still LOL-ing at the idea of taking a guitar to the ISS; you should too if you really thought about it...
But you won't will you? Cos space-stuff is Serious Business & not at all a silly con-job that a child could see through.
-
What is your point, b.j?
You're saying the same object is acting on itself. I'm seeing if it's true.
We all know you think that the Moon is like a rocket (lol!) so I doubt it'll be a good one, but get to it anyway.
The moon is nothing like a rocket, except for the fact it moves through vacuum, which your logic has said is impossible. Do you stand by that?
-
If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!), then here is a simple experiment you can all do at home to prove or disprove it.
Not an analogy, mind, but a genuine experiment.
1: Stand up.
2: Reach down & grasp yourself by the feet with your hands.
3: Pull upwards.
End of experiment.
That's like loading a gun and expecting recoil before you fire it. Just admit you don't have any examples of newton's third law.
Now; if the result of your experiment was that you flew into the sky until you reached space, then congratulations! You have proved NASA's model of rocket propulsion correct.
If, however, you did not, then it looks like NASA are telling porkies...
I haven't tried it yet; maybe tomorrow if I get bored... Oooh! I wonder what SPACE will be like?!? All lovely & floaty & not-at-all-suspiciously heaven-like, with no dead bodies to bum me out... & all the happy, smiley, extra-special astronauts in the ISS will be up there too, throwing water around near vital electronics & never tripping over cables or getting minging filthy after a year without proper toilet facilities & doing super-duper-special space-science that will benefit all mankind eventually, but never quite yet...
& Chris Hadfield has a guitar!!!
I Can. Not. Wait... It will be ACE!
lol.
What is funny is how you ran away from your own pressure argument.
-
If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!)...
Except we keep telling you that the burning fuel and resultant gasses are not part of the rocket. How many times do we have to explain before you finally get it?
-
I'm going to dumb it down for you:
The rocket and the fuel are the same entity until the valve opens and the gas flows out. The gas expands, pushing on the rocket. Ta-Da!
-
No, sokarul, that is an example of what happens if you try to create both forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object.
Like NASA claims their rockets do.
Did you try it btw? Are you now in space too?
Waging a space-war on space-science, like you do down here on Earthly science?
& I haven't run away from anything; that's what you lot all do when the subject of FREE EXPANSION OF GAS IN A VACUUM is raised... Cos what do NASA's rockets run on again? Oh - it's GAS isn't it!
Though you're probably all busy working feverishly on your denialist counter-arguments now; for the War On Science must continue at all costs!
Tell you what; why not just dig up the bodies of Joules & Thomson & give em a good kicking eh?
Newton too... though his body's probably spinning in its grave so fast now, after how badly you've all abused his laws, that it's burst into flames...
Meh; you're all a joke.
So therefore: LOL!!!!
P.s. markjo: do you not realise how utterly creepy & weird your last statement is? You're basically saying that, because you & your pals all keep repeatedly telling me something, I should accept it as being True.
This is why I do not like you. So knock it off, ok?
You can not provide any experiments or evidence to support your claims, while I have provided plenty; THAT is how I will determine what is TRUE, happy-fascist markjo - NOT merely on YOUR say-so.
But whatever; anyone else tried my experiment & is now in space? We could all have a space-party round the space-camp-fire, playing Chris Hadfield's guitar (lol!).
P.s. misero: No; in a vacuum the gas will expand, DOING NOTHING. If you do not like this fact, then take it up with Mr. Joules & Mr. Thomson.
-
If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!)...
Except we keep telling you that the burning fuel and resultant gasses are not part of the rocket. How many times do we have to explain before you finally get it?
If they're not part of the rocket then why burn them in the first place?
Let's try and make something clear to you. It'll fly above your head (pardon the pun) but it'll sort out what a real combustion chamber is and what the purpose of it is.
You see, this combustion chamber inside a rocket engine, is baloney. In a solid rocket, you can argue that it's a combustion chamber due to how the fuel burns.
A real combustion chamber in an engine would not work on a rocket but it would work very well in a car or truck as in burning to move pistons.
Pistons and such are no good for rockets, because the pistons in a car do actually emit exhaust fumes as the waste.
A rocket emits a huge burning mass out of it's arse end nozzle. Why?...because that's the propellant to make it work.
There's no internal combustion kicking the rocket up it's own arse and people should realise this without naively fighting it.
It's nonsense and would literally blow the rocket to smithereens in seconds if this was how they worked. Seriously, have a word for crying out loud.
-
Scepti, Papa, one question:
Is rocket exhaust physically part of the rocket?
You can answer with one letter Y or N. I'll wait.
-
No, sokarul, that is an example of what happens if you try to create both forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object.
Here. Imagine standing on a skateboard next to a wall. You push against the wall and it doesn't move, thus you go rolling away on your skateboard. Now imagine the wall is also on wheel. You push against it and what happens? You both move some. The force it was once able to apply isn't going to magically disappear. It's just less since the wall moves.
See "inertia" for further studies.
Understand yet? Of course you don't, you know nothing about physics.
Like NASA claims their rockets do.
Did you try it btw? Are you now in space too?
Waging a space-war on space-science, like you do down here on Earthly science?
& I haven't run away from anything; that's what you lot all do when the subject of FREE EXPANSION OF GAS IN A VACUUM is raised... Cos what do NASA's rockets run on again? Oh - it's GAS isn't it!
So if I have a 3000 psi gas cylinder and I open it in space, there is now no pressure inside the cylinder? No, there still is pressure, it just starts to escape.
Though you're probably all busy working feverishly on your denialist counter-arguments now; for the War On Science must continue at all costs!
Tell you what; why not just dig up the bodies of Joules & Thomson & give em a good kicking eh?
Newton too... though his body's probably spinning in its grave so fast now, after how badly you've all abused his laws, that it's burst into flames...
You just said his 3rd law doesn't make sense.
BTW I have seen his grave. I don't think he is spinning in it.
Meh; you're all a joke.
So therefore: LOL!!!!
P.s. markjo: do you not realise how utterly creepy & weird your last statement is? You're basically saying that, because you & your pals all keep repeatedly telling me something, I should accept it as being True.
This is why I do not like you. So knock it off, ok?
You can not provide any experiments or evidence to support your claims, while I have provided plenty; THAT is how I will determine what is TRUE, happy-fascist markjo - NOT merely on YOUR say-so.
But whatever; anyone else tried my experiment & is now in space? We could all have a space-party round the space-camp-fire, playing Chris Hadfield's guitar (lol!).
P.s. misero: No; in a vacuum the gas will expand, DOING NOTHING. If you do not like this fact, then take it up with Mr. Joules & Mr. Thomson.
Lol you are clueless. lol
lol lol lol lol lol lol lolol lol ololol
lol lol
lol
-
I'm going to dumb it down for you:
The rocket and the fuel are the same entity until the valve opens and the gas flows out. The gas expands, pushing on the rocket. Ta-Da!
Yes the gas expands but it doesn't push on the rocket. the rocket's ignited gases pushing on the atmosphere below it and compressing it is what makes the rocket work.
All the rocket is doing is ejecting hot expanded gases against a dense atmosphere. If those gases expanded inside that rocket they would blow it to bits, immediately.
-
Scepti, Papa, one question:
Is rocket exhaust physically part of the rocket?
You can answer with one letter Y or N. I'll wait.
The rocket exhaust as you people mention it, is actually the whole reason the rocket works. As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.
-
As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.
Yes or no, Scepti. We all know the exhaust is what comes out of the rocket. May we conclude that means you agree it is not physically part of the rocket?
-
As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.
Yes or no, Scepti. We all know the exhaust is what comes out of the rocket. May we conclude that means you agree it is not physically part of the rocket?
You're game playing. I fail to see why you need to play games.
I've just answered your question but you want to twist it to make it look like the exhaust means nothing. Why would you do that unless you are desperate to hide something. Weird as hell.
-
You're game playing. I fail to see why you need to play games.
I've just answered your question but you want to twist it to make it look like the exhaust means nothing. Why would you do that unless you are desperate to hide something. Weird as hell.
I'm the one playing games when you wouldn't give a straight answer?
Oh, the exhaust means plenty. The speed at which it comes out of the rocket is what causes the rocket's motion. Conservation of momentum. Product of the mass and velocity of the rocket is conserved. At the beginning, the mass is the sum of the rocket and the fuel times velocity zero. At the end, the rocket is lighter, and there is mass coming out the back with a certain, high velocity.
So, the rocket must go at some speed in order to ensure that the sum of its mass time velocity, with the mass of the exhaust plus its velocity, is zero.
Just pointing out Papa's bootstraps analogy is meaningless (as he so often claims, despite the fact that the analogies we use are at least accurate on the point if comparison).
-
Sokarul: I did NOT say Newton's 3rd made no sense; I said NASA's interpretation of it in regard to rocket thrust made no sense.
Are you trolling or just stupid?
Also, learn about Free Expansion: once opened to a vacuum, the pressure in your gas cylinder would equalise with the vacuum asap, DOING NO WORK ON THE WAY.
& I seem to know a lot more about physics than YOU do; but then you are actively engaged in a war on science, so that's no surprise, is it?
Lastly; get a sense of humour.
Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?
Yes it does.
I know what you're trying to do here & it won't work; the rocket & it's exhaust are a single unit creating an ACTION.
What, then, does it REACT against?
Itself?
LOL!!!
Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.
-
Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?
Not really. More exhaust is created, but it's not the same exhaust.
Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.
You think humans are like rockets?
Ok, let's go back to basics. Conservation of momentum exists. True or false?
-
Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?
Not really. More exhaust is created, but it's not the same exhaust.
Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.
You think humans are like rockets?
Ok, let's go back to basics. Conservation of momentum exists. True or false?
That depends on how you're using that meaning.
Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.
-
Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.
mr is the mass of the physical rocket, with no fuel in. vr is the velocity of the rocket (unknown). mf is the mass of the fuel. The fuel exhaust leaves the rocket with some velocity: we call that vf.
Aside, for completeness' sake. Ignore if you want. Technically, it might be easier to define mr to be the mass of the rocket and some amount of the fuel, and only be concerned with the fuel exhaust over a limited amount of time. The end result will be very much the same.
Conservation of momentum states that m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 where u is the initial velocity, v the final velocity.
We know that a rocket starts at rest, and that the fuel exhaust comes out from the rocket. We'll define the direction of the fuel to be negative: it can be positive if you want, this just makes it neater. All that matters is that the velocity is non-zero.
Now, it's just a matter of applying the formula:
0(mr + mf) = mrvr - mfvf
Clearly, the left hand side is zero, so:
mrvr = mfvf
We know that fuel has some mass, and some (high) velocity, so the right hand side is not zero: so the left hand side cannot be zero. That is, the velocity of the rocket must exist.
I mean, if you want to be really technical it's closer to
(mr+ (1-k)mf)vr = kmfvf
For some constant k between 0 and 1, determining how much of the fuel has been consumed, but still. The right hand side is still non-zero, so vr must be as well. This holds in isolated, or approximately isolated, systems.
-
Sorry, bijane but what I proposed is a genuine experiment, to determine whether creating both the forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object will result in motion.
& they do not; ergo NASA's model for rocket thrust is wrong.
That you cannot understand this is unsurprising, as you & your gang have absolutely no reasoning powers whatsoever.
Neutral readers will be painfully aware of this by now, so do not imagine that you are in any way 'winning' here.
Frankly, your best bet would have been to just keep quiet & wait for me to go away; but your arrogance & intolerance would not allow you to do that, & now your credibility is completely shot to pieces.
& THAT is well & truly LOL!!!
Also, why are you spamming lots of equations now? Are you having a nervous breakdown or something?
Do you really not understand that conservation of momentum is meaningless without Newton's 3rd? & as I have already proved that NASA's model for rocket thrust violates Newton 3 then c.o.m is irrelevant.
There are no rockets in space; get over it & get on with your life.
-
Sorry, bijane but what I proposed is a genuine experiment, to determine whether creating both the forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object will result in motion.
Exhaust is not part of the rocket. The end.
Also, why are you spamming lots of numbers now?
If you don't understand rather basic maths, I suggest you rethink making claims on this topic.
-
Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.
mr is the mass of the physical rocket, with no fuel in. vr is the velocity of the rocket (unknown). mf is the mass of the fuel. The fuel exhaust leaves the rocket with some velocity: we call that vf.
Aside, for completeness' sake. Ignore if you want. Technically, it might be easier to define mr to be the mass of the rocket and some amount of the fuel, and only be concerned with the fuel exhaust over a limited amount of time. The end result will be very much the same.
Conservation of momentum states that m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 where u is the initial velocity, v the final velocity.
We know that a rocket starts at rest, and that the fuel exhaust comes out from the rocket. We'll define the direction of the fuel to be negative: it can be positive if you want, this just makes it neater. All that matters is that the velocity is non-zero.
Now, it's just a matter of applying the formula:
0(mr + mf) = mrvr - mfvf
Clearly, the left hand side is zero, so:
mrvr = mfvf
We know that fuel has some mass, and some (high) velocity, so the right hand side is not zero: so the left hand side cannot be zero. That is, the velocity of the rocket must exist.
I mean, if you want to be really technical it's closer to
(mr+ (1-k)mf)vr = kmfvf
For some constant k between 0 and 1, determining how much of the fuel has been consumed, but still. The right hand side is still non-zero, so vr must be as well. This holds in isolated, or approximately isolated, systems.
All those figures and equations you put. Gather them all up in your hand. Carefully cup them all like you would do with a recently caught butterfly from a cabbage leaf or flower, the carefully place them into a specially made case marked equations. Make sure you lock this case and only open it when someone wants you to show them the scatter gun of garbage.
In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.
No wonder your minds are so scrambled. I feel sorry for you people having to live by this absolute crap, I really do. It's as if you're trained to only answr like this.
Did you ever watch Armageddon, the film?
Do you remember the scene where they're all sat around the big table all reeling off potentials for stopping this rogue asteroid and some supposed tefal heads pipe up with mumbo jumbo, then Billy Bob Thornton who played truman shouts, " I need someone who hasn't had too much caffeine" and " come on guys we need to be realistic here."
You are the one on too much caffeine. I need you to tell it in basic form so that it's easy and simple to understand for anyone looking in.
Like Quincy said. " Blowing it up from the outside won't do the job." So what do we do?....."we drill."
We drill, Bi Jane. All I want you to do is drill. No fancy space walking stuff. No crazy astronaut rocket stuff. Just drill.
Ok, try again and tell me about this conservation of momentum as regards moving your rocket into the fluffy looking clouds and beyond. ;D
-
In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.
You're the self-proclaimed genius. Figure it out.
-
Sokarul: I did NOT say Newton's 3rd made no sense; I said NASA's interpretation of it in regard to rocket thrust made no sense.
Are you trolling or just stupid?
Also, learn about Free Expansion: once opened to a vacuum, the pressure in your gas cylinder would equalise with the vacuum asap, DOING NO WORK ON THE WAY.
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
& I seem to know a lot more about physics than YOU do; but then you are actively engaged in a war on science, so that's no surprise, is it?
No you don't.
Lastly; get a sense of humour.
lol lol lolololololololololololol
Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?
Yes it does.
I know what you're trying to do here & it won't work; the rocket & it's exhaust are a single unit creating an ACTION.
So how does the exhaust column push the rocket in the opposite direction?
You should draw a force diagram.
What, then, does it REACT against?
Itself?
LOL!!!
No, it's already reacted, it's just spent.
Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.
Did you try my skateboard experiment yet? Or are you going to keep ignoring it because you don't have a rebuttal?
-
In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.
You're the self-proclaimed genius. Figure it out.
I'm only a genius because I can think on basic terms. I can see the simplicity in things without the need to bullshit people into believing things are more complicated than they need to be.
I also want to show people that reality is under their feet and just above the clouds. Fantasy is the space and space rockets that people like you expend great energy trying to push onto people and also trying to make sure people do not wake up to the reality.
-
I'm only a genius because I can think on basic terms. I can see the simplicity in things without the need to bullshit people into believing things are more complicated than they need to be.
If you can't udnerstand complexity, you're not a genius. That wasn't even remotely complicated maths.
A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.
There's the incredibly dumbed down version, with respect to launch. The same principle holds when in flight. You could involve frames of reference, or simply point out that the fuel in the rocket, and the rocket, necessarily move at the same rate: so when fuel exhaust is forced out, that would still exert a reactive force on the rocket.
-
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
I'm trying to pretend you never said this. ;D
-
Bijane: What the hell has the exhaust being part of the rocket or not got to do with my EXPERIMENT to prove NASA's model of rocket thrust (wherein both the action & reaction forces are claimed to be created on the same object) thoroughly & comprehensively wrong?
Are you drunk?
Really, b.j; there are no rockets in space. But never mind, because nobody really cares & ultimately nothing of value will be lost.
Just a few silly, escapist fantasies that were always unworthy of a truly mature sensibility anyway.
So pull yourself together & move on.
Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
Oh - & LOL!!!
-
Bijane: What the hell has the exhaust being part of the rocket or not got to do with my EXPERIMENT to prove NASA's model of rocket thrust (wherein both the action & reaction forces are claimed to be created on the same object) thoroughly & comprehensively wrong?
Well, if the rocket exhaust is not the same object as the rocket, you've just explained why your nonsensical experiment isn't relevant. Pity, I thought your trolling was a little more imaginitive.
-
If you can't udnerstand complexity, you're not a genius. That wasn't even remotely complicated maths.
Don't ever be under the impression that crunching numbers and equations makes people geniuses. A genius is a person who can take complicated things and actually dumb them down to a level that anyone can understand.
The world is full of potential genius people. The problem is, they have been dumbed down by a lifetime of indoctrinated clap trap from the second they were old enough to actually absorb knowledge.
A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.
This is more like it. You see, it's as simple as that. the problem is, you seem scared to actually state what exactly does happen to make this rocket move. You simply mention rocket and fuel. We already know this. What we want to know, is how it works by your model. Explain what happens and why, for this rocket to move.
We've explained our side and you reject it, so explain your side.
There's the incredibly dumbed down version, with respect to launch. The same principle holds when in flight. You could involve frames of reference, or simply point out that the fuel in the rocket, and the rocket, necessarily move at the same rate: so when fuel exhaust is forced out, that would still exert a reactive force on the rocket.
Yes it's dumbed down. It's getting basic which is how it should be. All I need now is your dumbed down version of how a rocket works by explaining the fuel inside the rocket and what it does to propel it vertically into space.
Just explain it simply without bullshit equations.
-
Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
Oh - & LOL!!!
Learn what a nozzle is.
Also
(http://)
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
I'm trying to pretend you never said this. ;D
So power tools run off of air compressors are fake?
-
Don't ever be under the impression that crunching numbers and equations makes people geniuses. A genius is a person who can take complicated things and actually dumb them down to a level that anyone can understand.
Sure, great. Except they also need to understand those things when they're complicated, in order to interpret. So, if you're a genius as you've claimed, try reading.
This is more like it. You see, it's as simple as that. the problem is, you seem scared to actually state what exactly does happen to make this rocket move. You simply mention rocket and fuel. We already know this. What we want to know, is how it works by your model. Explain what happens and why, for this rocket to move.
We've explained our side and you reject it, so explain your side.
What are you asking for? The details of the reaction that make the exhaust come out? Why is that relevant? You seem to just be wasting time. I don't think you can be asking for that, because it doesn't matter: we know the exhaust comes out of the rocket, by observation alone.
So, given that the moves out in one direction, I literally did just explain how it works. So, we're done.
If you forgot:
A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.
-
Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
Oh - & LOL!!!
Learn what a nozzle is.
Also
(http://)
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
I'm trying to pretend you never said this. ;D
So power tools run off of air compressors are fake?
No they're not fake.I'm just laughing at you using them as some kind of proof about your silly space rockets working. ;D
-
Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
Oh - & LOL!!!
Learn what a nozzle is.
Also
(http://)
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
I'm trying to pretend you never said this. ;D
So power tools run off of air compressors are fake?
No they're not fake.I'm just laughing at you using them as some kind of proof about your silly space rockets working. ;D
You never could read could you? He said escaping gas did nothing, I showed that it did. Reading comprehension is hard isn't it. Maybe you should go back to the first grade and start over.
-
Bijane: earlier in this thread you were all stating that the exhaust played no part in the thrust of a rocket & that the work was all done in the combustion chamber.
Yet now the exhaust has become somehow vital to the rocket's functioning; can you really not see the hypocrisy & lack of logic in your position?
NASA claim that both the forces described by Newton's 3rd are created on the rocket alone; this is indisputable, bijane.
& I have proved that this claim can result in no motion; ergo, NASA are wrong.
Simply denying this FACT will not make it untrue.
Really - what is wrong with you, bijane? Your behaviour is genuinely disturbing...
P.s. sokarul; I said escaping gas did nothing IN A VACUUM. This a scientific fact - so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.
-
Don't ever be under the impression that crunching numbers and equations makes people geniuses. A genius is a person who can take complicated things and actually dumb them down to a level that anyone can understand.
Sure, great. Except they also need to understand those things when they're complicated, in order to interpret. So, if you're a genius as you've claimed, try reading.
This is more like it. You see, it's as simple as that. the problem is, you seem scared to actually state what exactly does happen to make this rocket move. You simply mention rocket and fuel. We already know this. What we want to know, is how it works by your model. Explain what happens and why, for this rocket to move.
We've explained our side and you reject it, so explain your side.
What are you asking for? The details of the reaction that make the exhaust come out? Why is that relevant? You seem to just be wasting time. I don't think you can be asking for that, because it doesn't matter: we know the exhaust comes out of the rocket, by observation alone.
So, given that the moves out in one direction, I literally did just explain how it works. So, we're done.
If you forgot:
A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.
You are scared stiff of explaining how your rocket works. You keep mentioning exhaust but you've already said time and again that the exhaust isn't what propels the rocket, so why not explain how the rocket is propelled by simply telling it as basic as possible without using bullshit equations.
Merely saying conservation of momentum and action/reaction inside the rocket is not telling the full story. Tell that story of how it manages to propel that rocket into space whilst explaining that the exhaust is simply a mild dry fart in the underpants that nobody notices because it's just so insignificant.
-
You are scared stiff of explaining how your rocket works. You keep mentioning exhaust but you've already said time and again that the exhaust isn't what propels the rocket, so why not explain how the rocket is propelled by simply telling it as basic as possible without using bullshit equations.
You do realize that not thinking doesn't translate to me not answering, right?
The exhaust is an effect. We know that, if it exists, there must be a force in the opposite direction. That is a fact, that is all that is needed to establish that a rocket works. Anything else is just evasion.
Again, I'm not interested in explaining the intimate details of how the fuel works, especially because you'll just ask me to dumb it down despite the fact you've claimed to be intelligent enough to understand it. Instead, I have just one question, which is all you need to answer. How does the exhaust go in one direction, without a force acting in the opposite direction? Irrespective of a cause, how is that possible?
-
Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.
Oh - & LOL!!!
Learn what a nozzle is.
Also
(http://)
Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.
I'm trying to pretend you never said this. ;D
So power tools run off of air compressors are fake?
No they're not fake.I'm just laughing at you using them as some kind of proof about your silly space rockets working. ;D
You never could read could you? He said escaping gas did nothing, I showed that it did. Reading comprehension is hard isn't it. Maybe you should go back to the first grade and start over.
Give me a shout when you next use your air compressor tools in space will you. I'll make sure I avoid your space garage because I'd hate to think you were putting my wheel nuts on my space car with your air compressor reliant space tools.
I can just picture me floating along on a space road towards jupiter and my wheels fall off because some cretin believed he'd screwed them on with his air compressor power bolt driver. ;D
Now learn to read and comprehend what people really said.
-
Bijane: you all agreed the exhaust was irrelevant & did nothing earlier.
Why is it such a big deal now?
Is it because you are running out of arguments & getting desperate?
I think so...
-
Bijane: you all agreed the exhaust was irrelevant & did nothing earlier.
Cause and effect. Let me know when you figure out the difference. The exhaust is an effect. It is not a cause.
-
Bijane: That's odd; you said that rockets DO push on the atmosphere earlier; but if the exhaust is merely 'an effect' & NOT 'a cause', then by what mechanism does a rocket manage to push on the atmosphere?
Magic?
-
Bijane: That's odd; you said that rockets DO push on the atmosphere earlier; but if the exhaust is merely 'an effect' & NOT 'a cause', then by what mechanism does a rocket manage to push on the atmosphere?
Magic?
The exhaust is an effect of what causes the rocket's movement, and the cause of the force on the air. You cannot be that stupid. I also repeatedly said that the force acting on the air was a consequence with no relevance to what actually thrust the rocket along, remember? The force in the air too is effect, not cause.
EDIT: clarification.
-
You have absolutely no idea how a rocket works, do you?
You're just making shit up now... Goodnight.
& LOL!!!
-
You have absolutely no idea how a rocket works, do you?
Likewise.
Goodnight.
Night! Maybe I'll have the energy to put up with your nonsense in the morning.
-
Maybe I don't; but I do know how a rocket DOESN'T work: by 'pushing on itself' (lol!).
What's more, I've PROVED it!
So LOL!!!
-
Maybe I don't; but I do know how a rocket DOESN'T work: by 'pushing on itself' (lol!).
You're absolutely right. You're the only one who's ever proposed that it might.
-
Your time would be better-spent researching Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum imo, but whatever...
It seems like you're the one who needs to research free expansion a little more.
First of all, Free expansion only applies to a closed system. Outer space is not a closed system.
Secondly, free expansion applies to an ideal gas that has no mass. Since rocket exhaust gasses most certainly have mass, free expansion doesn't really apply like you think it does.
Perhaps you should research how mass flow rate relates to thrust, but whatever...
-
P.s. sokarul; I said escaping gas did nothing IN A VACUUM. This a scientific fact - so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.
A change in pressure can perform work, just like a change in temperature. The work happens as the air escapes. See air driven power tools.
-
You're all clearly arguing with trolls. Why bother anymore? Ignore them and wait for an "FE'r" that at least pretends to be serious, like Jrowe.
-
Thank you, Ellimist; Sceptimatic & I clearly ARE arguing with trolls!
They don't understand even the simplest laws of physics & lie, evade, ignore & change their stories at the drop of a hat.
Nothing they say makes the slightest sense.
Like markjo here, saying Free Expansion only occurs in a closed system; he is referring to the laboratory experiments which prove free expansion, which use a closed system out of necessity, because how could an infinite vacuum be created in a laboratory?
& claiming that it only works for an Ideal Gas; again, that is from the idealised form of the law necessary to get precisely Zero. In reality, with a real gas, the work done would be as close to zero as makes no difference.
Twisting the facts, see?
The formula for work done by a gas is: Force = Pressure x change in Volume; thus, when the pressure is Zero (as it MUST be in a vacuum), the work done is Zero.
As I said earlier; you can't get Something from Nothing.
Anyone reading the posts on this thread from this weekend will see that mine & scepti's positions have been logical & consistent, whilst our antagonist's have been all over the shop.
Let the neutral reader decide who, precisely, are the trolls.
-
I would love to see how flat earthers think a molecule can interact with a rocket after it has left the nozzle. Does it use the force or something?
-
Trolling again Papa, if you aren't trolling how about explaining what you understand about conservation of momentum as it relates to rockets, you avoided answering so far, now it's time to put up or shut up.
You never did answer Bijane's question either, you chose to run away and hide instead.
-
I've explained that c.o.m is irrelevant until we establish that Newton's 3rd applies correctly.
You'd know that if you actually read my posts, Edna.
-
I've explained that c.o.m is irrelevant until we establish that Newton's 3rd applies correctly.
You'd know that if you actually read my posts, Edna.
Ok, the exhaust gas expands inside the combustion chamber and then exhausts via the nozzle, ( please note the expansion takes place inside the combustion chamber, it is not free expansion )
The exhaust gas velocity times it's mass is the momentum imparted to the rocket, since the mass of the rocket is being reduced as the fuel burns we need to use Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.
(http://www.relativitycalculator.com/images/rocket_equations/Tsiolkovsky_formula.png)
This answers your first question about Newton's third law.
PS. Enough with the Edna jokes, she is a friend of mine.
-
I've explained that c.o.m is irrelevant until we establish that Newton's 3rd applies correctly.
So, let's establish why you think it doesn't.
Are the rocket and the fuel always one thing? Well, clearly not: fuel it ejected from the rocket, so it can't be that. Do you have any reasoning you'd care to explain, or just more of your usual evasion?
-
Like markjo here, saying Free Expansion only occurs in a closed system; he is referring to the laboratory experiments which prove free expansion, which use a closed system out of necessity, because how could an infinite vacuum be created in a laboratory?
Then why don't you provide a reliable source that explains how free expansion works in an open environment?
& claiming that it only works for an Ideal Gas; again, that is from the idealised form of the law necessary to get precisely Zero. In reality, with a real gas, the work done would be as close to zero as makes no difference.
Please show me one free expansion lab experiment that involves a rocket engine or equivalent.
Twisting the facts, see?
Not at all. Just trying to clarify them.
The formula for work done by a gas is: Force = Pressure x change in Volume; thus, when the pressure is Zero (as it MUST be in a vacuum), the work done is Zero.
Just out of curiosity, how much expansion do you suppose the liquid oxygen and kerosene experience when they're burned in a rocket's combustion chamber?
Anyone reading the posts on this thread from this weekend will see that mine & scepti's positions have been logical & consistent, whilst our antagonist's have been all over the shop.
Yes, you two have been consistently wrong from the beginning. Now you're trying to grasp at free expansion as if it's relevant.
-
That you all try to downplay & ignore the true properties & nature of a vacuum, especially how it would affect any gas introduced to it, is no surprise; NASA should be the undisputed world leaders on this subject, with many thousands of research papers available due to their unique ability to perform experiments in such an extraordinary medium as the practically infinite hard vacuum of 'space'...
Yet they are not; in fact their website barely mentions free expansion, even though they are ideally placed to discover its parameters...
Now why would that be, I wonder?
Anyway; back to Newton's 3rd, as it is the heart of this matter: please explain how both the forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object & still result in motion?
The simple experiment I described to you last night showed that no motion would be produced.
And let it be noted that this was only one of several simple experiments or examples of easily-verifiable evidence that I have provided in support of my contention that a rocket pushes on an outside mass.
In return, you have provided NO such experiments & evidence for your contention that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!); all you can come up with is the same old tired, easily debunked, 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY multiple times.
Plus a few drawings & youtubes... Oh, & a fan on a boat.
Yet you all seem to think that I am the unreasonable one in this 'debate'.
So go ahead; brainwash - no, sorry - 'educate' me.
Describe exactly how a rocket works, making sure to indicate exactly where the action-reaction pairing occurs.
You can confer first if you like...
LOL!!!
-
the forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object & still result in motion?
We're still waiting for what parameters you use to conclude they're the same object.
Are you saying the fuel remains inside the rocket, at the exact same volume, all through the flight?
Would you look at that, another yes or no question for you. Can I expect an answer today? This should really be a simple one for you.
-
This whole question is very easily settled (no imagination required):
1. Blow up a party balloon to a normal party balloon size.
2. Pinch the "nozzle" with your fingers, keeping the air inside as you do so.
3. Prod the outer skin of the balloon and notice that the balloon is now pressurized.
4a. Release the air slowly and observe what happens to the end opposite the nozzle.
4b. Release the air faster than 4a and observer what happens to the end opposite the nozzle.
4c. Release the air faster than 4b and observer what happens to the end opposite the nozzle.
In case you don't have a party balloon available the following is observed:
4a: the end opposite the nozzle (and the entire balloon) contracts slowly.
4b: the end opposite the nozzle (and the entire balloon) contracts a bit faster than 4a.
4c: the end opposite the nozzle (and the entire balloon) contracts a bit faster than 4b.
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
-
Nice job of selective quoting, BJ!
Still don't want to talk about that pesky free expansion, or vacuums in general, do you?
Tell me where the action-reaction pairing occurs in a rocket.
That's the crux of the matter, so stop avoiding it.
I've proved that no object can 'push on itself ' (lol!) & produce motion; so what does a rocket push against?
You admit that a rocket CAN push on an outside mass; yet you deny the importance of this FACT.
Okay then; what DOES it push against?
P.s. nicely, legion; if only the cultists could provide such simple experimental proofs of their absurd notions...
-
That you all try to downplay & ignore the true properties & nature of a vacuum, especially how it would affect any gas introduced to it, is no surprise; NASA should be the undisputed world leaders on this subject, with many thousands of research papers available due to their unique ability to perform experiments in such an extraordinary medium as the practically infinite hard vacuum of 'space'...
Yet they are not; in fact their website barely mentions free expansion, even though they are ideally placed to discover its parameters...
Now why would that be, I wonder?
Because, as I've already said, free expansion isn't relevant to rockets. Think mass flow rate.
Anyway; back to Newton's 3rd, as it is the heart of this matter: please explain how both the forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object & still result in motion?
Again, the rocket and the combustion gasses are not the same object.
The simple experiment I described to you last night showed that no motion would be produced.
A bad analogy doesn't work. Big surprise. ::)
And let it be noted that this was only one of several simple experiments or examples of easily-verifiable evidence that I have provided in support of my contention that a rocket pushes on an outside mass.
In return, you have provided NO such experiments & evidence for your contention that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!); all you can come up with is the same old tired, easily debunked, 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY multiple times.
We don't have any experiments of a rocket pushing against itself because that isn't what we're claiming is happening. Don't you ever get tired of making these stupid straw men?
Describe exactly how a rocket works, making sure to indicate exactly where the action-reaction pairing occurs.
We have, countless times. After a while, the fact that you can't seem to get becomes your problem, not ours.
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
-
Markojo: if I'm so stupid, then enlighten me by describing exactly where the action-reaction pairing occurs within your space-rockets.
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
It is balanced. You can observe it yourself if you do my experiment.
Lower pressure at nozzle == lower pressure opposite nozzle.
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
It is balanced. You can observe it yourself if you do my experiment.
Lower pressure at nozzle == lower pressure opposite nozzle.
How does a hole leaking air balance a closed surface opposite it? ???
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
It is balanced. You can observe it yourself if you do my experiment.
Lower pressure at nozzle == lower pressure opposite nozzle.
How does a hole leaking air balance a closed surface opposite it? ???
You need to understand how pressure works. The balloon experiment demonstrates it perfectly. If you have a problem with my experiment, please state what it is.
-
Still don't want to talk about that pesky free expansion, or vacuums in general, do you?
Well, it's not relevant, so...
Or do you prefer talking about irrelevancies? I could talk about Sense8 if that'd make you happy?
I've proved that no object can 'push on itself ' (lol!) & produce motion; so what does a rocket push against?
The fuel pushes the rocket, in simple terms. Because, guess, what: not the same thing. Would you mind explaining how you conclude they are?
Does the volume of fuel in the rocket stay constant? I ask again.
You admit that a rocket CAN push on an outside mass; yet you deny the importance of this FACT.
Why is it important? Everything pushes against an outside mas sin the atmosphere, because everything exists within that outside mass. This is completely irrelevant. You're the one who needs to show this is necessary.
So, still evading every simple yes or no question you're asked?
-
Again, markjo (or any other space-cultist); where does the action-reaction pairing occur within a rocket?
Also; do you agree with the following statement: 'A vacuum is the complete absence of all pressure & mass. Any pressurised gas introduced into it will expand, freely, producing no work until it meets resistance in the form of another mass'?
These questions constitute the crux of this matter.
-
I've asked you several simple yes or no questions, Papa. Why should any of us answer your questions when you never answer ours?
You never know, the answers to these may actually help.
Let's start with two:
Are you saying the fuel remains inside the rocket, at the exact same volume, all through the flight?
If you compare (in vacuum) a rocket with all the fuel still inside, and a rocket with the fuel coming out, are the forces at play on each rocket exactly the same?
-
I already answered you, BJ; but you didn't like my answer, so rephrased your question in the hope of a different answer.
You are LOL!!!
Now: where does the action-reaction pairing occur within a rocket?
& the vacuum thing too; no mass, no pressure - yet still your gas-fuelled space-rockets move within it: HOW?
I REALLY need the position of that action-reaction pairing to determine the truth of the matter, so cough up please!
-
I already answered you, BJ; but you didn't like my answer, so rephrased your question in the hope of a different answer.
Refresh my memory. From my perspective you just ignored me. You just need two letters, Y or N, one for each question.
Nice and simple.
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
It is balanced. You can observe it yourself if you do my experiment.
Lower pressure at nozzle == lower pressure opposite nozzle.
How does a hole leaking air balance a closed surface opposite it? ???
You need to understand how pressure works. The balloon experiment demonstrates it perfectly. If you have a problem with my experiment, please state what it is.
New expeirment.
Buy a water rocket. Pump up water rocket with no water. Launch it. Noe add water. Pump up rocket. Launch it. Notice how much higher it went.
Conclusion, the added mass of the water allowed for more rocket acceleration due to newton's third law.
-
I already answered you, BJ; but you didn't like my answer, so rephrased your question in the hope of a different answer.
You are LOL!!!
Now: where does the action-reaction pairing occur within a rocket?
Action=mass leaving backwards out rocket
Reaction=rocket moving fowards
& the vacuum thing too; no mass, no pressure - yet still your gas-fuelled space-rockets move within it: HOW?
Where did no mass come from? I thought you said you knew physics.
-
Conclusion
No additional force is applied to the opposite end of the nozzle, regardless of the speed of the gas exiting. Instead, the force on the end opposite the nozzle is reduced proportionally to the speed of the gas exiting from the nozzle. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that the internal gas pushes the rocket along.
Edit: Modified conclusion to read "the internal gas pushes the rocket along."
Legion, it isn't a matter of an additional force being applied to the end opposite the nozzle. It's a matter of the force at the opposite end of the nozzle not being balanced by the open nozzle end.
It is balanced. You can observe it yourself if you do my experiment.
Lower pressure at nozzle == lower pressure opposite nozzle.
How does a hole leaking air balance a closed surface opposite it? ???
You need to understand how pressure works. The balloon experiment demonstrates it perfectly. If you have a problem with my experiment, please state what it is.
My problem is with your implication that nothing can balance something.
Let's take a closer look at your balloon example. With the balloon inflated and the nozzle pinched off, air pressure inside is pushing outwards in all directions equally and all parts of the balloon are pushing back in equally in all directions. At this point, we have equilibrium. Now, when you open the nozzle, you still have air pressure pushing outwards in all directions, and the balloon pushing inwards in all directions except where the hole for the nozzle is. This means that the balloon is no longer in a state of equilibrium because there is nothing in the nozzle to balance the force being applied by the air pressure to the opposite end.
Again, markjo (or any other space-cultist); where does the action-reaction pairing occur within a rocket?
For the umpteenth time, in the combustion chamber where burning fuel and oxidizer are creating exhaust gasses that build up and cause great pressure.
Also; do you agree with the following statement: 'A vacuum is the complete absence of all pressure & mass.
Close enough for the sake of discussion.
Any pressurised gas introduced into it will expand, freely, producing no work until it meets resistance in the form of another mass'?
That depends. Are you contending that a rocket's combustion chamber is not "another mass" and does not provide any resistance to the pressure of exhaust gasses generated burning fuel and oxidizer?
-
Where is the action-reaction pairing within a rocket located?
For the umpteenth time, in the combustion chamber where burning fuel and oxidizer are creating exhaust gasses that build up and cause great pressure.
Nothing can be decided until that is established.
Now that we have established it, can we move on?
-
Now: where does the action-reaction pairing occur within a rocket?
Gas particles impact the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle at high speed after being ignited. Action - The particles push on the chamber walls pushing it forward
Reaction - The chamber walls push back on the gas particles deflecting them backwards and out of the nozzle
Easy.
-
LOL!!!
So; both the action & the reaction necessary to propel these enormous space-rockets are created within the tiny space of the combustion chamber, whilst all the massive energy of the exhaust gases is wasted by being thrown away out the back, where their interaction with the enormous mass & pressure of the atmosphere (which you admit occurs) is completely irrelevant...
Except for when thrust vectoring is needed... when it isn't, for some reason.
Meh.
In any case, you have all stated that both the forces described in Newton's 3rd ARE created on the same object (i.e. the combustion chamber of the rocket), which I have proven to be incapable of producing motion & therefore you are wrong.
But I'll give you a chance; show me some simple experiments I can do at home that prove your model correct.
You know; like I did for mine...
-
In any case, you have all stated that both the forces described in Newton's 3rd ARE created on the same object (i.e. the combustion chamber of the rocket), which I have proven to be incapable of producing motion & therefore you are wrong.
The fuel and the chamber are two separate objects. Are you still struggling with that? Fuel is used up. Where do you think it goes? How do you think it goes? How could it move out of the rocket without some reaction?
I'll settle for just an answer to that last question, just to see if you're even physically capable of answering a question.
But I'll give you a chance; show me some simple experiments I can do at home that prove your model correct.
How about a simple one to show your supposition's nonsense?
Get a piece of paper. Slap your hand towards it, without touching it: the movement of the air will make it move.
Now, let's do what you say happens with rockets. Push the air away from it. Does the paper move? Look at that, no. Only reactions in contact with it can make it move.
-
LOL!!!
So; both the action & the reaction necessary to propel these enormous space-rockets are created within the tiny space of the combustion chamber, whilst all the massive energy of the exhaust gases is wasted by being thrown away out the back, where their interaction with the enormous mass & pressure of the atmosphere (which you admit occurs) is completely irrelevant...
The only interaction between the exhaust and the atmosphere is that the exhaust gas has to push the atmosphere out of the way to exit the nozzle and this makes the rocket slightly less efficient.
Except for when thrust vectoring is needed... when it isn't, for some reason.
Meh.
In any case, you have all stated that both the forces described in Newton's 3rd ARE created on the same object (i.e. the combustion chamber of the rocket), which I have proven to be incapable of producing motion & therefore you are wrong.
When a gas particle impacts the wall of the ignition chamber it creates a force against that wall. Force on the front wall of the chamber is not equal to force on the rear as this is where the exit is located. Therefore the rocket is pushed forward. Or do you not agree that Acceleration = Force/Mass?
But I'll give you a chance; show me some simple experiments I can do at home that prove your model correct.
Stand a book up on a table and then throw a tennis ball at it. The book will move forward and the tennis ball will bounce back at a slower speed than you threw it at. This represents the gas particles hitting the combustion chamber walls.
You know; like I did for mine...
You may have done experiments but given you don't understand physics you drew incorrect conclusions.
-
In any case, you have all stated that both the forces described in Newton's 3rd ARE created on the same object (i.e. the combustion chamber of the rocket), which I have proven to be incapable of producing motion & therefore you are wrong.
No. Gas particle impacts the wall. Particle creates force on the wall. Wall creates force on the particle. So both forces are not acting on the wall. One is acting on the wall, and one is created by the wall. Action and reaction. Equal and opposite. Momentum conserved. 3rd law alive and well.
-
So; both the action & the reaction necessary to propel these enormous space-rockets are created within the tiny space of the combustion chamber, whilst all the massive energy of the exhaust gases is wasted by being thrown away out the back, where their interaction with the enormous mass & pressure of the atmosphere (which you admit occurs) is completely irrelevant...
No one ever said that chemical rocket engines were particularly efficient.
Except for when thrust vectoring is needed... when it isn't, for some reason.
Does the concept of engine gimbaling mean anything to you?
In any case, you have all stated that both the forces described in Newton's 3rd ARE created on the same object (i.e. the combustion chamber of the rocket)...
No, we didn't say that. You keep saying that. Do you understand what a straw man is? It's when we say one thing and you say something else and insist that the something else is wrong. It's a logical fallacy and you really need to stop it.
...which I have proven to be incapable of producing motion & therefore you are wrong.
Yes, you have proven your own misrepresentation of our argument wrong. Congratulations. ::)
But I'll give you a chance; show me some simple experiments I can do at home that prove your model correct.
You know; like I did for mine...
Why bother? Unless you have access to a vacuum chamber, you will just attribute any thrust to interaction with air and that won't get any of us anywhere.
-
Bijane: LOL!!! How do I find a piece of paper that pushes air away from itself?
I asked for a SIMPLE experiment, not a MAGICAL one.
Still; magical experiments are needed in order to sustain magical physics, I guess.
Mainframes; so, the exhaust interacting with the atmosphere actually IMPEDES the rocket's motion now?
LOL!!!
You are incorrigible.
Markjo: YOU really need to stop with the brainwashing & get to grips with Newton 3, straw-man.
Also, as NASA effectively have access to the biggest vacuum chamber possible i.e. 'space', plus the ideal base from which to operate, i.e. the ISS you'd think THEY'D have done an experiment to find out how free expansion of gas in a vacuum functions within it...
After all, they can afford to haul guitars & flutes up to the bloody useless thing.
Or are NASA not interested in genuine science?
Anyhow, the end result of all your misleading & meandering posts is 'no, we do not have any simple experiments to support our model'.
Which I knew anyway, but thanks for the confirmation.
Btw; what is the exhaust velocity of the Saturn V's engines in m.p.h? You all love spamming numbers; spam me that one, please.
-
Bijane: LOL!!! How do I find a piece of paper that pushes air away from itself?
It's easy, just find any piece of paper. If air is not passing through it then that means it's being pushed away with the electromagnetic force between particles.
I asked for a SIMPLE experiment, not a MAGICAL one.
OK.
Stand on a skate board and throw a balloon, and then throw a medicine ball. Both items are the same size so they will interact with air the same, yet you only move when you throw the medicine ball. This proves that interaction with air is not responsible for the skateboard's movement.
Here is another simple one: take a bottle rocket, fill it roughly 2/3 full of water, and launch it. Note how high it goes. Now launch the same rocket but with no water, and note how it doesn't go as high.
Still; magical experiments are needed in order to sustain magical physics, I guess.
That explains why all pro flat Earth experiments are so magical.
Mainframes; so, the exhaust interacting with the atmosphere actually IMPEDES the rocket's motion now?
Nobody has ever claimed otherwise. Why else does a rocket produce more thrust on the top of a tall mountain where the air is thin then it does at sea level?
Markjo: YOU really need to stop with the brainwashing & get to grips with Newton 3, straw-man.
Says the person who thinks that the action of ejecting gas wouldn't cause a reaction of making the rocket move forward.
Also, as NASA effectively have access to the biggest vacuum chamber possible i.e. 'space', plus the ideal base from which to operate, i.e. the ISS you'd think THEY'D have done an experiment to find out how free expansion of gas in a vacuum functions within it...
Are you saying that a pressurized environment is impossible? It only has to hold in a relative difference of less then 1 ATM, even scuba tanks and submarines can hold in much more pressure then that.
Or are NASA not interested in genuine science?
Or maybe they have better things to do then convince you that space travel is real. It's not like NASA's objective is to convince people that space travel is real.
Btw; what is the exhaust velocity of the Saturn V's engines in m.p.h? You all love spamming numbers; spam me that one, please.
1923.6 miles per hour.
-
Good afternoon Papa, Your trolling continues I see, how long are you going to keep up this charade?
You've already proven beyond doubt that you know nothing about rockets, what's next, are you planning to deny gravity exists perhaps?
-
The only interaction between the exhaust and the atmosphere is that the exhaust gas has to push the atmosphere out of the way to exit the nozzle and this makes the rocket slightly less efficient.
Honestly, if you even allowed yourself to actually understand what's really happening, you would be embarrassed to think like this.
You mention PUSHING the atmosphere out of the way like the atmosphere is a hindrance. Let me tell you how much of a hindrance it ISN'T.
Pay attention to what I'm about to say.
Without atmospheric resistance you do not move anywhere. This should be blatantly obvious to you if you even profess to be anything like scientifically sensible.
A rocket works by ejecting hot gases against the atmosphere. Now to make you understand this resistance you can imagine a swimmer swimming from one end of a pool to the other.
picture it as though the swimmer was doing it vertically so you can see the analogy with the rocket and how resistance is paramount to movement.
The swimmer uses his arms to GRAB the water and PUSH that water behind him. Because of this, the swimmer has created a high pressure behind him by pushing that water around him and now that water has to squeeze back onto the swimmer and pushes him forwards because the pressure created behind him is higher than the pressure in front of him because he's just changed that pressure by using his energy (arms/legs) to create a higher pressure.
Now let's put the rocket in the pool as if the rocket was the man.
the rocket expels it's gases from the back and pushes the water away from it. That water immediately rushes back to fill the void created by the ejected fuel creating a high pressure in pushing that water away from it.
This water is always rushing back to push the rocket fuel back by squeezing it. So what you have is an action (burning fuel) pushing against water and displacing it, which creates a higher pressure of water away from the burning fuel and to the reaction is for the displaced water to push back against that fuel for as long as the fuel is ejected into it.
There's nothing going on inside the rocket that propels it. Just the same as there's nothing going on in a human body that propels the human along in a pool.
The only thing that propels a human or a rocket in a pool is what they expel from them against the external force that the expelled fuel/energy is pushed into.
For anyone looking in who's confused about this stuff. It's meant to confuse you. This is why NASA and the rest of the so called space carry on's can get away with duping you with this space crap. They've used the magic of how a rocket works to allow it to work on their so called space.
Any logical people who come along, like the lads who are trying to enlighten you in this topic, such as Papa and legion to name two, as well as myself, will be immediately jumped on and fought against in a frenzy by people who will scream their way to keep this rocket and space bullshit, alive.
Even if people don't want to get embroiled in the rocket fuel stuff and how it all works, at least think about what they tell you a vacuum is and how is is devoid of matter which means that if it was the case, in space and things could really exist in it, then surely you can understand how free expansion of any gases put into it would be a given.
Free expansion of gas in so called space (vacuum).
Analogy: You're thrown into a large tank. You land on the bottom and spread out. You're fine at this point because you can stretch out.
All of a sudden, people begin being thrown in on top of you and soon the tank is full and you are at the bottom being SQUASHED/COMPRESSED. You cannot stretch out in any way. You keep trying to but you are squashed like a ball under a steam roller.
Just as you think you're going to die like this, the tank splits open and out pour all of the people who simply just fly into everywhere due to the spring effect of them being compressed as well.
You are left in what remains of the open tank and yet you can stretch out once again because nobody is pushing against you from any side nor in any mass. You are free to expand your body. You can't kick out at anyone and you can't exert any energy trying to push anyone away because all those people are gone. You are simply an expanded helpless person doing no work.
What I've just wrote is for the benefit of people with the logic to understand simple things. Globalites with no intention of understanding it, just take a back seat and ignore what I'm saying, or at least try not to enter into it with me if you can't grasp it.
-
Stand on a skate board and throw a balloon, and then throw a medicine ball. Both items are the same size so they will interact with air the same, yet you only move when you throw the medicine ball. This proves that interaction with air is not responsible for the skateboard's movement.
What I can't believe is how a supposed person like you who appears to know it all can come out with something as silly as this.
The medicine ball displaces more atmosphere than the balloon.
What shocks me is the fact that you know this but refuse to marry it up because it kills off your rocketry for starters.
Why don't you just look at water displacement and that's all you need to know about the atmospheric reaction upon the medicine ball and balloon on your dense body on your skateboard.
Drop a medicine ball in a tank of water and it will displace it's own density/mass of water. Do the same with a balloon on the water and it will do likewise. Basically the balloon will displace so little as to it being negligible as it would be a drop against a bucket full with the medicine ball.
This is what's happening with the atmosphere when the ball and balloon are thrown into it from your skateboard. You move back a little more with the medicine ball because it displaces that much more atmosphere quickly which means that the same atmosphere is pushing back onto the ball as a resistant force. It's a reaction against your action.
The problem is, it's not looked upon like this because if it was, it kills the fantasy of space and many other bullshit supposed scientific truth's.
Here is another simple one: take a bottle rocket, fill it roughly 2/3 full of water, and launch it. Note how high it goes. Now launch the same rocket but with no water, and note how it doesn't go as high.
This is another classic con that baffles people.
If people actually used their common sense, they would see the con for what it is. It only takes some logical thought.
The reason why a water bottle rocket works better is because the water is more dense than the atmosphere, aided by compressed atmosphere inside the bottle.
All that the compressed air can do inside that bottle is to EXPAND against the water and the bottle itself. The sides and upright.
One the neck of the bottle is opened, everything inside that bottle is still doing the very same thing it was doing when the bottle was closed. The only difference is the air molecules are now being allowed to expand a little more due to the bottle having an outlet.
The fact that the compressed air inside is pushing against the water and the bottle, it creates no work inside the bottle. The work is created as the water is expelled from the bottle due to it being more dense than the atmosphere under it , plus being ejected under more pressure.
Once this water hit's the atmosphere it does what the medicine ball does. It creates a dense force against that atmosphere, but like anything. If you keep pushing something at speed into something else, it's inevitable that there will a build up of pressure. A compression. Which is what happens with the atmosphere as the water pushes through it. It compresses and squeezes back against that water and sends the bottle into the air.
I tried to explain this by using the world war Z video where they try to scale the wall but it got lost on the tefal head.
Basically with that world war Z wall footage, if people took notice, you would take an analogy as the zombies being the fuel of the rocket and the ground being the resistance/atmosphere.
For people to scale the wall...or to make the analogy....for the rocket to move vertically, you have to keep pushing against a resistance by using more power and numbers.
Now just like those zombies clambering over each other and spreading out very wide, it created the lift to get them over that high wall, because it's fuel on fuel against atmosphere/resistance.
As long as that floor holds and there's zombies pushing on each other against that ground, they will continue to scale the wall.
If that ground gives way, they all come tumbling down. Let's call this, your space or vacuum or even thin air. All of which mean there is no resistance to the fuel/zombies and no resistance means?....no work down. No ground gained. No vertical flight. No lift. No nothing.
Like an eagle in the sky looking for it's next kill, this will soar way above the tefal people's heads.
I just hope (apart from the obvious logical people, you know who you are) that those who are looking in, can see the truth of what I'm saying.
-
The swimmer uses his arms to GRAB the water and PUSH that water behind him. Because of this, the swimmer has created a high pressure behind him by pushing that water around him and now that water has to squeeze back onto the swimmer and pushes him forwards because the pressure created behind him is higher than the pressure in front of him because he's just changed that pressure by using his energy (arms/legs) to create a higher pressure.
Except this is the opposite of what happens. Swimmers, like cyclists, motorcars etc create a low pressure area behind them - which is why others can then draft, or slipstream them.
(http://cdn.triathlon.competitor.com/files/2012/11/Drafting1-748x338.jpg)
As to the rest: tl&dr
-
The swimmer uses his arms to GRAB the water and PUSH that water behind him. Because of this, the swimmer has created a high pressure behind him by pushing that water around him and now that water has to squeeze back onto the swimmer and pushes him forwards because the pressure created behind him is higher than the pressure in front of him because he's just changed that pressure by using his energy (arms/legs) to create a higher pressure.
Except this is the opposite of what happens. Swimmers, like cyclists, motorcars etc create a low pressure area behind them - which is why others can then draft, or slipstream them.
(http://cdn.triathlon.competitor.com/files/2012/11/Drafting1-748x338.jpg)
As to the rest: tl&dr
Learn to take notice.
They create a HIGH pressure around their bodies which pushes the atmosphere away, or in this case, the water.
The water pushes right back and goes for a squeeze from the side. That's why you can balance at speed when riding a bike.
What happens behind them is the result of that compressed atmosphere they've just pushed through being sent down the side which creates a grip or stability if you want to see it that way.
It then crashes into the atmosphere behind you that you are basically running away from and it pushes back, which is why your slip stream happens due to you being in a lower pressure environment created by the energy in front of you doing most of the work for you, making it more energy efficient.
I nearly just gave up there and told you to fu...off and d.....well you get my meaning. I get bored of dealing with idiots like you who can't grasp stuff and see into it.
-
They create a HIGH pressure around their bodies which pushes the atmosphere away, or in this case, the water.
The water pushes right back and goes for a squeeze from the side. That's why you can balance at speed when riding a bike.
What happens behind them is the result of that compressed atmosphere they've just pushed through being sent down the side which creates a grip or stability if you want to see it that way.
It then crashes into the atmosphere behind you that you are basically running away from and it pushes back, which is why your slip stream happens due to you being in a lower pressure environment created by the energy in front of you doing most of the work for you, making it more energy efficient.
Sorry, this is unintelligible.
The fact is that swimmers and cyclists create an area of LOW pressure behind them, not high as you originally stated.
Because of this, the swimmer has created a high pressure behind him
-
I nearly just gave up there and told you to fu...off and d.....well you get my meaning. I get bored of dealing with idiots like you who can't grasp stuff and see into it.
But don't forget there are others reading this so it makes things a little clearer.
-
What I can't believe is how a supposed person like you who appears to know it all can come out with something as silly as this.
The medicine ball displaces more atmosphere than the balloon.
What shocks me is the fact that you know this but refuse to marry it up because it kills off your rocketry for starters.
No it doesnt. If they are both the same volume then they displace exactly the same amount of atmosphere.
Drop a medicine ball in a tank of water and it will displace it's own density/mass of water. Do the same with a balloon on the water and it will do likewise. Basically the balloon will displace so little as to it being negligible as it would be a drop against a bucket full with the medicine ball.
Actually if you perform this experiment properly and ensure that the balloon remains submerged then it will displace exactly the same amount of water as the medicine ball. You are getting confused by the fact the the balloon is less dense than water and will sit on top of the water surface due to buoyancy. Put a lid on the container and fill it full of water with the balloon inside. Then drain the water from the bottom and measure the volume of water compared to total volume available.
-
I nearly just gave up there and told you to fu...off and d.....well you get my meaning. I get bored of dealing with idiots like you who can't grasp stuff and see into it.
But don't forget there are others reading this so it makes things a little clearer.
That's what keeps me going; the fact that people like you have a mindset to question this stuff and use your own logic.
These globalists are cringe-worthy in the main. there's a few that are reasonable and that's about it.
-
I nearly just gave up there and told you to fu...off and d.....well you get my meaning. I get bored of dealing with idiots like you who can't grasp stuff and see into it.
But don't forget there are others reading this so it makes things a little clearer.
That's what keeps me going; the fact that people like you have a mindset to question this stuff and use your own logic.
These globalists are cringe-worthy in the main. there's a few that are reasonable and that's about it.
Yes damn those globalists for understanding science and knowing how to apply it correctly.....
-
I nearly just gave up there and told you to fu...off and d.....well you get my meaning. I get bored of dealing with idiots like you who can't grasp stuff and see into it.
But don't forget there are others reading this so it makes things a little clearer.
That's what keeps me going; the fact that people like you have a mindset to question this stuff and use your own logic.
These globalists are cringe-worthy in the main. there's a few that are reasonable and that's about it.
Yes damn those globalists for understanding science and knowing how to apply it correctly.....
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
-
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
Thus spake the tap whisperer, tell me scepti, what's your definition of density, because outside of your reality, it's the mass per unit volume, do you have a different version?
-
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
Thus spake the tap whisperer, tell me scepti, what's your definition of density, because outside of your reality, it's the mass per unit volume, do you have a different version?
I'll let you know in another world.
-
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
Thus spake the tap whisperer, tell me scepti, what's your definition of density, because outside of your reality, it's the mass per unit volume, do you have a different version?
I'll let you know in another world.
Not the response I was expecting, but let's move on, with the assumption that your definition of density is mass per unit volume, now what do we get when we multiply mass by velocity?.... that's right. It's momentum, and we know that momentum is conserved, right? So why does the bottle rocket go further when partially filled with water?
The simple answer is CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM, it's a fundamental law. The water is more dense that air, so replacing some of the air inside the bottle with water means that the momentum imparted to the bottle when water is blasting out the exhaust is in exactly the ratio of the mass ejected and the velocity. Blasting out a half bottle of water gives us more momentum than a bottle with just air alone.
Water filled bottle rockets would work fine in a vacuum. Actually better, because the pressure difference across the nozzle would be greater.
-
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
Thus spake the tap whisperer, tell me scepti, what's your definition of density, because outside of your reality, it's the mass per unit volume, do you have a different version?
I'll let you know in another world.
Not the response I was expecting, but let's move on, with the assumption that your definition of density is mass per unit volume, now what do we get when we multiply mass by velocity?.... that's right. It's momentum, and we know that momentum is conserved, right? So why does the bottle rocket go further when partially filled with water?
The simple answer is CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM, it's a fundamental law. The water is more dense that air, so replacing some of the air inside the bottle with water means that the momentum imparted to the bottle when water is blasting out the exhaust is in exactly the ratio of the mass ejected and the velocity. Blasting out a half bottle of water gives us more momentum than a bottle with just air alone.
Water filled bottle rockets would work fine in a vacuum. Actually better, because the pressure difference across the nozzle would be greater.
You are 100% wrong. You can scratch and scream all day and night that you're right but you are still wrong, 100%
You've been duped by the so called science world into accepting the dupe. The sleight of hand has been used upon you and you just can't figure out just how they do it. You simply believe that the sleight of hand they use, is the real deal. Real magic. It's not real magic, it's a real DUPE.
Let me just tell you one thing that will whistle through both your ears,in one side and out the other. The dupe is clever for those who are naive enough never to question it. It doesn't make a person stupid in any sense of the word. It does make them naive if they refuse to at least question it.
You owe it to yourself to find the truth. I'm trying to help you and anyone else willing. You will try to understand it if you are not paid or coaxed into being a part of keeping this dupe up like some kind of magic circle member sworn to secrecy.
At a guess I'd say you are 100% shill when compared to most other global keepers. You're an Australian version of Jimmy the crab.
-
You aren't applying it correctly though. You're getting duped into following a route of lies, either by naivety or basically wanting to. I'm, not quite sure with some of you people, which one fits.
Thus spake the tap whisperer, tell me scepti, what's your definition of density, because outside of your reality, it's the mass per unit volume, do you have a different version?
I'll let you know in another world.
Not the response I was expecting, but let's move on, with the assumption that your definition of density is mass per unit volume, now what do we get when we multiply mass by velocity?.... that's right. It's momentum, and we know that momentum is conserved, right? So why does the bottle rocket go further when partially filled with water?
The simple answer is CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM, it's a fundamental law. The water is more dense that air, so replacing some of the air inside the bottle with water means that the momentum imparted to the bottle when water is blasting out the exhaust is in exactly the ratio of the mass ejected and the velocity. Blasting out a half bottle of water gives us more momentum than a bottle with just air alone.
Water filled bottle rockets would work fine in a vacuum. Actually better, because the pressure difference across the nozzle would be greater.
You are 100% wrong. You can scratch and scream all day and night that you're right but you are still wrong, 100%
You've been duped by the so called science world into accepting the dupe. The sleight of hand has been used upon you and you just can't figure out just how they do it. You simply believe that the sleight of hand they use, is the real deal. Real magic. It's not real magic, it's a real DUPE.
Let me just tell you one thing that will whistle through both your ears,in one side and out the other. The dupe is clever for those who are naive enough never to question it. It doesn't make a person stupid in any sense of the word. It does make them naive if they refuse to at least question it.
You owe it to yourself to find the truth. I'm trying to help you and anyone else willing. You will try to understand it if you are not paid or coaxed into being a part of keeping this dupe up like some kind of magic circle member sworn to secrecy.
At a guess I'd say you are 100% shill when compared to most other global keepers. You're an Australian version of Jimmy the crab.
Too late she cried, you've already tried explaining the WWZ theory of rocketry, and in spite of your weak analogy it's nothing different to what Papa Legba and the other space deniers are saying. ( you could have at least tried to work denpressure or vibrations in there somehow)
What you are failing to grasp, is that the reality is actually much simpler and more elegant than your theory. You really should study high school physics, you will find that now you've reached a stage in life where you are questioning everything, that a little understanding of the classical view might help you refine your own theories. Of course when you see how simple and beautiful the world really is, it might flip your brain.
-
Too late she cried, you've already tried explaining the WWZ theory of rocketry, and in spite of your weak analogy it's nothing different to what Papa Legba and the other space deniers are saying. ( you could have at least tried to work denpressure or vibrations in there somehow)
What you are failing to grasp, is that the reality is actually much simpler and more elegant than your theory. You really should study high school physics, you will find that now you've reached a stage in life where you are questioning everything, that a little understanding of the classical view might help you refine your own theories. Of course when you see how simple and beautiful the world really is, it might flip your brain.
[/quote] I'm not here to convince you, so I won't waste too much time with you.
-
I'm not here to convince you, so I won't waste too much time with you.
Classic Sceptimatic.
When he's been backed into a corner by logic and evidence its back to the old I'm not here to educate/convince you line.
Think you used the same when I destroyed you in the properties of gas and brownian motion debate.
-
I'm not here to convince you, so I won't waste too much time with you.
Classic Sceptimatic.
When he's been backed into a corner by logic and evidence its back to the old I'm not here to educate/convince you line.
Think you used the same when I destroyed you in the properties of gas and brownian motion debate.
I'm not backed into a corner though. I've proved what I need to prove, so has Papa and legion, as well as all the other common sense thinkers that question all this stuff.
All you people are, are naive participants that parrot everything in the text books as well as bowing down to your peers, then spending all your time on forums like this, that question the stuff you parrot, like some kind of sentries.
All I see in you people is complete and utter arrogance and naivety. The odd one has some sense but fails to apply it to reality.
-
Are you saying the fuel remains inside the rocket, at the exact same volume, all through the flight?
If you compare (in vacuum) a rocket with all the fuel still inside, and a rocket with the fuel coming out, are the forces at play on each rocket exactly the same?
Any time Papa, any time. Doesn't matter whether you think they're relevant, I promise they'll help. Two letter, Y and N.
-
Markjo: YOU really need to stop with the brainwashing & get to grips with Newton 3, straw-man.
First of all, when you misrepresent my argument, then you are the one making the straw man, not me. Secondly, my arguments do not contradict Newton in the slightest.
Also, as NASA effectively have access to the biggest vacuum chamber possible i.e. 'space', plus the ideal base from which to operate, i.e. the ISS you'd think THEY'D have done an experiment to find out how free expansion of gas in a vacuum functions within it...
Why don't you explain why you think that free expansion applies to an open system? Pretty much every reference I've seen on the subject specifically refers to free expansion in a closed system.
For the sake of argument, let's compare and contrast free expansion and rocket engines.
Free expansion: A finite amount of (an essentially massless) gas in a closed environment is allowed to freely move into an evacuated chamber where the system is allowed to reach a state of equilibrium.
Rocket engines: Large masses of fuel and oxidizer are continuously pumped into a chamber where they are combined and burned to produce rapidly expanding gasses that are forced out a hole in the back under great pressure into the essentially limitless, near perfect vacuum of outer space.
Yes, now that I look at it, I can see how the two could be easily confused. ::)
-
LOL!!! Nice try, markjo; but of course gas will expand freely, without doing work, in a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent, because it has nothing to react against in order to create work: no mass, no pressure; nothing.
& I refuse to believe that something can be created from nothing, no matter how often you tell me it is so...
Newton 3 again: learn it.
Also, show me the experiments NASA have done on the behaviour of gases, or of any other material, in the extraordinary & unique vacuum environment that they alone have access to?
Like cold-welding of metals in a vacuum, for example - or are NASA still denying that this inconvenient phenomenon exists?
Flutes & guitars can be shipped up to the ISS it seems, but not genuine science experiments...
NASA don't like them; same as you, in fact.
Just LOL!!!
& bijane; stop pretending you have a clever point I am 'evading' & start explaining where I can find your magical air-pushing paper.
Lastly; what is the velocity in miles-per-hour of the exhaust gas from the main engines of the space shuttle?
Come on; spam me some of them whizz-bang space-numbers you are all so enthralled by & expert in!
Or do you not actually know the answer..?
-
I'm going to go your way.
That is completely irrelevant. Permanoobs at its finest!
LOL
FAIL!
-
& bijane; stop pretending you have a clever point I am 'evading' & start explaining where I can find your magical air-pushing paper.
No idea. I never said paper would push air. Did you miss the point where I said to use your hand?
Anyway, two yes or no questions still await an answer. Any time.
-
Bijane: so it's TWO questions now?
Make your mind up, little Ms. Needy!
Anyhow, speaking of the refusal to answer questions: what is the exhaust velocity, in miles per hour, of the main engines of the space shuttle?
Sperge out them numbers, space-cadets!
-
LOL!!! Nice try, markjo; but of course gas will expand freely, without doing work, in a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent, because it has nothing to react against in order to create work: no mass, no pressure; nothing.
Do you have anything other than incredulity to support your position? What exactly is your objection? Do you believe that fuel and oxidizer can't burn fast enough to build up pressure in a combustion chamber? Do you think that tons of burnt fuel and oxidizer are a whole lot of nothing? Do you think that free expansion is an instantaneous process? Please, give me something to work with other than just your hand waving.
& I refuse to believe that something can be created from nothing, no matter how often you tell me it is so...
Then it's a good thing that I'm not asking you you to believe any such thing, no matter how adamantly you think I am.
Newton 3 again: learn it.
Please show me where my explanation of rocket engines contradicts Newton.
-
Markjo: nice avoidance of the whole lack-of-vacuum-science-in-the-ISS subject, especially cold welding of metal in a vacuum.
Still working on that one, eh?
U cann hazz floots & gitarz butt no sience ecksperimentz ok suckaz?!?!
LOL!!!
Ditto the exhaust velocity of the shuttle's main engines...
As for the rest of your post, it was the usual pompous, ingenuous, evidence-less blah that I'd expect more from a crooked lawyer than a serious student of the sciences...
No change there then.
But whatever; your credibility on this thread was long ago lost...
Now, space-geeks, I ask again: what is the exhaust velocity, in miles per hour, of the main engines of the space shuttle?
You, of all people, MUST know?
-
Bijane: so it's TWO questions now?
Well, when you refuse to answer anything you're asked, it adds up.
I'm waiting...
-
As am I, for the exhaust velocity, in miles per hour, of the main engines of the space shuttle.
Seems we must wait together.
Which will be unpleasant.
-
As am I, for the exhaust velocity, in miles per hour, of the main engines of the space shuttle.
Seems we must wait together.
Which will be unpleasant.
Mikeman gave you the exhaust velocity, as I recall, the fact that you weren't paying attention is your fault no one else. But, on reflection, why don't you use your superior knowledge of rocket science and calculate the shuttle exhaust velocity for us. It seems a bit disingenuous to ask someone to calculate something when you have already declared that they don't understand rockets.
So Mr Papa (Rocketman) Legba show us how to calculate the shuttle exhaust velocity.
-
As am I, for the exhaust velocity, in miles per hour, of the main engines of the space shuttle.
Well, yours has been answered, and you could find it yourself is you used Google.
My questions, alas, two yes or no questions I've been waiting far longer for a reply to, and you need to answer them as they're about your view.
I'll cut you a deal. You give me two yes-or-no answers, and I'll answer your question. Deal?
-
Markjo: nice avoidance of the whole lack-of-vacuum-science-in-the-ISS subject, especially cold welding of metal in a vacuum.
I never raised the subject. But since your Google seems to be broken, have at this:
http://esmat.esa.int/Publications/Published_papers/STM-279.pdf (http://esmat.esa.int/Publications/Published_papers/STM-279.pdf)
Ditto the exhaust velocity of the shuttle's main engines...
*sigh*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#Larger_engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#Larger_engines)
As for the rest of your post, it was the usual pompous, ingenuous, evidence-less blah that I'd expect more from a crooked lawyer than a serious student of the sciences...
If you want to discuss serious science, then I'm in. If you just want to hand wave away everything that you disagree with, then why are you even here?
-
So; no-one is prepared to openly state the exhaust velocity in mph of the shuttle's main engines?
Even though you all seem to know it...
Duly noted.
Markjo: the link you provided was to an ESA site; so it does seem that NASA are still ignoring what would appear to be a rather important phenomenon in regard to the metal structure of their space-machines.
& have also done no experiments on the behaviour of gas, or anything else really, in the unique vacuum conditions they alone allegedly have access to.
Bijane; I don't even remember what your questions were; this is because your 'questions' are so habitually asinine that I consider your posts worthless filler & just skim through them at best.
As an example, I offer the 'have you been to Australia?' BLATANTLY FALSE ANALOGY that you so triumphantly spammed me with for pages earlier in the thread.
Anyhow; I gotta go to work now; some of us have more constructive things to do in life than the policing of any attempt at free-thought on obscure websites.
LOL!!!
-
So; no-one is prepared to openly state the exhaust velocity in mph of the shuttle's main engines?
We all want you to prove that you aren't just a lot of hot air, and show us that you know something about rockets by showing us how you calculate the shuttle main engine exhaust velocity.
So are you all hot air and bs or not, your choice.
-
So; no-one is prepared to openly state the exhaust velocity in mph of the shuttle's main engines?
Even though you all seem to know it...
Duly noted.
So, you're too lazy to click on a provided link and convert meters/second to mph. Duly noted.
Markjo: the link you provided was to an ESA site; so it does seem that NASA are still ignoring what would appear to be a rather important phenomenon in regard to the metal structure of their space-machines.
That was the first paper that I found on the subject. I'm not here to do your research for you.
& have also done no experiments on the behaviour of gas, or anything else really, in the unique vacuum conditions they alone allegedly have access to.
Again, I'm not here to do your research for you. Just because you're too lazy to do a Google search, that doesn't mean that NASA hasn't done any research in a vacuum.
-
Are you saying the fuel remains inside the rocket, at the exact same volume, all through the flight?
If you compare (in vacuum) a rocket with all the fuel still inside, and a rocket with the fuel coming out, are the forces at play on each rocket exactly the same?
Any time Papa, any time. Doesn't matter whether you think they're relevant, I promise they'll help. Two letter, Y and N.
Here are the questions again. Have fun Papa.
-
Here's the answers to your piercing questions, BJ:
1: No, of course not; so what?
2: A rocket launched from Earth cannot reach a vacuum, so this question is irrelevant.
Are square blue circles REALLY orange, BJ?
& is Australia REALLY like space?
ANSER YEsS OR NOE NAOW OR BE DAFEETED!!!!!!!!
lol.
Anyhow; why can none of you give me the exhaust velocity, in mph, of the main engines of the space shuttle?
I will tell you why.
It is because you want to have an excuse for denying my next point, by arguing that my figures are wrong, in order to distract from what I am saying.
So spam them numbers, space-cultists, so that we are all agreed on them before we start.
Or look even more like the nitpicking, corrupt, contract lawyers - rather than serious science students - that I am increasingly coming to believe you in fact are...
-
Come on;spam them numbers, space-geeks.
Let's set a starting-point & we'll work from there...
-
1: No, of course not; so what?
So the fuel and rocket must necessarily be two different objects, even if some of it is connected at some point in time. So your argument about how they're the same object is wrong, so you can no longer use that as a reason to reject Newton.
2: A rocket launched from Earth cannot reach a vacuum, so this question is irrelevant.
Ok, try to be less evasive. Clearly rockets work at ground level, so there's some specific thickness of air at some altitude you believe it will stop working at. Let's have the two rockets at that altitude: the highest altitude you believe they can reach. Now, yes or no.
If one rocket has all the fuel still inside it, and one has the fuel exhaust leaving it at high speed, are the forces at play in each exactly the same?
Are square blue circles REALLY orange, BJ?
No.
& is Australia REALLY like space?
In the respect that you've probably never been there and you rely on the word of others for its existence, yes. In other respects, no, but I wasn't interested in those.
Anyhow; why can none of you give me the exhaust velocity, in mph, of the main engines of the space shuttle?
10066.2133mph (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/propulsion.html), in the units you wanted. (Read that link, it may answer whatever question you've got coming up).
See, you answer questions, yours get answered. Quite neat really. I'll be happy to help with your follow-up, when you answer by above clarification on comparing the forces in two rockets. Still yes-or-no, still easy.
-
Anyhow; why can none of you give me the exhaust velocity, in mph, of the main engines of the space shuttle?
I will tell you why.
Because no one like you enough to want to spoon feed you every bit of trivia that you demand. But since you don't want to let it go, the space shuttle main engines have an exhaust velocity of about 4500 meters/second or about 10,000 mile per hour. Now can we please move on?
-
Bijane: LOL!!!
Comedy gold as usual.
Plus the numbers I require (which I already knew but just wanted you to state first; lol! again).
& markjo: Oh, yes - let's do move on, Perry Mason!
Anyhow; thus numerically armed, let us contemplate Newton's 3rd Law once more.
'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.
But what about the 'equal & opposite' part?
For, if rockets work by expelling mass from the back & creating an action & reaction, then (whichever model is correct) the maximum velocity of the mass propelled out the back is EQUAL to the maximum velocity the rocket can be propelled in the OPPOSITE direction.
'equal & opposite', remember?
& that's assuming 100% efficiency; unlikely in reality due to gravity, aerodynamic drag etc.
So; if the maximum exhaust velocity of the shuttle's engines is 10,000+ mph, how can it possibly attain the necessary orbital velocity of 17,500+ mph?
Magic?
Because no engine is 175% efficient.
& it's crazy to claim that it is.
Note: ACCELERATION only relates to MAXIMUM VELOCITY; a rocket can accelerate UP TO its maximum velocity & thereafter can accelerate no more.
Of course, a child can see that I am correct; but watch the space-cultists howl now!
They got NOTHING - but they will not give up...
& that is LOL!!!
-
'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.
Nope, you've already agreed a sufficient condition that the fuel and rocket are not the same thing, so...
Your escape velocity question is very easy to answer. I will be happy to do so, if you answer my yes or no question.
-
'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.
But what about the 'equal & opposite' part?
How many times do I have to tell you this:
EJECTING GAS IS THE ACTION AND THE ROCKET MOVING FORWARD IS THE REACTION!!!
You cannot cherry pick physics like that and make it only apply when it's convenient for you.
For, if rockets work by expelling mass from the back & creating an action & reaction, then (whichever model is correct) the maximum velocity of the mass propelled out the back is EQUAL to the maximum velocity the rocket can be propelled in the OPPOSITE direction.
'equal & opposite', remember?
& that's assuming 100% efficiency; unlikely in reality due to gravity, aerodynamic drag etc.
It's also assuming that the rocket is exactly 50% fuel, which is generally not the case. The 50% you assumed was not fuel could easily be a second stage, which is how real rockets work.
-
WHOOOSH!!!
Straight over your heads...
LAike a ROKKIT IN OWTTER-SPAYZSE!!!!!
lol!
Read it carefully: 'Every action creates an EQUAL & OPPOSITE reaction'.
So 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction...
NOT 17,500mph; to claim that it does is clearly a massive violation of Newton's 3rd.
Come on! A child can see it is true; yet you can not...
Now THAT'S the Power of BRAINWASHING, folks; available at any NASA outlet near you!
Just LOL!!!
-
I promise you, it's a very simple answer.
This is how it works, though. Tit for tat. I've asked you a ice, simple, yes or no question. Give me an answer, and I'll be happy to answer yours.
Clearly rockets work at ground level, so there's some specific thickness of air at some altitude you believe it will stop working at. Let's have the two rockets at that altitude: the highest altitude you believe they can reach. Now, yes or no.
If one rocket has all the fuel still inside it, and one has the fuel exhaust leaving it at high speed, are the forces at play in each exactly the same?
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?
What is WRONG with you?
P.s. BJ: I don't care about your answers or about anything else you have to say.
-
You'll find out if you answer my question. Come on Papa, you managed an answer earlier today. What's one more?
-
P.s. BJ: I don't care about your answers or about anything else you have to say.
Nice edit. So, why ask a question if you don't want the answer to it? After all, this should be a very simple way to find it.
Edit: Well, anyway, I'm off to read. Here's hoping you'll be able to answer come tomorrow.
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?
What is WRONG with you?
It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed. It takes more force to accelerate a heavy object then a light object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push. If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
No, it doesn't. Newton's 3rd law deals with equal and opposite forces, not equal and opposite speeds.
Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?
We don't, but in this case, Newton's 2nd law (F=MA) is more relevant.
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?
What is WRONG with you?
It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed. It takes more force to accelerate a small object then a big object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push. If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.
I think you got that backwards mike.
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?
What is WRONG with you?
It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed. It takes more force to accelerate a small object then a big object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push. If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.
I think you got that backwards mike.
Yeah, you are right. I did.
I meant that bigger objects take more force to accelerate.
Sorry for any confusion that might have caused. Thanks for pointing that out BJ.
-
Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Thanks for confirming that you fail to understand relative motion as well as conservation of momentum. I can understand better why you don't have a clue about rockets.
Once more into the breech ...
Multiply the velocity of the exhaust by the mass of the exhaust, and divide by the mass of the rocket, that's the deltaV the rocket achieves at the completion of the burn. Or you could use the proper tsiolkovsky rocket equation if you want a partial burn.
-
As I predicted, lots of spam from the space-believers.
Yet the fact remains that hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot EQUAL a velocity EXCEEDING 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
& that's assuming it strikes an outside MASS on the way, in order to create an ACTION-REACTION PAIRING.
Which, in NASA's model, it doesn't.
Thus, yours & NASA's model of rocketry violates Newton's 3rd Law every which way from Sunday.
It is voodoo-science, plain & simple.
& Papa Legba KNOWS voodoo!
You don't want it to be this easy to understand.
But it is.
So - as ever - LOL!!!
-
Have another yes or no question! Wonder if you'll pay attention to this one.
Does the force acting on an object depend exclusively on speed? That is, is the mass relevant?
If you throw a pea at 40mph, will it impart the same force as a car at 40mph and make what it hits move at the same rate?
-
I know what you're trying to do, BJ.
NASA claims that as a rocket loses mass it will be able to accelerate further & further, to the point that it exceeds its exhaust velocity &, once in the gravity/friction-less environs of 'space', can continue accelerating to infinity...
And beyond!
Of course, this is more voodoo science; in fact, as a rocket loses mass it will merely be able to accelerate CLOSER to its maximum velocity.
Which, according to Newton 3, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Simple stuff...
But keep spamming otherwise, crooked lawyers & thought-policemen; cos every time you do, neutral readers will become yet more disgusted by your illogical & dishonest antics.
& my case will be strengthened further.
Which is, naturally, LOL!!!
-
Which, according to Newton 3, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Which is what my question will determine. Are you aswering yes or no?
-
I am ignoring your question BJ, just as I ignored your stupid Australia false analogy earlier in the thread.
You clearly have no interest in truth or science or logic & only post your laughable spam in order to distract from my own far more informative offerings.
You disgust me, basically, so please stop trying to claim you have anything to offer other than disruption, derailing & general white noise.
Also, learn Newton 3.
& get a life.
-
You clearly have no interest in truth or science or logic & only post your laughable spam in order to distract from my own far more informative offerings.
So, you can't answer a rather relevant yes or no question?
Well, any time you can, let me know.
-
As I predicted, lots of spam from the space-believers.
Yet the fact remains that hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot EQUAL a velocity EXCEEDING 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
& that's assuming it strikes an outside MASS on the way, in order to create an ACTION-REACTION PAIRING.
Which, in NASA's model, it doesn't.
Thus, yours & NASA's model of rocketry violates Newton's 3rd Law every which way from Sunday.
It is voodoo-science, plain & simple.
Did you know that a sailboat can travel faster than the wind that's pushing it? :o More voodoo-science.
http://www.boatsafe.com/kids/bramp1099.htm (http://www.boatsafe.com/kids/bramp1099.htm)
-
LOL!!!
What a surprise; markjo following up on bijane's lead...
With sail-boats yet again - LOL!!!
Instead of just posting links & acting smug, please explain in your own words EXACTLY how a sail-boat works, & how it is relevant to how a rocket works (does a rocket have a sail, markjo? Or a yacht supposedly operate in a vacuum?), before we get involved with yet another lamentably FALSE ANALOGY.
A rocket is like a yacht now - just LOL!!!
You lot really do have NOTHING, do you?
But you simply will not give up...
LMAO!!!
-
If you throw a pea at 40mph, will it impart the same force as a car at 40mph and make what it hits move at the same rate?
Nice simple question.
Is mass relevant?
-
Will whatever the pea or car hit move at over 40 mph in the opposite direction?
Duh!
-
Will whatever the pea or car hit move at over 40 mph in the opposite direction?
That's not the question.
Is mass relevant? Yes or no.
After all, this analogy isn't perfect. It's just meant as a way to work out the variables that determine the force. (If you want it to be perfect, we can deal with something that launches the car/pea, and how much force that requires, but that's trickier to visualize).
-
You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.
NEVER.
Only the distance it travels & the rate at which it accelerates will.
Duh!
LEARN NEWTON 3 & BE DONE WITH THIS CHARADE FFS!!!
lol!
-
A rocket is like a yacht now - just LOL!!!
Where did I say that? I just gave you an example of something that can travel faster than what's pushing it. If you're to lazy to read the link, then why should I spoon feed you?
-
You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.
NEVER.
Incorrect.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
Yeah; a youtube.
Typical cultist 'evidence'.
lol!
Try telling us, in your own words for a change, what you want to say.
Wouldn't want to look like a bluffing shyster, would you?
-
You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.
A comparison, now. Simple examination.
Object A hits object B. They both have the same mass. If A stops upon contact, then all of its energy goes to B. Does B go at the same speed as A, or does energy get lost for no reason? It seems clear the former is the case.
Now, object A has far more mass than object B. The same situation occurs. Does B go at the exact same speed, despite being struck by a larger mass?
Or, if you want a simpler question: Newton's laws are about forces. Are you saying speed alone dictates a force, with no respect to mass?
Yes or no questions again. I wonder if you'll answer these.
-
I already answered your question, BJ; try using 'the forces' to find out how.
Your intellectual dishonesty is a shining path for other cultists to follow.
Excelsior!
LOL!!!
-
You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.
NEVER.
Incorrect.
! No longer available (http://#)
What the hell is that supposed to be? Can't you put your idea into words? If not, find a video with words that are audible?
-
I already answered your question, BJ; try using 'the forces' to find out how.
Which question? I mean, you've said something which implies an answer to the first, but the answer would clearly be wrong, so...
Ok, simple question then. What formula do you believe calculates kinetic energy? What are the variables?
-
Try telling us, in your own words for a change, what you want to say.
Because a practical demonstration is much harder to hand wave away.
What the hell is that supposed to be? Can't you put your idea into words? If not, find a video with words that are audible?
Or you could, oh I don't know, maybe turn up the volume.
-
Try telling us, in your own words for a change, what you want to say.
Because a practical demonstration is much harder to hand wave away.
What the hell is that supposed to be? Can't you put your idea into words? If not, find a video with words that are audible?
Or you could, oh I don't know, maybe turn up the volume.
Whatever point you think you had, it's dismissed.
-
Legion: like I say - they got NOTHING.
Newton 3 kills 'space-travel' stone dead.
But they can't admit that, so this thread will never end.
Meh; we all need a hobby...
LOL!!!
BJ: LEARN NEWTON 3 & STOP SPAMMING ME WITH IRRELEVANT FORMULAE, OK?!?!?
What is WRONG with you?
Are you being blackmailed into doing this or what?
Markjo: LOL!!! More crooked lawyer talk...
-
Legion: like I say - they got NOTHING.
Newton 3 kills 'space-travel' stone dead.
But they can't admit that, so this thread will never end.
Meh; we all need a hobby...
LOL!!!
BJ: LEARN NEWTON 3 & STOP SPAMMING ME WITH IRRELEVANT FORMULAE, OK?!?!?
What is WRONG with you?
Are you being blackmailed into doing this or what?
Markjo: LOL!!! More crooked lawyer talk...
But newton laws are just science and science is deception.
-
Modestman: Don't you start too!
LOL!!!
-
BJ: LEARN NEWTON 3 & STOP SPAMMING ME WITH IRRELEVANT FORMULAE, OK?!?!?
What is WRONG with you?
Why is it irrelevant to know more about what Newton's law applies to?
After all, we need to know what variables you're concerned with. Kinetic energy's the more well known example, and it's clearly relevant here: the rocket moves, after all.
If you're so confident, why are you so opposed to finding out the answer?
Hint: Kinetic energy only depends on two variables, and is found by 0.5mv2. Now, what do you think the m and the v represent?
-
I think they represent your desperate attempt to use mathe-magics, algebra-cadabra & any other dishonest voodoo-scientific means you possibly can to escape the FACT that Newton 3 destroys your model of rocketry.
So; why do you do this?
Blackmail, or what?
-
I think they represent your desperate attempt to use mathe-magics, algebra-cadabra & any other dishonest voodoo-scientific means you possibly can to escape the FACT that Newton 3 destroys your model of rocketry.
If you think maths is voodoo, that would explain a lot.
-
i think that you're attempting to add needless complexity to an essentially simple subject; moreover one that I've given simple experimental proof for my version of every single step of the way, whilst you have not.
& I'm also wondering why you do this?
But meh; neutrals can decide which of us has intellectual integrity & which of us is a brazen liar...
I don't care either way.
LOL!!!
-
I believe in you PAPA, BiJane is an evil woman.
-
I don't care what she is & I don't care what you are either, modestman; just do the experiments & learn the truth.
-
i think that you're attempting to add needless complexity to an essentially simple subject; moreover one that I've given simple experimental proof for my version of every single step of the way, whilst you have not.
If you think the basic definition of the energy (from which we can find the force) we're talking about is a needless complexity, that's probably because you reject any maths as voodoo.
I believe in you PAPA, BiJane is an evil woman.
Thank you.
-
I think that every time I prove you wrong, you descend into yet further needless complexity & nit-picking, in a clear attempt to achieve reductio ad absurdum.
& I can't be bothered with that.
As I already said: your intellectual dishonesty throughout this thread shines out for all to see.
&, again, I ask anyone who has followed this thread from the start to perform the simple experiments I suggested, examine the easily obtained evidence I provided, then MAKE YOUR MINDS UP FOR YOURSELVES.
Believe what you like in the end; I do not care.
BJ & her ilk clearly DO care what you believe, though...
A LOT!
& that is so LOL!!!
-
That would mean more if you didn't think any actual thought was voodoo.
-
LOL!!!
I never said that.
But that you think I did says all that anyone needs to know about your intellectual capabilities.
Goodnight, derailment-queen; see you tomorrow, where I'll just repeat what I said today if needed.
In the meantime, PLEASE try to get to grips with Newton 3 & free expansion, as well as learn the nature & properties of a vacuum.
& dig up a few NASA experiments on the behaviour of materials in the vacuum of space for us all to examine, too.
Why! There must be thousands for you to choose from; shouldn't be hard, then, should it?
LOL!!!
-
I never said that.
You said all of our posts were voodoo, so... Yeah, you pretty much did.
In the meantime, PLEASE try to get to grips with Newton 3
Newton's laws apply to forces, not speeds.
& dig up a few NASA experiments on the behaviour of materials in the vacuum of space for us all to examine, too.
The only experimet you'd accept is an actual rocket: except, no, you clearly don't. Every alternative suggested to you, you immediately respond with "But rockets are nothing like..." o matter whether or not the principle is the same.
But did you miss the youtube video already posted that showed a smaller mass hit by a larger mass can go faster than the speed at which it was hit? Or are you just ignoring that?
-
I think they represent your desperate attempt to use mathe-magics, algebra-cadabra & any other dishonest voodoo-scientific means you possibly can to escape the FACT that Newton 3 destroys your model of rocketry.
Umm... What's the purpose of invoking Newton's laws if you're afraid of the math upon which those laws are based?
-
LOL!!!
I never said that.
But that you think I did says all that anyone needs to know about your intellectual capabilities.
Goodnight, derailment-queen; see you tomorrow, where I'll just repeat what I said today if needed.
In the meantime, PLEASE try to get to grips with Newton 3 & free expansion, as well as learn the nature & properties of a vacuum.
& dig up a few NASA experiments on the behaviour of materials in the vacuum of space for us all to examine, too.
Why! There must be thousands for you to choose from; shouldn't be hard, then, should it?
LOL!!!
You seem to have been intellectually spanked by BiJane. You may need a cream for that.
-
The next installment promises to be entertaining, watching Papa Legba pretending he hasn't been rounded up hog-tied and hung out to dry by Bijane.
What's the betting, it goes denial, attack, ridicule, then a few maniacal LOL's thrown in at random. I'm taking bets at 2:1 any takers?
-
I quite like the irony that Papa states that Newtons 3rd makes rockets impossible when in reality it was newtons 3rd that inspired people to attempt to build rockets in the first place.....
-
This video.
(http://)
-
Nice try, Evil Edna & 'pals'.
But whatever you say, the words 'equal & opposite' will not change.
I know you want them to...
But they won't.
Ergo: no 'orbital velocity' for you, no matter how much you ridicule me.
-
So, velocity is a force?
-
Bijane: Re. your new avatar; google 'facial asymmetry child abuse' for beaucoup lols.
As for your other nonsense; meh.
Learn Newton's 3rd.
Please?
-
Nice try, Evil Edna & 'pals'.
But whatever you say, the words 'equal & opposite' will not change.
No one is denying the equal and opposite part. It's how equal and opposite applies to forces vs. velocity that is the point of contention at this point.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Note how the author is referring to forces, not velocities.
-
Learn Newton's 3rd.
I have, it applies to forces. Is velocity a force? It's a simple yes or no question.
-
Markjo: a Lawyer is NOT a Scientist; please learn the difference.
Bijane; LOL!!!
Is the velocity of the shuttle's exhaust 10.000 mph or not?
Cos if it is, then Newton 3 takes care of the rest...
Bye, Jane!
-
Is the velocity of the shuttle's exhaust 10.000 mph or not?
Cos if it is, then Newton 3 takes care of the rest...
That's neither a yes or a no.
Is velocity a force?
-
Why?
-
Is the velocity of the shuttle's exhaust 10.000 mph or not?
Cos if it is, then Newton 3 takes care of the rest...
That's neither a yes or a no.
Is velocity a force?
there are questions that you can't answer with yes or no you evil woman
-
Why?
Yes or no. Not why. Just answer the question, and you'll see.
-
No.
I will not answer you pointless question.
& LOL!!!
-
I will not answer you pointless question.
It's not pointless.
Ok then, what do you think Newton's Law refers to? Velocities, or forces?
-
Prove that the EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 10.000 mph is 17,500 mph & I may start listening to you.
But you can't, so I won't...
Bye, Jane!
LOL!!!"
-
Prove that the EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 0
Equal and opposite what? Velocity or force?
-
Prove that the EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 10.000 mph is 17,500 mph & I may start listening to you.
But you can't, so I won't...
Bye, Jane!
LOL!!!"
That's easy. Newton's 3rd law states that forces are equal and opposite, not speeds. If you had a 10,000 pound object and a 17,500 pound object which pushed off of each other hard enough then the 10,000 pound object would be going 17,500 miles per hour and the 17,500 pound object would be going 10,000 miles per hour.
-
Also one minor point here Papa;
If the exhaust leave the rocket at 10,000mph it will always be relative to the rocket. So for example if the rocket is going at 17,500mph forward, then the exhaust will be going 7,500mph forward relative to the ground or 10,000mph backwards relative to the rocket.
In any case, you need to read Newtons 3rd carefully. It is about equal and opposite forces. Each exhibit particle exerts a little force on the rocket and accelerates it a tiny bit. The rocket exerts the same force on the particle which accelerated it a lot. Repeat with billions of particles and the net effect is the rocket accelerates a huge amount and releases a lot of exhaust very quickly.
-
Markjo: a Lawyer is NOT a Scientist; please learn the difference.
??? Who said anything about lawyers?
-
Hmm; seems the maximum exhaust velocity of gunpowder-fuelled rockets, such as fireworks, is 1,300 mph.
& their maximum velocity is little more than 150 mph, making them roughly 10% efficient.
Yet NASA's rockets, with their maximum exhaust velocities of 10,000 mph & maximum velocities of 17,500 mph, are somehow 175% efficient...
Care to explain how?
Simply, please, & in your own words, also providing easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your claims.
As I have done to support mine.
Off you go...
-
The relative velocity of the exhaust and a rockets final maximum velocity are not a measure of its efficiency. A simple fireworks rocket can be made to travel faster simply by increasing the amount of fuel it carries and thereby the time it spends accelerating and thus reaching a higher final velocity.
A rockets efficiency is measured by the amount of available energy compared to the amount of useful energy. Eg the total energy release of the fuel and oxidiser payload compared the kinetic energy imparted on the rocket.
-
Observation is the first step in the scientific method.
& from simple observation, we can see that the acceleration of a firework rocket is almost instantaneous.
With further observation we can also see that they do not appear to be gaining much extra velocity the higher they fly either.
Thus, observation suggests that, by the time a firework rocket's fuel runs out, it has already attained maximum velocity.
Which is 150 mph, as compared to an exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph, making them c.10% efficient.
Anyhow; provide simple evidence & experiments please, such as I just provided above, to unlock the mysteries of NASA's magical 175% efficient rockets.
Let's do some SCIENCE!
-
They're not 175% efficient you halfwit. Rockets are ctually very inefficient in terms of energy conversion.
The exhaust velocity is in relation to the rocket itself ie it is 10,000mph ( or whatever the actual figure is) faster than the rocket at all times.
-
I beg your pardon?
Care to offer up some evidence or experiments to justify your half-witted gibber-spam?
You know; like I do...
-
I beg your pardon?
Care to offer up some evidence or experiments to justify your half-witted gibber-spam?
You know; like I do...
Look it's not rocket science. Oh wait, it is. Perhap here is where the problem lies.
The exhaust velocity is determine by the combustion reaction in the Rockets engine system. Assuming a constant 'throttle' the exhaust will always leave the rocket nozzle at the same relative speed to the rocket ( ignoring atmospheric pressure reducing on the way up - this actually increased exhaust velocity).
If the exhaust velocity is constant then the force on the rocket is constant and there acceleration will continue until fuel is depleted and switched off. Therefore maximum velocity is only limited by two things. Fuel supply and speed of light.
-
Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.
I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.
& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.
Which you haven't.
Duly noted.
-
Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.
I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.
& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.
Which you haven't.
Duly noted.
Your simple observation of a firework rocket is incredibly flawed. You cannot measure the velocity and acceleration of a firework by sight. If you can provide actual measurements then great.
Simple evidence and experiments? Every firework ever launched. Every water rocket ever launched. All space flight by multiple nations, agencies and firms. Newtons 3rd applied (correctly) and other basic laws of mechanics.
-
Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.
I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.
& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.
Which you haven't.
Duly noted.
Your simple observation of a firework rocket is incredibly flawed. You cannot measure the velocity and acceleration of a firework by sight. If you can provide actual measurements then great.
Simple evidence and experiments? Every firework ever launched. Every water rocket ever launched. All space flight by multiple nations, agencies and firms. Newtons 3rd applied (correctly) and other basic laws of mechanics.
Well why don't you show him where it's incredibly flawed?
He's just shown you the flaws in NASA and affiliate's rockets. so show him where he's wrong by explaining how they manage to go against what Papa has said.
-
Okay. Give me until July 5th.
-
Mainframes: LOL!!!
I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.
It also violates Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum, but meh; that's just the icing on the cake...
As for the firework rockets; go buy a few, then set them off & OBSERVE what they do.
You will SEE that the acceleration is almost instantaneous, & that they achieve speeds nowhere near their exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph.
If they did, you would OBSERVE a sonic boom, would you not?
Further, for you to suggest that we cannot trust our own senses is yet more BRAINWASHING, just like you & your cult-member brethren's constant admonitions to me that because you all keep telling me the same thing, I should just accept it as True, even though all the evidence suggests it is NOT.
Really: STOP TRYING TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE, MAINFRAMES!
& START POSTING EVIDENCE!
OKAY?
lol!
-
I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.
Does Newton's Third Law apply to forces or velocities?
-
I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.
Does Newton's Third Law apply to forces or velocities?
Action and equal reaction applies to everything.
-
*Sigh*
Energy is kept. Velocity, however, isn't. Bounce a ball and see.
-
Yes, BJ; Newton 3 does deal with forces.
& a mass moving at 10,000 mph creates a force.
Now explain how NASA's rockets can accelerate PAST the maximum velocity of their exhausts by 7,500 mph (cos that's a LOT!).
Simply, in your own words, & providing easily-verifiable evidence & experiments to back up your claims, please.
Misero: *Sigh* That's odd, cos I just tried dropping a medicine ball & it didn't bounce at all...
Enough with the crooked rhetorical tricks, FALSE ANALOGIES & general fail; just start with the SCIENCE, please!
LOL!!!
-
Mainframes: LOL!!!
I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.
It also violates Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum, but meh; that's just the icing on the cake...
As for the firework rockets; go buy a few, then set them off & OBSERVE what they do.
You will SEE that the acceleration is almost instantaneous, & that they achieve speeds nowhere near their exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph.
If they did, you would OBSERVE a sonic boom, would you not?
How did you verify that the exhaust velocity of the firework rockets is 1300 mph? Did you observe the sonic boom of the exhaust gasses?
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
I googled a few places & took an average; would you like to offer an alternative number?
Remember how I predicted you'd pull this kinda cheap, crooked stunt with the shuttle exhaust velocity?
Which is why I made YOU state what it was, so you couldn't argue about it.
Yet here we are...
Just LOL!!!
Really, markjo; your utter intellectual dishonesty is an inspiration to all lawyers, everywhere, ever.
-
Yes, BJ; Newton 3 does deal with forces.
& a mass moving at 10,000 mph creates a force.
Yep. Mass.
Now explain how NASA's rockets can accelerate PAST the maximum velocity of their exhausts by 7,500 mph (cos that's a LOT!).
Because the force is relevant. The force involves speed, but is not exclusively dependent on speed.
Simply, in your own words, & providing easily-verifiable evidence & experiments to back up your claims, please.
What claim? That more mass means more force? Shoot a pea, measure how fast it goes. Get it as fast as possible: measured in mph if possible. Now, get a car to go the same speed. Get hit by the pea, get hit by the car. Which imparts more force?
After all, all that matters here is Newton, as you said. If there is a larger mass going at some speed, the smaller mass will go faster if forces are to be balanced.
If you disagree, please share: where does the excess force go?
-
Into acceleration & distance travelled.
But the motion of Object B will not exceed the velocity at which it's struck by Object A.
If you disagree then prove it.
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
I googled a few places & took an average;
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you when you said that you were providing experimental data.
-
Misero: *Sigh* That's odd, cos I just tried dropping a medicine ball & it didn't bounce at all...
Point Proven. Did it continue going in the same direction? No. Therefore the velocity is not the same.
-
Into acceleration & distance travelled.
So, it changes the acceleration of the object, the distance the object travels, but doesn't affect the object's speed?
Would you care to share how?
If you disagree then prove it.
Did you miss the youtube video several pages ago that did just that?
-
LOL!!!
Lots of WORDS, but zero EVIDENCE.
As usual...
Except for a youtube, with no explanation of what it even showed.
Great work, markjo!
Misero: you said 'Bounce a ball & see'.
I dropped a ball.
It did not bounce at all.
Now you claim THAT also proves your point!
You are insane.
& you do not have any 'point'.
Bijane: I asked YOU to prove what I claim wrong if you disagreed.
With easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments, please.
If you cannot, then go away.
But don't ask me to do your job for you, lazy-bones!
LOL!!!
Really; what have you all got against the scientific method?
Just show me some evidence & experiments for what you claim.
Like I do...
Or do you not have any?
Just LOL!!!
-
Oh, & markjo; so what is the exhaust velocity of a gunpowder-fuelled rocket?
I asked you to provide your own figure, so get cracking!
Bet it's a lot more than 150 mph though...
LOL!!!
-
A ball not bouncing is evidence that your velocity is kept?
Do you need to be taught what velocity is? Velocity is speed in a direction. Did the ball keep its speed in the direction of the ground? Did it pass through the ground? No. Did the energy stay the same? Did it make a sound, perhaps move some dust on the ground? Push some air? Yes.
-
Misero: LOL!!!
Are you blind, mad or trolling?
My point is that the velocity is NOT kept in real-world conditions!
Ever seen a Newton's Cradle, troll?
& that, if rockets work by the most basic application of Newton's 3rd, then hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot possibly, under any circumstances, EQUAL a velocity of OVER 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
What is WRONG with you?
For someone whose tag reads 'evidence, evidence, evidence', you are quite extraordinarily averse to actually providing any...
But trolls are like that.
LOL!!!
-
& that, if rockets work by the most basic application of Newton's 3rd, then hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot possibly, under any circumstances, EQUAL a velocity of OVER 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
Why would a law that applies to forces give a result strictly about speed?
-
Papa: Was I talking to you? I was talking to sceptimatic in that first post about velocity.
-
Okay; you've all clearly gone mental.
Again.
It's a weekend thing with you, ain't it?
I'll leave the neutral reader to try & work out what the hell you are trying to say & who you're trying to say it to.
& come back when you've all sobered up.
Maybe you'll even have some evidence & experiments to support your claims by then?
Though somehow I doubt it!
Cos you lot just HATE real science, don't you?
-
P.s: LOL!!!
-
I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.
Does Newton's Third Law apply to forces or velocities?
Action and equal reaction applies to everything.
I'm the drunk one, apparently.
-
Oh, & markjo; so what is the exhaust velocity of a gunpowder-fuelled rocket?
I don't know and I don't really care but I doubt that it's 1300 mph. I just wanted to know how you experimentally determined that value is all.
Except for a youtube, with no explanation of what it even showed.
The video showed several demonstrations of elastic collisions of objects with different masses, including a heavy mass striking a lighter mass.
Great work, markjo!
thanks, but it really wasn't that difficult.
-
Misero: LOL!!!
Are you blind, mad or trolling?
My point is that the velocity is NOT kept in real-world conditions!
Ever seen a Newton's Cradle, troll?
& that, if rockets work by the most basic application of Newton's 3rd, then hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot possibly, under any circumstances, EQUAL a velocity of OVER 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.
What is WRONG with you?
For someone whose tag reads 'evidence, evidence, evidence', you are quite extraordinarily averse to actually providing any...
But trolls are like that.
LOL!!!
The exhaust velocity is not related to the rocket velocity like you think it is. The exhaust mass has a velocity so you get s force. This force accelerates the rocket due to Newton's 3rd law. If you accelerate for long enough time you can go faster than the exhaust gas. This is a simple concept. This is also why tickets have nozzles. The faster the exhaust the greater the acceleration for a given mass.
Understand?
-
Sokarul: you wrote 'this is also why tickets have nozzles'; you might want to go back & edit that.
Plus, if the exhaust velocity is not related to the ticket -sorry, rocket velocity, then why do rocket designers spend so much time & effort trying to increase it?
& no, a rocket can NEVER accelerate past the velocity of its own exhaust.
Newton's 3rd Law: 'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction', remember?
Further; claiming that it can do so is NOT 'a simple concept'; it is a nonsensical & unscientific concept.
A rocket - like any other type of engine - can only accelerate UP TO its maximum velocity (which, in the case of a rocket, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust); thereafter it can accelerate NO MORE.
THAT, Sokarul, is a 'simple concept'. It is also a FACT.
So; yes, I do 'understand', Mr. Apprentice Brainwasher. It is you that does not.
Markjo: LOL!!!
So google is broken for you?
Neutral readers can still google 'gunpowder rocket exhaust velocity' though.
Misero & everyone else: please provide some of the 'Evidence, Evidence, Evidence' which you are so enamoured with to support your model.
Plus simple experiments we can do ourselves.
I have done so, repeatedly; yet you cannot.
Could that be because you do not have any?
Btw; a youtube does not count, markjo.
LOL!!!
-
When I Google "Newton's 3rd law" the first thing that comes up is this:
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
The FORCES are equal and opposite, not the velocities. I have mentioned this many times, who do you refuse to understand it Pappa Legba?
-
The mass of the exhaust travelling at 10,000 mph creates a FORCE; when that FORCE ACTS upon another mass (i.e. the atmosphere in the case of a rocket), the OPPOSITE REACTION will never EQUAL more than 10,000 mph.
Acceleration & distance travelled may change, depending on the relative sizes of the masses; but NOT velocity.
Observe a Newton's Cradle in action, please.
Honestly, Mikeman; if you can not provide simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support your case that a rocket CAN exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust, then butt out.
LOL!!!
P.s. I got yet another excellent experiment coming up soon, using a firework rocket.
Funny how I got so many experiments to support my case, whilst you cultists have NONE AT ALL, isn't it?
LMAO!!!
-
The mass of the exhaust travelling at 10,000 mph creates a FORCE; when that FORCE ACTS upon another mass (i.e. the atmosphere in the case of a rocket), the OPPOSITE REACTION will never EQUAL more than 10,000 mph.
Acceleration & distance travelled may change, depending on the relative sizes of the masses; but NOT velocity.
Observe a Newton's Cradle in action, please.
Honestly, Mikeman; if you can not provide simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support your case that a rocket CAN exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust, then butt out.
LOL!!!
P.s. I got yet another excellent experiment coming up soon, using a firework rocket.
Funny how I got so many experiments to support my case, whilst you cultists have NONE AT ALL, isn't it?
LMAO!!!
Stand on a skateboard, throw a medicine ball, and note how you move backwards. To the same think again but instead with a beach ball and note how you do not move back.
Mass does not effect aerodynamics, so if air were responsible then the beach ball should propel the skateboard just as fast as the medicine ball.
This is proof that ejecting mass is what's causing the acceleration, and since the medicine ball is not coming back and hitting you like you think rocket exaust does that clearly proves that such things are not necessary to create propulsion.
Just think of the gas exiting a rocket as a bunch of little tiny molecule sized medicine balls, why wouldn't this work?
Imagine a rocket that has 10 tons of fuel while the rest of the rocket only weighs one ton. If all that fuel is ejected at 1,000 meters per second, how is it possible that the rocket would not be going 100,000 meters per second? It takes 10 times as much force to accelerate the fuel as it does to accelerate the rocket, and since the forces are equal and opposite the rocket experiences the same force as the fuel but the rocket is 1/100th the mass so it accelerates 100 times as fast with the same force. It's pretty simple.
-
Stand on a skateboard, throw a medicine ball, and note how you move backwards. To the same think again but instead with a beach ball and note how you do not move back.
Mass does not effect aerodynamics, so if air were responsible then the beach ball should propel the skateboard just as fast as the medicine ball.
The mass and density against atmospheric resistance is what causes a person to move back or not.
The medicine ball being much more dense than a beach ball will displace atmosphere much quicker and easier than a beach ball would.
You're still living by the con that the medicine ball being heavy, is pushing you back as you push it away and not attributing it to anything other than simply being you against that medicine ball.
You've been told time and time again why it's atmospheric pressure and you discard it because you refuse to accept the simple truth as it would destroy your space fantasies.
The sooner you understand how atmospheric pressure works on dense and less dense objects, the sooner you will start to see reality, unless you're paid to turn a blind eye, which is probably more fitting seeing as you're playing a 17 year old student.
This is proof that ejecting mass is what's causing the acceleration, and since the medicine ball is not coming back and hitting you like you think rocket exaust does that clearly proves that such things are not necessary to create propulsion.
Ejecting mass is what causes acceleration, except that you're telling it in a different way. You're parroting a lie by making out that the rocket kicks itself up its own arse to get into space. You've been told many times what the end result of this would be and yet you pretend you can't see the problem. You can see the problem just fine. The real problem is in you playing your student games. Mr know it all kid at 17. ;D
Just think of the gas exiting a rocket as a bunch of little tiny molecule sized medicine balls, why wouldn't this work?
It would work. That's how rockets work, if you can understand that those (expanded) molecules are pushing through other ( less expanded) molecules in the atmosphere and a springboard reaction is created to that action for as long as it happens, which allows the rocket to make vertical progress.
What doesn't happen is molecules expanding in a small chamber inside the rocket, kicking it's insides into space. It's laughable and should be seen as that by people who profess to be intelligent.
-
Mikeman: So; the old 'man on a skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY is all you can come up with for 'evidence'?
You do realise that both sceptimatic & I have debunked this DELIBERATELY FALSE & MISLEADING ANALOGY at least twice already on this thread?
& in any case, even if correct it would NOT prove that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Please LEARN TO READ.
Now; I asked you for simple experiments & easily-verified evidence that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Which you did not provide.
I suggest this is because you cannot.
Because there are none.
Because it is impossible.
But enough of that; I think it's pretty obvious I've won this round too: the statement 'a rocket cannot exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust' is proven.
So; time to move on.
Now; can you all please decide what the exhaust of a rocket is actually doing?
Does it effect any mass outside the rocket?
If so, by how much?
Is all the thrust created in the combustion chamber/nozzle?
If not, how much thrust does the exhaust contribute when it acts against an outside mass?
Or does the exhaust in fact negate thrust?
None of you seem to have a clear opinion on any of the above questions, yet if we are to move on we will need them clarified.
So: answers please, space-cultists!
-
So: answers please, space-cultists!
Papa Legba, the energizer bunny of trolls. You've been wrong on every point so far. Do you understand the conservation of momentum yet?
(http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100616/100616images/energizer_bunny.gif)
-
The mass of the exhaust travelling at 10,000 mph creates a FORCE; when that FORCE ACTS upon another mass (i.e. the atmosphere in the case of a rocket), the OPPOSITE REACTION will never EQUAL more than 10,000 mph.
Why?
Acceleration & distance travelled may change, depending on the relative sizes of the masses; but NOT velocity.
How exactly would velocity stay fixed if both of those change?
Btw; a youtube does not count, markjo.
Why? It's exactly what you're looking for.
-
Mikeman: So; the old 'man on a skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY is all you can come up with for 'evidence'?
You do realise that both sceptimatic & I have debunked this DELIBERATELY FALSE & MISLEADING ANALOGY at least twice already on this thread?
No, we don't, since you haven't.
& in any case, even if correct it would NOT prove that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Ah, Galilean relativity. The flat-earther's bane when going Newtonian motion. Picture a cannon. Now switch the non-inertial frame of reference from the cannon to the cannonball. The cannonball expells a exhaust consisting of a cannon. The cannon recoils at speed mcannon divided by p (momentum). The cannonball is travelling, then, at speed (mcannonball divided by p). Since p is the same for both of them, which one will go faster, the one with the higher or the lower mass? Answer: The one with the lower mass. QED: A rocket (or any momentum propelled device) a can exceed the velocity of the body b (exhaust, using rocket terms) that is being propelled on any exchange that conserves momentum.
A video for sceptis: (http://)
Please LEARN TO READ.
I should read more, but my work isn't being too lenient on me latelly. Nevertheless, I can still learn many things via education. You probably didn't mean that, though, but likelly something like "Understand what I say like I want you to understand it and accept it without any question!!".
Now; I asked you for simple experiments & easily-verified evidence that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Which you did not provide.
I suggest this is because you cannot.
Because there are none.
Because it is impossible.
I provided you one.
But enough of that; I think it's pretty obvious I've won this round too: the statement 'a rocket cannot exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust' is proven.
You haven't proven shit. Argument from ignorance, since there is no evidence, it can't be true!. Prove your own propositions, instead of trying to disprove others, believing that then your proposition becomes magically true.
Now; can you all please decide what the exhaust of a rocket is actually doing?
Does it effect any mass outside the rocket?
If so, by how much?
It depends. The main working principle behind rocketry is momentum, but when you are on non-momentum conserving enviroments (like the atmosphere, which slows down exhaust and rocket by differing amounts) then you have to take those into account as well. Set up a complete enviroment and we may be able to explain the principles. We are no aerospace engineers, and we don't have the resources or knowdlege to set up a full body simulation, bear that in mind.
Is all the thrust created in the combustion chamber/nozzle?
Thrust isn't created. Thrust is a force. You are taking the wrong POV if you are considering forces instead of momentum. Of course, you could, but then analysis becomes tedious and pointlessly complicated, since you have to take into account turbulent flow and forces inside the chamber. I suggest you take the simple approach, and use momentum POV, else, I'm going to ask you to do the FEA calculations yourself. I don't have the time to waste.
If not, how much thrust does the exhaust contribute when it acts against an outside mass?
Momentum exchange between the exhaust against an outside mass? I should not affect the rocket in any way. If the mass is too close, though, the flow of the exhaust will be disturbed. I don't have enough information to know exactly how will it be affected. Do the FEA yourself.
Or does the exhaust in fact negate thrust?
What does that mean? I sincerelly have no idea what are you talking about now.
None of you seem to have a clear opinion on any of the above questions, yet if we are to move on we will need them clarified.
So: answers please, space-cultists!
Set up simple enviroments and we will be able to give an answer. If not, why don't you try making the analysis yourself? You claim to know what you are talking about.
-
LOL!!!
Sooo many big words, but not a single shred of evidence amongst them.
Not a single simple experiment to prove your point.
Just pompous, supercilious pseudo-science.
'non-inertial frame of reference...'
LMAO!!!
The exhaust is NOT 'body B', Conker, you sneaky old con-man - it is part of 'body A', i.e. the rocket itself.
Did you REALLY think you'd sneak THAT one past me?!?
ROFLMAO!!!
The rest of your post is the usual blend of lies, bluffing & blah that you lot always come out with.
Like 'conservation of momentum'; until we establish exactly how Newton's 3rd applies to NASA's rocketry model then all talk of momentum is moot.
& you know this, too; so knock it off, ok, you crook.
You have NOT proved that a rocket can accelerate past the maximum velocity of its exhaust, because it CAN'T.
Because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Oh - you were all mad keen on Newton's 3rd a few pages back, weren't you?
But now you know it DOES NOT support your sci-fi gibberish you're all spamming 'conservation of momentum'...
Pathetic!
I have given evidence that the performance of firework rockets IN NO WAY RESEMBLES that of NASA's silly 'space-rockets'.
Whereas you have spammed out an already debunked FALSE ANALOGY & a lot of smokescreen-like verbiage about bloody cannons, POV's, Galileo, simple environments, etc, all of which amounted to exactly NOTHING.
What a farce...
Oh, & I note that you, too, avoided all mention of Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum...
I wonder why?
But keep going, all of you; because the more that you drag this simple subject into la-la land, the more convinced neutral readers will be that you have NO idea what you are talking about, & are simply making shit up as you go along in order to hide the truth.
& that is LOL!!!
P.s. Rayzor/Evil Edna: obvious LOL-Troll Is obvious!!!
-
Ok, simple question: how does acceleration change (as you've claimed) without velocity changing?
-
LOL!!!
Sooo many big words, but not a single shred of evidence amongst them.
Not a single simple experiment to prove your point.
Just pompous, supercilious pseudo-science.
(http://)
'non-inertial frame of reference...'
LMAO!!!
Since the rocket is accelerating, the frame of reference isnt inertial. You knew that, right? Newton's first only applies to inertial frames.
The exhaust is NOT 'body B', Conker, you sneaky old con-man - it is part of 'body A', i.e. the rocket itself.
Did you REALLY think you'd sneak THAT one past me?!?
ROFLMAO!!!
It actually is. The whole principle behind rocketry is body A splitting in two bodies, body B, and body C. We call the exhaust body Bn (since the exhaust is a multitude of particles, which act as different bodies, but we can simplify considering them as a group of particles, just as any body), and the remaining rocket body C. The amount of momentum in bodies C and B is conserved, since they both are an explosion of body A. Since bodies Bn are (in total) much less massive than body C, body C will gain speed. Your question also asked how could a rocket go faster than it's exhaust. Simple: it doesn't. Move the frame of reference to the point of ignition, and keep it inertial on the original trajectory and speed of the vehicle. If there was no thrust, then, the exhaust and the rocket would be at the same speed 0, even if it was moving with respect to, for example, the ground (we assume the rocket was initially inertial). Since we do have thrust, the exhaust and the rocket will gain speed, with the exhaust going faster than the rocket (with respect to this frame of reference). Derivate this momentum exhange over time? You get Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation#Derivation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation#Derivation). If you find a flaw of the derivation of such an equation (which comes directly from Newton's second), I suggest you write a paper and contact NASA and the Nobel prize administration, since you would have all in your favor to be the world's next Nobel in Physics.
The rest of your post is the usual blend of lies, bluffing & blah that you lot always come out with.
Like 'conservation of momentum'; until we establish exactly how Newton's 3rd applies to NASA's rocketry model then all talk of momentum is moot.
Why do you put conservation of momentum in quotes? Do you disbelieve conservation of momentum? Anyway, read the wikipedia page (I know, I know, but you have to accept the basics to build towards the more complex things, of course) I provided you, and tell me what you disbelieve about it.
& you know this, too; so knock it off, ok, you crook.
I beg to differ, your honor.
You have NOT proved that a rocket can accelerate past the maximum velocity of its exhaust, because it CAN'T.
Because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Newton's third only speaks of forces, not of speeds. Again, I agree that it is not possible for something to go faster than it's exhaust. You are using speeds wrong in this case, though. There is no maximum velocity (we aren't no where near relativistic territory here, so we will use Newtonian physics. In Newtonian physics, there is no maximum velocity at all. Light was assumed to be infinitelly fast by many on his era, and I think, im not sure, that Newton did as well.) for the exhaust to go at. When we talk about exhaust maximum velocity, we are talking about a frame of reference stuck to the rocket. If we consider the rocket to be at rest, then how fast can the exhaust go WITH RESPECT TO THE NOZZLE? That is an important piece of data, since it allows us to know the maximum amount of kinetic energy per unit of propellant the engine can provide, and because of this it is included in Tsiolkovsky's. However, it also limits the usefulness of the equation, since forces such as gravitation can and will affect the speed of the exhaust. That's why actually it is usually used in the specific impulse form.
Oh - you were all mad keen on Newton's 3rd a few pages back, weren't you?
But now you know it DOES NOT support your sci-fi gibberish you're all spamming 'conservation of momentum'...
Pathetic!
Conservation of momentum is a consequence of the third law, so, yeah, I'm keen of supporting Newton's third, as long as we are talking Classical physics. If you want to take Einstein's relativity into account, that's fine, but I'm not a physicist and I refuse to make such calculus, I work enough already.
I have given evidence that the performance of firework rockets IN NO WAY RESEMBLES that of NASA's silly 'space-rockets'.
Such as?
Whereas you have spammed out an already debunked FALSE ANALOGY & a lot of smokescreen-like verbiage about bloody cannons, POV's, Galileo, simple environments, etc, all of which amounted to exactly NOTHING.
Actually, POV (more accuratelly frames of reference) are the basis itself of Newtonian physics. When Im on a car, as long as the speed is constant, I can bounce a ball, and know that it will bounce back at my hand. If the car turns (suffers an acceleration), then the ball will not. Inertialty of frames of reference is one of the basis of Newtonian physics, yet you don't seem to understand them.
What a farce...
Oh, & I note that you, too, avoided all mention of Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum...
I wonder why?
Because rockets aren't jet engines, and atmospheric pressure only affects the effective velocity of the exhaust. Since I'm assuming we already know that speed, then the particular complex flow of propellant in a vacuum isnt relevant. If you want, then ok, do the FEA yourself.
But keep going, all of you; because the more that you drag this simple subject into la-la land, the more convinced neutral readers will be that you have NO idea what you are talking about, & are simply making shit up as you go along in order to hide the truth.
& that is LOL!!!
Ok friend.
P.s. Rayzor/Evil Edna: obvious LOL-Troll Is obvious!!!
Ok friend.
-
Here is another experiment proving that rockets work by exploiting Newton't 3rd law which flat earthers seem to think conveniently doesn't apply to rockets.
Take a balloon, fill it up with air, and then let it go so the air rushes out. If the air really does bounce back and push the rocket, then the air right behind the balloon should apear to be staying still behind the rocket. If rockets work how we aretold then the air should just be rushing back very fast. You can test this easily by putting an object like a thread behind the balloon, I chose a thread because it's too thin to noticeably alter the air. In reality if you do this you find that the air is rushing back very quickly, but none of it is going forward. This means that molecules are not bouncing back.
Why do you refuse to understand this? Are you really that desperate for proof of flat Earth theory?
-
Here's the evidence. If you drop a ball, it's velocity changes. Velocity is speed in a direction. It is not going in the same direction. Only the force behind it causes it to go back up, even slightly. Your medicine ball? It is absorbing the force being pushed back at it.
-
Sokarul: you wrote 'this is also why tickets have nozzles'; you might want to go back & edit that.
Plus, if the exhaust velocity is not related to the ticket -sorry, rocket velocity, then why do rocket designers spend so much time & effort trying to increase it?
Welcome to auto correct on a phone.
Now, I clearly said right here "The faster the exhaust the greater the acceleration for a given mass. " that the velocity does matter. Please pay attention. Like I said, the faster the exhaust the more force that is created.
& no, a rocket can NEVER accelerate past the velocity of its own exhaust.
Accelerate for long enough time and it's quite easy.
Newton's 3rd Law: 'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction', remember?
Yes, liek we said, it a force. Forces accelerate mass.
Further; claiming that it can do so is NOT 'a simple concept'; it is a nonsensical & unscientific concept.
You could always back up your claim.
A rocket - like any other type of engine - can only accelerate UP TO its maximum velocity (which, in the case of a rocket, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust); thereafter it can accelerate NO MORE.
Rockets don't have a maximum velocity.
THAT, Sokarul, is a 'simple concept'. It is also a FACT.
Then back up your claims instead of just spouting your opinion.
So; yes, I do 'understand', Mr. Apprentice Brainwasher. It is you that does not.
My minor is in physics, what's yours?
-
Conker: your link to 'evidence' leads NOWHERE; all I get is 'about.blank'.
Which sums up both the contents of your posts & your mind neatly...
You liar & con-man.
Misero: when you drop a ball, GRAVITY will assist it to gain velocity; do you really not know this?
You idiotic liar & con-man.
What is WRONG with you all?
Now: provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments we can all perform at home to support your claim that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Oh, & Mikeman: Where did I say that the air 'bounces back to push the rocket'?
Nowhere, idiot.
& where did I say I am a flat-earther for that matter?
Also nowhere, idiot.
Learn to read.
AND GIVE ME SOME GODDAMN EVIDENCE FOR YOUR FAIRY-TALE BELIEFS!!!
P.s. Sokarul: yes, your physics is 'minor'; I agree!
lol.
-
Mikeman: So; the old 'man on a skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY is all you can come up with for 'evidence'?
You do realise that both sceptimatic & I have debunked this DELIBERATELY FALSE & MISLEADING ANALOGY at least twice already on this thread?
& in any case, even if correct it would NOT prove that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Please LEARN TO READ.
Now; I asked you for simple experiments & easily-verified evidence that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Which you did not provide.
I suggest this is because you cannot.
Because there are none.
Because it is impossible.
But enough of that; I think it's pretty obvious I've won this round too: the statement 'a rocket cannot exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust' is proven.
So; time to move on.
Now; can you all please decide what the exhaust of a rocket is actually doing?
Does it effect any mass outside the rocket?
If so, by how much?
Is all the thrust created in the combustion chamber/nozzle?
If not, how much thrust does the exhaust contribute when it acts against an outside mass?
Or does the exhaust in fact negate thrust?
None of you seem to have a clear opinion on any of the above questions, yet if we are to move on we will need them clarified.
So: answers please, space-cultists!
Are you ever going to explain how a CO2 molecule hitting an N2 molecule can transfer a force in the opposite direction?
-
What?
No wonder physics was your minor!
If molecules hitting molecules can transfer no force, then what is the point of your 'combustion chamber'?
Or is that NOT made of molecules, somehow?!?
Again I ask: what is WRONG with you?
-
An experiment to show that a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
Hook up a rocket to a force gauge. Set off rocket engine. Get a force reading. Now, F=ma, so divide the force by the mass of the rocket to get an acceleration. Now take the exhaust velocity and divide by the acceleration. This should give you the time it takes for the velocity of the rocket to equal the velocity of the exhaust. So then just accelerate longer than that time and thus the rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
-
Conker: your link to 'evidence' leads NOWHERE; all I get is 'about.blank'.
Which sums up both the contents of your posts & your mind neatly...
You liar & con-man.
My bad, edited it. I double url'd. You could have easilly fixed that, but whatever. Check again.
You haven't addressed any of my other points either.
Misero: when you drop a ball, GRAVITY will assist it to gain velocity; do you really not know this?
You idiotic liar & con-man.
What is WRONG with you all?
That's the point.
Now: provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments we can all perform at home to support your claim that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.
Didn't you read what I wrote? I proved it already.
P.s. Sokarul: yes, your physics is 'minor'; I agree!
You sound like a diferent kind of minor, yourself.
-
What?
No wonder physics was your minor!
If molecules hitting molecules can transfer no force, then what is the point of your 'combustion chamber'?
I didn't say it didn't transfer a force, I said it doesn't transfer a force to the rocket, seeing is how the rocket is 5 feet away. So, how does it transfer a force to the rocket?
Or is that NOT made of molecules, somehow?!?
Again I ask: what is WRONG with you?
Your reading comprehension and inability to address people's posts. Does it help you sleep at night by ignoring 99% of people's posts?
-
Sokarul: so now you want to prove a rocket can exceed the velocity of its exhaust by using a STATIC rocket engine?!?
Yet again: what is WRONG with you??!!??
& as for your last question; there's a clue in the phrase 'exhaust column', should you be even vaguely interested in Truth.
P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.
You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...
Youtube comment section, maybe?
-
Sokarul: so now you want to prove a rocket can exceed the velocity of its exhaust by using a STATIC rocket engine?!?
You really can't read can you?
Yet again: what is WRONG with you??!!??
Read the post again.
& as for your last question; there's a clue in the phrase 'exhaust column', should you be even vaguely interested in Truth.
What about it, the column moves away from the rocket. When was the last time a baseball pitcher was hit by the ball moving away from him?
P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.
You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...
Youtube comment section, maybe?
Everyone uses mulitple quotes to address your posts but you can't do the same.
-
P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.
You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...
Youtube comment section, maybe?
Aw, how cute, he can't even read what I wrote, its too sciency! He doesn't like it, so he will ignore my points. Since you couldn't disprove neither of my points, and didn't counterrefute my refutation of yours, I guess we are done with this bullshit. Don't hit your butt with the door on the way out.
-
conker: LOL!!!
Your posts contained ZERO science; merely 'science-like language'.
Bravo!
Where were the experiments we could all do at home?
Where was the easily-verifiable evidence?
Nowhere, that's where.
But keep telling us you 'won' if it helps you with whatever the hell it is you're trying to do here...
Cos whatever it is, it AIN'T science!
-
conker: LOL!!!
Your posts contained ZERO science; merely 'science-like language'.
Bravo!
Where were the experiments we could all do at home?
The galillean cannon experiment can be done by everyone with diferent sized bouncy balls. I even remember doing it as a kid, since it was fun to launch balls over my friend's house like that. And that was before I had any sort of physics knowdlege. Just as the notion of a round earth (I had seen ships sink into the ocean).
Where was the easily-verifiable evidence?
I've used Newton's second and third, and derived my conclusions from them. Please note exactly what of my deductive steps is wrong.
But keep telling us you 'won' if it helps you with whatever the hell it is you're trying to do here...
I didn't claimed to have won anything. Scientific debate isnt won. You are simply wrong, and I have demonstrated that. That doesn't mean I'm right, though.
Cos whatever it is, it AIN'T science!
Ok friend
-
LOL!!!
A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?
What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...
Hey - maybe you spam em because they help you hide exactly what is Object A & Object B in any Newton 3 action-reaction pairing?!?
Oh, noez - say it ain't so!
LOL!!!
Whatever: evidence & experiments please!
Let's do some SCIENCE!
Cos God knows, you done none so far...
-
LOL!!!
A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?
Recoil works on exactly the same principle.
What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...
Prove them wrong
Hey - maybe you spam em because they help you hide exactly what is Object A & Object B in any Newton 3 action-reaction pairing?!?
I actually explained exactly what is the pairing, man. I don't understand what you mean. Explain yourself.
Whatever: evidence & experiments please!
You keep ignoring the galilean cannon example.
Let's do some SCIENCE!
Cos God knows, you done none so far...
Sure thing, bro. I've probably done way more science than you, but who knows?
-
conker: firstly; do NOT call me 'bro'.
Or 'friend'.
Secondly: No you haven't.
Where are your simple experiments?
Where is your easily-verifiable evidence?
Nowhere, that's where.
So toodle-pip until you find some!
Hint: WORDS alone constitute neither 'evidence' nor 'experiments'; take note, space-cultists!
-
conker: firstly; do NOT call me 'bro'.
Or 'friend'.
Secondly: No you haven't.
Where are your simple experiments?
Where is your easily-verifiable evidence?
Nowhere, that's where.
So toodle-pip until you find some!
Hint: WORDS alone constitute neither 'evidence' nor 'experiments'; take note, space-cultists!
Actually, simple derivative work over laws that we both accept is, at least, as good as the original axiom (in this case, Newton's laws). Either you prove my deductions wrong, or you stop accepting the axiom.
-
A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?
What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...
A cannon kicks back when it fires a projectile forward. A rocket kicks forward when it fires gas backward. I don't see this lack of similarity you speak of.
-
Mikeman; LOL!!!
Does a rocket fire a shell, whilst firmly affixed to the ground?
You know; like a cannon does?
No.
It does NOT.
Idiot.
Conker: I could not give a flying f**k about your shonky 'deductions'.
& I am sick of telling you this.
'Deductions' are NOT evidence or experiments.
Provide the latter or butt out.
'Brother'...
LOL!!!
-
Mikeman; LOL!!!
Does a rocket fire a shell, whilst firmly affixed to the ground?
You know; like a cannon does?
No.
It does NOT.
Idiot.
Conker: I could not give a flying f**k about your shonky 'deductions'.
& I am sick of telling you this.
'Deductions' are NOT evidence or experiments.
Provide the latter or butt out.
'Brother'...
LOL!!!
What a rocket fires may not be solid, but it's still mass. If a cannon were not firmly attached to the ground when it would go flying like a rocket, that's why they need to be attached to the ground. Do you agree that if a cannon were attached to the back of a vehicle facing backwards then the vehicle would move forward when the cannon fires? A rocket does the exact same thing.
-
LOL!!!
You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?
& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?
But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.
Just LMAO!!!
Idiot.
-
Like I said, expect some in July.
-
LOL!!!
You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?
& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?
But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.
Just LMAO!!!
Idiot.
I have built and tested pendulum stands. Rockets are expensive. Do it yourself. Nevertheless, I proved my results via maths. You do accept Tsiolkovsky, right?
-
LOL!!!
You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?
& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?
But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.
Just LMAO!!!
Idiot.
We already know how rockets work, and thought experiments are how a lot of technologies start out, including rockets. You're the idiot who is incapable of applying newtons 3rd correctly and somehow thinks it deals with velocity and not force.
-
LOL!!!
So why can none of you provide me with ANY easily-verifiable evidence or simple experiments that contradict one single claim I make?
& don't say you have, because you ain't.
All you got is 'deductions', 'thought experiments', FALSE F*****G ANALOGIES & other sundry brain-washing SPAM.
Now beat it until you can do better, losers...
LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
So why can none of you provide me with ANY easily-verifiable evidence or simple experiments that contradict one single claim I make?
& don't say you have, because you ain't.
All you got is 'deductions', 'thought experiments', FALSE F*****G ANALOGIES & other sundry brain-washing SPAM.
Now beat it until you can do better, losers...
LOL!!!
Can you provide me easiliy verifiable evidence that nuclear fission works? Evidence can be hard to replicate. Again, I still don't see your point. No one claims that exhaust will surpass a rocket. I don't understand you at all, but most of the points you make have been addressed. Could you please get to your point already (since you are going to ignore my points, might as well cut to the chase and disprove your central point).
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
Here is how a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust velocity.
An experiment to show that a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
Hook up a rocket to a force gauge. Set off rocket engine. Get a force reading. Now, F=ma, so divide the force by the mass of the rocket to get an acceleration. Now take the exhaust velocity and divide by the acceleration. This should give you the time it takes for the velocity of the rocket to equal the velocity of the exhaust. So then just accelerate longer than that time and thus the rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
-
LOL!!!
You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?
& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?
But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.
Just LMAO!!!
Idiot.
I actually built and launched model rockets many times, and I use the rocket equasion to make predictions that have turned out to be very acurite. What experimentation have you done on rockets?
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
Conker, this post is a true work of art, sir.
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.
The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers. ;D
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.
The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers. ;D
Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.
The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers. ;D
Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.
I'm quite happy watching people like you squirm and damp down.
The more I see of people like you changing names and still being a mean idiot, the more I know that your global argument is getting weaker by the desperate attempts at nastily trying to jump into try and debunk anything and everything...and failing....badly.
I suggest you change your nappy.
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.
The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers. ;D
Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.
I'm quite happy watching people like you squirm and damp down.
The more I see of people like you changing names and still being a mean idiot, the more I know that your global argument is getting weaker by the desperate attempts at nastily trying to jump into try and debunk anything and everything...and failing....badly.
I suggest you change your nappy.
It's funny because you think anything has been proven on this forum. The world already knows the Earth is round, and it will remain that way until the end of humanity. Go watch the live feed from the ISS, and be inspired, you fucking dolt.
-
It's funny because you think anything has been proven on this forum. The world already knows the Earth is round, and it will remain that way until the end of humanity. Go watch the live feed from the ISS, and be inspired, you fucking dolt.
Screaming like a little girl won't get your points across.
I'll leave you to sit and watch live feeds from shipping containers and green screen with harnessed third rate actors and actresses spewing bullshit.
Keep vigilant and you might see Simon Helberg float by. You know him from the big bang theory, right? :P
-
It's funny because you think anything has been proven on this forum. The world already knows the Earth is round, and it will remain that way until the end of humanity. Go watch the live feed from the ISS, and be inspired, you fucking dolt.
Screaming like a little girl won't get your points across.
I'll leave you to sit and watch live feeds from shipping containers and green screen with harnessed third rate actors and actresses spewing bullshit.
Keep vigilant and you might see Simon Helberg float by. You know him from the big bang theory, right? :P
I wouldn't bother engaging bill_the_troll. Mental midgets like him feed off frustration. If you ignore him, he'll probably get annoyed and have a breakdown, lashing out in a similar way to geoffrey. Then he'll be banned and we won't have to suffer his stupidity.
-
Bill is a familiar person. He acts like the little spiteful person in another name. I can't help laughing at him but I realise I am feeding him, so I'll let him harp on with himself.
-
Bill is a familiar person. He acts like the little spiteful person in another name. I can't help laughing at him but I realise I am feeding him, so I'll let him harp on with himself.
Translation: Bill made you look like an idiot, ( wasn't all that hard in fact ), so now it's time for the last resort, lame insults.
-
Bill is a familiar person. He acts like the little spiteful person in another name. I can't help laughing at him but I realise I am feeding him, so I'll let him harp on with himself.
Translation: Bill made you look like an idiot, ( wasn't all that hard in fact ), so now it's time for the last resort, lame insults.
You are no different. ;D
It's like the second someone joins the forum against flat Earth you all appear to join at the hip....or?.....or?....use your imagination, you plank. ;D
-
Bill is a familiar person. He acts like the little spiteful person in another name. I can't help laughing at him but I realise I am feeding him, so I'll let him harp on with himself.
Translation: Bill made you look like an idiot, ( wasn't all that hard in fact ), so now it's time for the last resort, lame insults.
You are no different. ;D
It's like the second someone joins the forum against flat Earth you all appear to join at the hip....or?.....or?....use your imagination, you plank. ;D
I love how much of a hypocrite you are. You and Legion are definitely buttbuddies on this forum, where if any FE gets challenged on their bullshit, any of you just rush in to defend them like some kind of pseudo-science martyr. It's a beautiful mating display.
-
So; five days have passed & still ZERO easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to prove your case.
Just the same tired, FALSE analogy & 'mathematical deductions' based on equally faulty premises.
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
Again; a child can tell the difference between SMOKE & FIRE.
But you lot can not...
LOL!!!
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).
See? Simple eh?
But a Rocket is not a gun, nor does it fire cannon balls; so let me fix your dumb analogy so it is more fitting to rocket propulsion.
Instead of having the man on his skateboard throw a ball, simply have him reach down & begin pushing himself backwards along the ground with his hands.
Thus, he will be interacting directly with the mass of the medium upon which he moves.
Just like a rocket exhaust does with the atmosphere.
Just like a rowing boat does with the water.
Just like the wheels of a car do with the road.
It will also be seen from my example that the velocity of the man on skateboard can NEVER exceed the velocity at which his arms are pushing on the ground.
Same goes for the boat & its oars.
Same goes for a car & its wheels.
& the same goes for a rocket & its exhaust.
It is all VERY simple, you know; Newton's 3rd is.
A child can see it.
Yet you cannot.
Why?
Who cares?
But if you disagree, please provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your case.
You won't; because you can't; because it is impossible...
But keep typing anyway.
LOL!!!
-
First off it does not matter whether they are two or one diferent objects, since conservation of momentum applies as well to the individual molecules of every object. We just group them together if they are fixed with respect to each other in objects. While exhaust clearly isn't, it ultimatelly does not matter, since conservation of momentum will appy just as well in the integral form to the individual particles.
Second, although less important, prove this affirmation
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario
-
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.
Let me remind everyone why you are here...
You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.
In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.
This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...
You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!
But you won't, will you?
& neutral readers will note that fact...
So LOL!!!
I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.
Let's read Newton's third, shall we?
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.
Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.
...
Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.
Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:
ma * aa = mb * ab
Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma
Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?
Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab
BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????
First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.
Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?
Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.
I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.
The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers. ;D
Explain EXACTLY what is wrong with his/her post. Explain or stop spout bullshit. Explain PROPERLY what is wrong instead of just stating it's wrong your wrong it's ridiculous etc.
-
Explain what's wrong with who's post? I hope you don't mean conker's. ;D
I don't bother with idiots like him. He's just a tefal head who sits drenched in his own piss whilst reeling off equations in an excited way before nutting the plaster off his wall.
Nahhhhh, please don't say you mean conker head. ;D
-
Conker: LOL!!!
That meant NOTHING; all you got is spam, ain't it?
OF COURSE it matters if the rocket & its exhaust are two different objects!
Your entire argument is based on this premise ffs, as is your rinky-dink 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY that I just busted.
Yet a-bloody-gain.
Are you mad, or trolling or what?
Whatever; you do realise that you just exposed yourself as a liar & buffoon to every single neutral following this thread, don't you?
LMAO!!!
11cookeaw1; Who are you even talking to?
& do you even care?
LOL!!!
Sceptimatic: Hi! This lot still got NOTHING, do they?
It is so LOL!!!
-
Conker: LOL!!!
That meant NOTHING; all you got is spam, ain't it?
OF COURSE it matters if the rocket & its exhaust are two different objects!
Your entire argument is based on this premise ffs, as is your rinky-dink 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY that I just busted.
Yet a-bloody-gain.
Are you mad, or trolling or what?
Whatever; you do realise that you just exposed yourself as a liar & buffoon to every single neutral following this thread, don't you?
LMAO!!!
11cookeaw1; Who are you even talking to?
& do you even care?
LOL!!!
Sceptimatic: Hi! This lot still got NOTHING, do they?
It is so LOL!!!
They do have something. Unfortunately it doesn't count in the real world. You see, they do have fantasy. They even have equations for fantasy models. They will continue to spout this utter shit for as long as they see film's of big rocket's going into space whilst listening to the white coats who tell them everything they want to know and not need to know.
Nanny McPhee: " when you need me but no longer want me, then I must stay. When you want me but no longer need me, then I must go."
N.A.S.A McPhee: " When you want fantasy and not needing reality, then I must stay. When you want reality and no longer want fantasy, then I must go." ;D
-
Sceptimatic; Yes; but it's still a sad business.
I mean, just look at that silly Saturn V 'moon-rocket'; it supposedly weighed 3,000 tonnes ffs!
You simply can not make a flying machine that weighs 3,000 tonnes; & if you tried the least you'd do is to give it very big wings indeed & a very long runway.
But no; the space-cultists stand their rickety damn aluminium & mild steel contraption bolt upright, so it has to fight gravity at its worst, then claim they can make it fly by igniting a 3,400 tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion beneath it!!!
Just LOL!!!
Anyone who believes such a scenario could end in anything but fiery disaster is clearly so delusional as to be beyond help...
But watch em line up to try & justify it...
Mental-cases, the lot of em.
-
Sceptimatic; Yes; but it's still a sad business.
I mean, just look at that silly Saturn V 'moon-rocket'; it supposedly weighed 3,000 tonnes ffs!
You simply can not make a flying machine that weighs 3,000 tonnes; & if you tried the least you'd do is to give it very big wings indeed & a very long runway.
But no; the space-cultists stand their rickety damn aluminium & mild steel contraption bolt upright, so it has to fight gravity at its worst, then claim they can make it fly by igniting a 3,400 tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion beneath it!!!
Just LOL!!!
Anyone who believes such a scenario could end in anything but fiery disaster is clearly so delusional as to be beyond help...
But watch em line up to try & justify it...
Mental-cases, the lot of em.
Yep. It defies logic in every way imaginable. It's akin to telling a child that an ant can lift up a full 2 litre bottle of coke and carry it to it's nest, leaving the child with gaping eyes, as much as to say "wow", then that child actually spending the rest of their life checking on a 2 litre bottle of coke they left out near where ants roam, hoping that one day they will see one ant do what they were told they can do.
Any person that tries to say that ants can't do it, to that person, will be set upon in an angry way. This is brainwashing at its best and why people buy into stuff that SHOULD be so clear to then, as to be ridiculous, that you wonder if there is simply a terrible need in their lives for magic to be real. ::)
It proves to me that Hollywood/N.A.S.A can literally put out anything and the gullible main public will lap it up like a starving cat taking warm milk from a saucer.
-
Indeed; the brainwashing has to start at a young age & be Reinforced Often thereafter.
Which is why this thread will soon be buzzing like an angry bee-hive with space-cultists insisting that their laughable 3,000 tonne flying machines REALLY ARE REAL & THEY REALLY DID GO TO THE MOON & HERE ARE REALLY REAL MATHS THAT PROVE IT!!!!
Fact is that none of them will ever go to 'space' themselves & it is obvious to a (non-brainwashed) child that the laws of physics in no way support rocket propulsion in a vacuum...
Yet they will keep typing out their whacked-out space-spam forever, like good little robots.
It's just so LOL!!!
-
Indeed; the brainwashing has to start at a young age & be Reinforced Often thereafter.
Which is why this thread will soon be buzzing like an angry bee-hive with space-cultists insisting that their laughable 3,000 tonne flying machines REALLY ARE REAL & THEY REALLY DID GO TO THE MOON & HERE ARE REALLY REAL MATHS THAT PROVE IT!!!!
Fact is that none of them will ever go to 'space' themselves & it is obvious to a (non-brainwashed) child that the laws of physics in no way support rocket propulsion in a vacuum...
Yet they will keep typing out their whacked-out space-spam forever, like good little robots.
It's just so LOL!!!
Propulsion is definitely possible in a vaccuum :)
-
LOL!!!
Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!
Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.
Oh, wait; you can't!
Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.
& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...
Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?
I think so...
LMAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!
Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.
Oh, wait; you can't!
Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.
& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...
Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?
I think so...
LMAO!!!
Are you quite done with your outbursts? You're either 12, or possibly insane. We get it that your own stupidity surprises you.
Propulsion is simple. Force in one direction produces an opposing force in the opposite direction.
-
These globalist's on here remind me of that film, "They live" with Roddy Piper, where only those who wear special sun glasses can see the brainwashing being bestowed upon the population.
I mean, look at this video of a locomotive. Imagine tipping that upright, then adding another 14 of the same one on top of it, then sticking some engines under it and flying it into space. ;D
This is what we're asked to believe with Saturn V. ;D
! No longer available (http://#)
-
These globalist's on here remind me of that film, "They live" with Roddy Piper, where only those who wear special sun glasses can see the brainwashing being bestowed upon the population.
I mean, look at this video of a locomotive. Imagine tipping that upright, then adding another 14 of the same one on top of it, then sticking some engines under it and flying it into space. ;D
This is what we're asked to believe with Saturn V. ;D
! No longer available (http://#)
What a beautifully constructed straw-man. Congrats.
You can play in the loony bin with all the other retarded children.
-
LOL!!!
Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!
Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.
Oh, wait; you can't!
Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.
& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...
Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?
I think so...
LMAO!!!
Are you quite done with your outbursts? You're either 12, or possibly insane. We get it that your own stupidity surprises you.
Propulsion is simple. Force in one direction produces an opposing force in the opposite direction.
We know that you plank. It's how it's achieved is the issue with you people. You believe it's achieved by making up fantasies.
Actually what I mean is, you people believe what you are told about fantasies and argue for it.
Now understand this because it's been told to you and your little buddies, time and time again.
Force (in atmosphere) in one direction will create a force (in atmosphere) in the opposite direction.
In your fantasy space, you have force in one direction only. There is no return force because ?....................because of FREE EXPANSION.
"What does this mean", I hear you say.
Well it's like this. If you were to punch your best friend in the face as a sort of attempt to assert your male dominance, your punch would be absorbed by your friends smaller and probably prettier head, with your best friend being a very petite waif like creature that makes you feel tough.
Anyway, her head exerts a reactive force on your fist and your body will feel this reaction.
Now imagine that your best friend has decided she doesn't want to be your punchbag or your best friend, anymore....(which I can't blame her, you creepy little bastard).
She decides to plant a hologram of herself in front of you and you being as thick as shit and not understanding reality, you go to punch the hologram and find that your punch hits nothing and you find yourself being thrown forward instead of being reacted against.
This would be like free expansion in a way and as you see, you move one way and one way only. You do not move backwards at all because your ex best friend is a hologram.
Now piss off and find you new friends you creepy liittle bastard. Oh and stop hitting lasses. :-\
-
Sceptimatic: Don't bother with Bill the PRETENDER (is there a slight clue in your name as to your purpose here, 'Bill'? Oh, & your avatar - Yuk!).
'Bill' is only typing his pointless, content-less, ad hom posts in order to turn the page & put distance between readers & my earlier post comprehensively debunking NASA's 'man on skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY.
However, for anyone wishing to read it, it's post #1569 on page 79 of this thread.
Those wishing to dispute it are required to provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support their position.
Which, as ever, they won't.
Cos they can't.
Cos it's impossible.
So LOL!!!
P.s: 3,000-tonne flying machines - LMAO!!!
Dream on, suckers!
-
LOL!!!
Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!
Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.
Oh, wait; you can't!
Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.
& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...
Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?
I think so...
LMAO!!!
Are you quite done with your outbursts? You're either 12, or possibly insane. We get it that your own stupidity surprises you.
Propulsion is simple. Force in one direction produces an opposing force in the opposite direction.
We know that you plank. It's how it's achieved is the issue with you people. You believe it's achieved by making up fantasies.
Actually what I mean is, you people believe what you are told about fantasies and argue for it.
Now understand this because it's been told to you and your little buddies, time and time again.
Force (in atmosphere) in one direction will create a force (in atmosphere) in the opposite direction.
In your fantasy space, you have force in one direction only. There is no return force because ?....................because of FREE EXPANSION.
"What does this mean", I hear you say.
Well it's like this. If you were to punch your best friend in the face as a sort of attempt to assert your male dominance, your punch would be absorbed by your friends smaller and probably prettier head, with your best friend being a very petite waif like creature that makes you feel tough.
Anyway, her head exerts a reactive force on your fist and your body will feel this reaction.
Now imagine that your best friend has decided she doesn't want to be your punchbag or your best friend, anymore....(which I can't blame her, you creepy little bastard).
She decides to plant a hologram of herself in front of you and you being as thick as shit and not understanding reality, you go to punch the hologram and find that your punch hits nothing and you find yourself being thrown forward instead of being reacted against.
This would be like free expansion in a way and as you see, you move one way and one way only. You do not move backwards at all because your ex best friend is a hologram.
Now piss off and find you new friends you creepy liittle bastard. Oh and stop hitting lasses. :-\
Free expansion required a net movement of gas molecules in a particular direction. The molecules move in that direction because they have previously impacted a vessel wall and bounced off. The impact of the molecule and the vessel wall gives a action-reaction. Action on the molecule to accelerate from one direction to another and the re-action of equal force on the vessel wall.
When this is extrapolated to a rocket engine, to get the molecules to exit the nozzle they must have collided with the engine reaction chamber and/or nozzle imparting force on the molecule to accelerate it out of the chamber and an equal and opposite reaction on the nozzle accelerating it in the opposite direction.
The gas molecules do not interact with an external medium to give force to the rocket. The molecules themselves give force to the rocket and then subsequently exit.
-
So, mainframes; you claim that all the thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket?
This also seems to be NASA's claim btw.
Do you agree?
-
After scepti and Papa Legba refused to address the post I did (which clearly explained why it doesnt matter what POV you use, since particulae act as objects of their own), and decided to, instead, insult me, I think I now have the right to declare my proposition correct, since they are unable to present any counterpoint besides kidlike insults. So, since my argument is correct, it rests upon FE to prove that conservation of momentum doesn't work on a vacuum. I will only accept arguments that are well structured, and correct. That will probably require that you both get to work on deriving the model you need, since you can't accept Newton's laws but not accept conservation of momentum. I eagerly await your mathematical models, arguments, and insults.
-
After scepti and Papa Legba refused to address the post I did (which clearly explained why it doesnt matter what POV you use, since particulae act as objects of their own), and decided to, instead, insult me, I think I now have the right to declare my proposition correct, since they are unable to present any counterpoint besides kidlike insults. So, since my argument is correct, it rests upon FE to prove that conservation of momentum doesn't work on a vacuum. I will only accept arguments that are well structured, and correct. That will probably require that you both get to work on deriving the model you need, since you can't accept Newton's laws but not accept conservation of momentum. I eagerly await your mathematical models, arguments, and insults.
I don't need nor care to present anything to you to prove anything to you. Anything I say, is for the benefit of people looking in who have a thinking layman's brain, plus those already posting on these forum's that already possess the knowledge that there's a lot of mainstream bullshit being bandied about.
-
After scepti and Papa Legba refused to address the post I did (which clearly explained why it doesnt matter what POV you use, since particulae act as objects of their own), and decided to, instead, insult me, I think I now have the right to declare my proposition correct, since they are unable to present any counterpoint besides kidlike insults. So, since my argument is correct, it rests upon FE to prove that conservation of momentum doesn't work on a vacuum. I will only accept arguments that are well structured, and correct. That will probably require that you both get to work on deriving the model you need, since you can't accept Newton's laws but not accept conservation of momentum. I eagerly await your mathematical models, arguments, and insults.
I don't need nor care to present anything to you to prove anything to you. Anything I say, is for the benefit of people looking in who have a thinking layman's brain, plus those already posting on these forum's that already possess the knowledge that there's a lot of mainstream bullshit being bandied about.
So you admit you cannot suffice your burden of proof?
-
So; five days have passed & still ZERO easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to prove your case.
Just the same tired, FALSE analogy & 'mathematical deductions' based on equally faulty premises.
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
Again; a child can tell the difference between SMOKE & FIRE.
But you lot can not...
LOL!!!
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).
See? Simple eh?
But a Rocket is not a gun, nor does it fire cannon balls; so let me fix your dumb analogy so it is more fitting to rocket propulsion.
Instead of having the man on his skateboard throw a ball, simply have him reach down & begin pushing himself backwards along the ground with his hands.
Thus, he will be interacting directly with the mass of the medium upon which he moves.
Just like a rocket exhaust does with the atmosphere.
Just like a rowing boat does with the water.
Just like the wheels of a car do with the road.
It will also be seen from my example that the velocity of the man on skateboard can NEVER exceed the velocity at which his arms are pushing on the ground.
Same goes for the boat & its oars.
Same goes for a car & its wheels.
& the same goes for a rocket & its exhaust.
It is all VERY simple, you know; Newton's 3rd is.
A child can see it.
Yet you cannot.
Why?
Who cares?
But if you disagree, please provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your case.
You won't; because you can't; because it is impossible...
But keep typing anyway.
LOL!!!
A rocket doesn't work that way.
1. The exhaust has mass, it has velocity, so it must have momentum. 2. Since the exhaust has net momentum in one way, by conservation of momentum the rocket therefore MUST have net momentum in the opposite direction. This is basic physics.
You can't debunk this, you are wrong.
-
LOL!!!
Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!
Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.
Oh, wait; you can't!
Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.
& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...
Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?
I think so...
LMAO!!!
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh but wait, "It must be part of the conspiracy."
-
So, mainframes; you claim that all the thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket?
This also seems to be NASA's claim btw.
Do you agree?
Inside the combustion chamber and nozzle. The combustion of the fuel and oxidiser rapidly accelerates the gas in all directions. The gas impacts the chamber and nozzle and are directed out of the rocket. This imparts force on the gas. Newtons 3rd then states that the gas imparts equal and opposite force on the rocket pushing it forward.
The overall net effect is that momentum is conserved as gas rapidly shoots out the back and the rocket is gradually accelerated.
-
Momentum is a product of motion.
Motion is a product of Newton's 3rd law.
So until we establish exactly how Newton 3 applies to rocketry any talk of a rocket's momentum, or the conservation thereof, is irrelevant.
I believe I have told you this on multiple occasions; yet you continue to ignore it.
Because you are blind? Mad? Illiterate? Trolling?
I do not care.
Anyhow; time for another EXPERIMENT - come on, geeks, let's do some SCIENCE!
With 4th of July nearly upon us, it should be easy to get hold of a firework rocket.
Do so.
Then get a coke can or similar.
Cut a small disc, 3 inches or so in diameter, from the can.
Pierce the disc near the edge.
Push the stick of the rocket through the pierced hole until it is 3 to 4 inches below the base of the rocket.
Reinforce the underside of the disc with blu-tak, glue or such that it cannot slip back down the stick.
Done all that? Good! Now we are ready for our EXPERIMENT.
Place the rocket upright ready for launch.
Light the fuse.
OBSERVE the result.
For, if Mainframes & NASA are correct & I am not, & the thrust is produced entirely INSIDE the rocket, it should still take off.
But, if I am correct & they are not, the rocket will sit, sputter & go nowhere, as the disc is blocking the exhaust from interacting with the atmosphere so it cannot produce thrust.
Off you go, space-cultists; do some real 'rocket-science' for once in your lives...
Be sure to let us know the results!
LOL!!!
P.s. 11cookeaw1: Oooh! Another youtube - I'm scared!
However, sadly for you & your youtube's credibility, anyone with a brain can see that the vacuum pumps in your 'vacuum chamber' must be even more of a feat of engineering than the 'rocket' itself.
LMAO!!!
Plus I asked for simple experiments we could repeat at home; you know, LIKE THE EXAMPLE I JUST PROVIDED ABOVE?
But nice try though... Maybe you'll fool the odd idiot into falling for such nonsense?
& that'll count as a 'win' for you & your fellow Imaginary 3,000-tonne flying-machine Fetishists, won't it?
ROFLMAO!!!
-
Momentum is a product of motion.
Motion is a product of Newton's 3rd law.
So until we establish exactly how Newton 3 applies to rocketry any talk of a rocket's momentum, or the conservation thereof, is irrelevant.
I believe I have told you this on multiple occasions; yet you continue to ignore it.
Because you are blind? Mad? Illiterate? Trolling?
I do not care.
Anyhow; time for another EXPERIMENT - come on, geeks, let's do some SCIENCE!
With 4th of July nearly upon us, it should be easy to get hold of a firework rocket.
Do so.
Then get a coke can or similar.
Cut a small disc, 3 inches or so in diameter, from the can.
Pierce the disc near the edge.
Push the stick of the rocket through the pierced hole until it is 3 to 4 inches below the base of the rocket.
Reinforce the underside of the disc with blu-tak, glue or such that it cannot slip back down the stick.
Done all that? Good! Now we are ready for our EXPERIMENT.
Place the rocket upright ready for launch.
Light the fuse.
OBSERVE the result.
For, if Mainframes & NASA are correct & I am not, & the thrust is produced entirely INSIDE the rocket, it should still take off.
But, if I am correct & they are not, the rocket will sit, sputter & go nowhere, as the disc is blocking the exhaust from interacting with the atmosphere so it cannot produce thrust.
Off you go, space-cultists; do some real 'rocket-science' for once in your lives...
Be sure to let us know the results!
LOL!!!
P.s. 11cookeaw1: Oooh! Another youtube - I'm scared!
However, sadly for you & your youtube's credibility, anyone with a brain can see that the vacuum pumps in your 'vacuum chamber' must be even more of a feat of engineering than the 'rocket' itself.
LMAO!!!
Plus I asked for simple experiments we could repeat at home; you know, LIKE THE EXAMPLE I JUST PROVIDED ABOVE?
But nice try though... Maybe you'll fool the odd idiot into falling for such nonsense?
& that'll count as a 'win' for you & your fellow Imaginary 3,000-tonne flying-machine Fetishists, won't it?
ROFLMAO!!!
The experiment is malformed. When the gasses leave the chamber, they will then exhange their momentum with the disk at the nozzle. 8th grade maths will obviously tell you that this momentum is equal and opposite to the one that the rocket adquired via firing. Since p-p=0, rocket momentum = 0. Since rocket momentum = v*m, and m can't be 0, v = 0. It will also likelly explode.
All this stupid talk really makes me want to finish my damn vacuum chamber for degassing. I wonder what would be the excuse then.
-
Yes, conker; you finish your 'vacuum chamber'...
Make sure it has powerful pumps, mind - wouldn't want to be called a FRAUD now, would you?
Anyhow; what you're basically saying is that the exhaust gases DO create an action/reaction pairing with an outside mass such as the disc.
& an 'equal & opposite' one to boot - why thank you, conker!
However; you're calling it a 'momentum exchange' now, even though it's the same thing, because you are a CROOK & uninterested in anything even vaguely resembling TRUTH.
Whatever; NASA claim that - somehow, magically - rockets produce all their thrust in the combustion chamber.
Yet all that thrust can still be negated by a simple disc of metal?!??!
How?
Really; you lot need to stop flip-flopping like dying fish on a beach & just state exactly how you believe a rocket functions.
After all, I have...
Repeatedly & consistently.
& I've given many examples of simple experiments & easily-verified evidence to support my case too.
Like the one above; HAVE ANY OF YOU REPEATED IT YET?
Nah; didn't think so...
But what can you expect off dingbats who believe in 3,000-tonne flying machines..?
Just LOL!!!
-
Do you not know the difference between force and momentum? Momentum is not directly tied to force. It is to impulse, though. Maybe you prefer to use impulse?
(http://)
-
The disc is not negating the thrust. The exhaust exits the combustion chamber and interacts with a part of the rocket once again ( disc is connected to rocket). The exhaust hits the disc and creates a force downwards which will decrease the acceleration forward.
-
Usually the combustion chamber and nozzle are the only parts of a rocket that interact with the exhaust as the exhaust will exit at the rear. This is the most efficient design as any further interaction ( such as steering vanes on the V2) will create an element of drag as the exhaust hits the assembly.
-
Yes, conker; you finish your 'vacuum chamber'...
Make sure it has powerful pumps, mind - wouldn't want to be called a FRAUD now, would you?
Anyhow; what you're basically saying is that the exhaust gases DO create an action/reaction pairing with an outside mass such as the disc.
& an 'equal & opposite' one to boot - why thank you, conker!
However; you're calling it a 'momentum exchange' now, even though it's the same thing, because you are a CROOK & uninterested in anything even vaguely resembling TRUTH.
Whatever; NASA claim that - somehow, magically - rockets produce all their thrust in the combustion chamber.
Yet all that thrust can still be negated by a simple disc of metal?!??!
How?
Really; you lot need to stop flip-flopping like dying fish on a beach & just state exactly how you believe a rocket functions.
After all, I have...
Repeatedly & consistently.
& I've given many examples of simple experiments & easily-verified evidence to support my case too.
Like the one above; HAVE ANY OF YOU REPEATED IT YET?
Nah; didn't think so...
But what can you expect off dingbats who believe in 3,000-tonne flying machines..?
Just LOL!!!
Your experiments and evidence are flawed, why do you expect us to accept them?
-
Ok Papa, simple yes or no question:
When the fuel is ejected from a rocket, is a force required?
Or if you want multiple choice:
What happens when fuel is ejected from a rocket?
Is it A) The fuel accelerates with no force acting on it
or is it B) A force is acting on the fuel
You can answer this with one letter. Let's see if you do.
-
So; you agree the metal disc cancels out all the thrust you claim is produced inside the rocket.
Thus, the exhaust does exert pressure on an external mass.
Bear in mind that this is something I have claimed all along & you were all denying earlier in the thread.
Now I ask you: how does the exhaust exert pressure in 2 different directions?
It is supposedly pushing your rocket up; yet now you admit it can also push your rocket down.
But the exhaust travels in one direction only...
So what the hell is actually going on here?!?
Do you even know?!?
LOL!!!
P.s. BJ: stop trying to use The Force & just say your piece; this isn't Star Wars...
Though it certainly is some kind of sci-fi Fantasy!
Again: LOL!!!
-
The disc is not an external mass it is attached to the rocket.
And we have never said that the exhaust doesn't interact with external masses, just that that interaction has no effect on the rocket.
-
Mainframes: Stop lying; the disc clearly IS external to the exhaust.
& the interaction of the exhaust with that external mass clearly DOES have an effect on the rocket.
It renders it completely immobile, in fact.
Now; if, as you & NASA claim, all the thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket, how can this be so?
HOW?
Your model of rocketry is full of holes; you cannot agree on any aspect of it; you provide neither evidence nor experiments for any of its claims; you lie & change your story repeatedly; you twist & turn & make fools of yourselves at every juncture.
What is WRONG with you all?
-
So; you agree the metal disc cancels out all the thrust you claim is produced inside the rocket.
Thus, the exhaust does exert pressure on an external mass.
Bear in mind that this is something I have claimed all along & you were all denying earlier in the thread.
Now I ask you: how does the exhaust exert pressure in 2 different directions?
It is supposedly pushing your rocket up; yet now you admit it can also push your rocket down.
But the exhaust travels in one direction only...
So what the hell is actually going on here?!?
Do you even know?!?
LOL!!!
P.s. BJ: stop trying to use The Force & just say your piece; this isn't Star Wars...
Though it certainly is some kind of sci-fi Fantasy!
Again: LOL!!!
Because the rocket isn't propelled by a direct force, but via impulse. Apply momentum. You are using the wrong concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_(physics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_(physics))
The thing is, Tsiolkovsky's equation can be directly derived from Newton's laws of movement. If Tsiolkovsky's equation is correct, then rockets work. Prove the derivation proccess of the equation proccess wrong. You haven't proven anything, just moved the goalposts all around.
-
Momentum is a product of motion.
Motion is a product of Newton's 3rd law.
So until we establish exactly how Newton 3 applies to rocketry any talk of a rocket's momentum, or the conservation thereof, is irrelevant.
I believe I have told you this on multiple occasions; yet you continue to ignore it.
Because you are blind? Mad? Illiterate? Trolling?
I do not care.
Anyhow; time for another EXPERIMENT - come on, geeks, let's do some SCIENCE!
With 4th of July nearly upon us, it should be easy to get hold of a firework rocket.
Do so.
Then get a coke can or similar.
Cut a small disc, 3 inches or so in diameter, from the can.
Pierce the disc near the edge.
Push the stick of the rocket through the pierced hole until it is 3 to 4 inches below the base of the rocket.
Reinforce the underside of the disc with blu-tak, glue or such that it cannot slip back down the stick.
Done all that? Good! Now we are ready for our EXPERIMENT.
Place the rocket upright ready for launch.
Light the fuse.
OBSERVE the result.
For, if Mainframes & NASA are correct & I am not, & the thrust is produced entirely INSIDE the rocket, it should still take off.
But, if I am correct & they are not, the rocket will sit, sputter & go nowhere, as the disc is blocking the exhaust from interacting with the atmosphere so it cannot produce thrust.
Off you go, space-cultists; do some real 'rocket-science' for once in your lives...
Be sure to let us know the results!
LOL!!!
P.s. 11cookeaw1: Oooh! Another youtube - I'm scared!
However, sadly for you & your youtube's credibility, anyone with a brain can see that the vacuum pumps in your 'vacuum chamber' must be even more of a feat of engineering than the 'rocket' itself.
LMAO!!!
Plus I asked for simple experiments we could repeat at home; you know, LIKE THE EXAMPLE I JUST PROVIDED ABOVE?
But nice try though... Maybe you'll fool the odd idiot into falling for such nonsense?
& that'll count as a 'win' for you & your fellow Imaginary 3,000-tonne flying-machine Fetishists, won't it?
ROFLMAO!!!
Please draw a basic diagram, you're explanation does not seem that clear.
Mainframes: Stop lying; the disc clearly IS external to the exhaust.
& the interaction of the exhaust with that external mass clearly DOES have an effect on the rocket.
It renders it completely immobile, in fact.
Now; if, as you & NASA claim, all the thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket, how can this be so?
HOW?
Your model of rocketry is full of holes; you cannot agree on any aspect of it; you provide neither evidence nor experiments for any of its claims; you lie & change your story repeatedly; you twist & turn & make fools of yourselves at every juncture.
What is WRONG with you all?
The disk is attached to part of the rocket.
The disk is blocking the exhaust, so the exhaust is pushing against the disk, as the disk is connected to the rocket, this results on downward force on there rocket. It's strength will depend on how much of the exhaust the disk gets in the way of.
-
P.s. BJ: stop trying to use The Force & just say your piece; this isn't Star Wars...
I've said my piece. You know, you could have just typed out one letter, instead of all of that. I ask again:
What happens when fuel is ejected from a rocket?
Is it A) The fuel accelerates with no force acting on it
or is it B) A force is acting on the fuel
-
Conker: Oh, so NOW a rocket works by 'impulse' does it?
But you somehow forgot that for the last 80 bloody pages & just thought to mention it?
LMAO!!!
Thank you, Conker, for proving my assertion that you all change your stories repeatedly & cannot agree on even the basics.
11cookeawl11: Yes, the exhaust IS pushing down on the disc, isn't it?
This is the same exhaust that you all agreed did NOTHING earlier in the thread.
Yet now it IS doing something... In fact it's doing enough to render the rocket completely bloody immobile.
Which is a bit odd, as you & NASA claim that ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET.
Or have you forgotten that little fact?
Do you really not see how this simple experiment kicks big holes in your model of how a rocket works?
Really?
Or do you not WANT to?
Whatever; your cognitive dysfunction is your problem, not mine.
Anyway; happy 4th of July everyone! Enjoy the fireworks & remember to keep your eye on the Rockets!
P.s. BJ: You Ask; I Ignore.
Because that is what you get for spamming me for 40 pages earlier in the thread with a stupid & blatantly FALSE ANALOGY.
Again; your ignorance is not my concern; rectify it yourself.
Using 'The Force', perhaps?
LOL!!!
-
Conker: Oh, so NOW a rocket works by 'impulse' does it?
But you somehow forgot that for the last 80 bloody pages & just thought to mention it?
What?
Do you not know the difference between force and momentum? Momentum is not directly tied to force. It is to impulse, though. Maybe you prefer to use impulse?
(http://)
Impulse is directly tied to momentum (it is the delta of momentum. In layman's terms, how much changes momentum), and indirectly to force (Impulse is the integral of force over time. In layman's terms, it is the total sum of force over time.)
-
P.s. BJ: You Ask; I Ignore.
Because that is what you get for spamming me for 40 pages earlier in the thread with a stupid & blatantly FALSE ANALOGY.
Again; your ignorance is not my concern; rectify it yourself.
An analogy isn't false just because it's an analogy. You were relying on only one trait of space to make your argument, so I used that same trait for a different analogy. If you'd been involving any other traits, then it would have been a false analogy. However, you weren't.
I'm not ignorant, I know the answer, I'm just interested in whether or not you do. A or B.
Or evade like always. That's fine too.
-
Mainframes: Stop lying; the disc clearly IS external to the exhaust.
& the interaction of the exhaust with that external mass clearly DOES have an effect on the rocket.
It renders it completely immobile, in fact.
Now; if, as you & NASA claim, all the thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket, how can this be so?
HOW?
Your model of rocketry is full of holes; you cannot agree on any aspect of it; you provide neither evidence nor experiments for any of its claims; you lie & change your story repeatedly; you twist & turn & make fools of yourselves at every juncture.
What is WRONG with you all?
The disc is physically attached to the rocket. Of course it isn't an external mass, it is part of the rocket. If something hits that disc it will affect the rocket. Ergo when the exhaust hits the disc then there will be an effect.
-
I really can't understand how people can't see this ruse for what it is with these so called space rockets.
Just think about it logically. Seriously think about the rocket's and how you are expected to believe how they work.
Papa Legba has explained a hell of a lot as well as other's like legion and myself, etc, contributing. It should be plainer to people how ridiculous space rocket's are and how fantasy has replaced what people once had as common sense.
It's not that people are stupid or unable to comprehend it, it's simply that people are being put to sleep with deflections from the truth.
Think about what's been said. A 3000 TON ROCKET. I'll say it again. A THREE THOUSAND TON ROCKET.
Let me try and make this easier to understand. The next time you're at a railway station, go and take a look at those big hefty solid , mammoth diesel locomotives. Stand next to one and feel it between your legs if you can. Give the driver of it a little nod and wink and a rub of his leg to get him to move that locomotive 10 feet along the track.
What you will notice is how much force it takes to actually move it that first 10 feet and this is on a flat track.
Ok, I think you get the gist of it. So now I want you to imagine a crane tipping that locomotive UPRIGHT and imagine how an engine stuck to the back of it would push it into the sky.
Ok, it sounds daunting, right?
The problem is, in terms of the saturn V rocket. You also have to try and imagine another 14 of these locomotives stacked on top of the other upright one, into the sky, then imagine engines under the first one to actually push all those into the sky and into space, because this is the tonnage we are asked to accept and people do because TV has made it possible.
3000 ton's. Think seriously about it, because once you start to wake up to that, you'll find that it all starts to crumble to the floor, piece by piece.
We get told that the combustion chamber inside the rocket is what creates the push into the sky.
We get told that the mixture of the two fuels in pressurised containers, come together in the combustion chamber and ignite to expand and push the rocket up into the sky from inside, with the exhaust being nothing other than the trash bin. Just a dump of expended fuel that's already done it's job inside the rocket....APPARENTLY ;D.
It's absolutely mental.
You then get bullshitted as to why this happened by diagrams using arrows that are all pushing against the sealed (as yet unopened valve) pressurised fuel cylinders, showing the arrows pointing in all directions. An even pressure pushing on those cylinders. If we assumed these cylinders we actually sphere's , then this would be true, so for the sake or argument, we will use this.
Ok, now the valve opens from the cylinders and now the arrows have changed. You see in N.A.S.A or affiliate drawing's, they now show arrows pointing at the sides and down throwing fuel into the combustion chamber and yet they show the arrow in this chamber in all directions again, when anyone seeing reality would know that all arrows would be pointing DOWN.
If anything, they should make the arrows facing down, FATTER as they fall because it means they're expanding as they are pushing out against EACH OTHER ....not against the inside of the rocket in any vertical way.
They are merely escaping by being squeezed against the nozzle and expanding as it gets wider and hitting the atmosphere which is what is pushing a resistance against that immense flow of BURNING AND EXPANDING fuel.
Let me make this even more simpler to under stand.
The next time you're stood in a queue for a bus or to get into a game or whatever; imagine what's happening as you're pushed against your will.
Here's what's happening.
The person at the very back of the queue is stood there. nobody is pushing him and he is not levering himself off a wall . All he is doing is resting against the person in front who is now trying to resist him resting against himself. The problem is, to do this, he must now use the person in front as a leverage to resist against the man at the back's push.
As this momentum builds, you find that each person is pushing on each person and you soon see that the people half way down the queue are actually using a lot more resistant force to stop being crushed.
the person's at the front as basically shoved forward, unless they are strong enough to create a resistance.
call that as ,valve closed.
Now if those people at the front can't hold the pressure from the rest of the crowd, they get pushed away. Let's call this, valve open.
Now you see everyone follows until the pressure is relieved.
If you think about that with rocket fuel under pressure, you will notice that there is no force going the opposite way once the valve is open.
If you're still a little confused. Try and picture the same queue tipped up vertically with all people leaning on the next from back to front and still the man who is on the top stack is using no leverage but himself upon the next person.
Open the valve and waheyyyyyy they all start to fall out. Set them all alight and you'll hear screaming and fighting as they expand in a frenzy to get out and not be last man out, stinks.
People who think 3000 ton rocket's and space rocket's etc are real after reading this whole topic, then all I can say is, I actually feel sorry that you can't grasp the truth and I hope that one day you actually wake up from the deep sleep.
Never be jealous of the internet know all's that have seen these rocket's and such, first hand. A clear as daylight and blue sky. Why?
Because they are sat there telling you about their fantasy of seeing one or are parroting what some other internet fantasy merchant has told them, or their own uncle or father or whatever.
The only rocket launches anyone has seen or ever will see, are small Earth rocket's and missiles, in comparison to the bullshit one's they tell us are real space one's. ;D
A favourite argument with some wannabe tefal head's is: "so you think you're smarter than a rocket scientist, do you? you think millions of people are in on it and that rocket scientists just don't know what they're doing?"
The truth is, No I'm not smarter than a rocket scientist. I am smarter than a SPACE rocket scientist because they do not exist and anyone who professes to be one, is nothing other than a rocket engineer, because rocket's are not complex. Only fantasy space rocket's are complex. because they ignore reality to make them work in fantasy land, which is fine as long as it's stamped on the tin that it is what it is. FANTASY.
-
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
-
You & NASA claim that all the thrust is produced inside the rocket.
Yet a simple shield below the exhaust immobilises the rocket.
Thus, it is at the very least clear that, as I state, the exhaust of a rocket applies force to an outside mass.
Something you all denied until recently, yet now acknowledge as true.
Further; if a rocket does push on atmosphere, as I claim, then the shield experiment also shows that blocking the exhaust from interacting with the atmosphere will prevent the rocket from moving.
So: the results of my experiment firmly support my model.
Whilst you lot cannot even decide how they apply to yours.
You lot really need to get your acts together & present a valid model for rocketry, with easily-verified evidence & simple experiments to support it; you know - like I have.
Because you are getting your asses handed to you here.
P.s. sceptimatic: yes; 3,000 tonnes blasted straight up into the sky... LMAO!!!!
& Guv: not much bigger than the V2 fyi.
-
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
From http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm)
"For comparison French space launch vehicle Ariane 5 has start weight 770 tons (most of it fuel of course) to put only 16 tons pay load in Low Earth Orbit, LEO, 2015."
To put Apollo 11 + booster 1969 to get away to the Moon = mass 335 tons in LEO, you apparently need 21 Ariance 5s total mass 16 170 tons.
-
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.
-
LOL!!!
Heiwa: we all know you have shares in Arianespace; & that's fine.
But the truth is that you cannot make a liquid-fuelled rocket much larger than a V2 that has any useful range/payload capability.
& for solid-fuel rockets you can halve that; problems with burning out their casings, you know?
All this was known by the start of the 1960's.
Truth is, rockets are only useful as area-barrage weapons, anti-tank devices such as the RPG & anti-aircraft weapons (with sufficiently advanced guidance systems, that is; which is where REAL rocket science comes in).
But meh; believe what you want.
Anyhow; NASA claim that all the thrust is produced within the rocket itself; yet a simple shield below the exhaust immobilises it.
Care to explain how this FACT fits into your model, space-cultists?
-
LOL!!!
Heiwa: we all know you have shares in Arianespace; & that's fine.
But the truth is that you cannot make a liquid-fuelled rocket much larger than a V2 that has any useful range/payload capability.
& for solid-fuel rockets you can halve that; problems with burning out their casings, you know?
All this was known by the start of the 1960's.
Truth is, rockets are only useful as area-barrage weapons, anti-tank devices such as the RPG & anti-aircraft weapons (with sufficiently advanced guidance systems, that is; which is where REAL rocket science comes in).
But meh; believe what you want.
Anyhow; NASA claim that all the thrust is produced within the rocket itself; yet a simple shield below the exhaust immobilises it.
Care to explain how this FACT fits into your model, space-cultists?
If the shield is not fixed to the rocket, and we ignore the complex flow changes produced by it (which I refuse to calculate), then it wouldnt immobilise it. It would probably hinder its performance, but yeah, it would work.
-
Conker: Oh, so NOW a rocket works by 'impulse' does it?
But you somehow forgot that for the last 80 bloody pages & just thought to mention it?
LMAO!!!
Thank you, Conker, for proving my assertion that you all change your stories repeatedly & cannot agree on even the basics.
11cookeawl11: Yes, the exhaust IS pushing down on the disc, isn't it?
This is the same exhaust that you all agreed did NOTHING earlier in the thread.
Yet now it IS doing something... In fact it's doing enough to render the rocket completely bloody immobile.
Which is a bit odd, as you & NASA claim that ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET.
Or have you forgotten that little fact?
Do you really not see how this simple experiment kicks big holes in your model of how a rocket works?
Really?
Or do you not WANT to?
Whatever; your cognitive dysfunction is your problem, not mine.
Anyway; happy 4th of July everyone! Enjoy the fireworks & remember to keep your eye on the Rockets!
P.s. BJ: You Ask; I Ignore.
Because that is what you get for spamming me for 40 pages earlier in the thread with a stupid & blatantly FALSE ANALOGY.
Again; your ignorance is not my concern; rectify it yourself.
Using 'The Force', perhaps?
LOL!!!
DRAW A DIAGRAM.
Normally exhaust produces thrust for the rocket WHEN IT ACTS UPON THE ROCKET.
After it leaves the rocket IT STOPS ACTING ON THE ROCKET.
However, In your experiment, it pushes on the disk, which is ATTACHED to the rocket, so therefore affects the rocket.
-
I really can't understand how people can't see this ruse for what it is with these so called space rockets.
Just think about it logically. Seriously think about the rocket's and how you are expected to believe how they work.
Papa Legba has explained a hell of a lot as well as other's like legion and myself, etc, contributing. It should be plainer to people how ridiculous space rocket's are and how fantasy has replaced what people once had as common sense.
It's not that people are stupid or unable to comprehend it, it's simply that people are being put to sleep with deflections from the truth.
Think about what's been said. A 3000 TON ROCKET. I'll say it again. A THREE THOUSAND TON ROCKET.
Let me try and make this easier to understand. The next time you're at a railway station, go and take a look at those big hefty solid , mammoth diesel locomotives. Stand next to one and feel it between your legs if you can. Give the driver of it a little nod and wink and a rub of his leg to get him to move that locomotive 10 feet along the track.
What you will notice is how much force it takes to actually move it that first 10 feet and this is on a flat track.
Ok, I think you get the gist of it. So now I want you to imagine a crane tipping that locomotive UPRIGHT and imagine how an engine stuck to the back of it would push it into the sky.
Ok, it sounds daunting, right?
The problem is, in terms of the saturn V rocket. You also have to try and imagine another 14 of these locomotives stacked on top of the other upright one, into the sky, then imagine engines under the first one to actually push all those into the sky and into space, because this is the tonnage we are asked to accept and people do because TV has made it possible.
3000 ton's. Think seriously about it, because once you start to wake up to that, you'll find that it all starts to crumble to the floor, piece by piece.
We get told that the combustion chamber inside the rocket is what creates the push into the sky.
We get told that the mixture of the two fuels in pressurised containers, come together in the combustion chamber and ignite to expand and push the rocket up into the sky from inside, with the exhaust being nothing other than the trash bin. Just a dump of expended fuel that's already done it's job inside the rocket....APPARENTLY ;D.
It's absolutely mental.
You then get bullshitted as to why this happened by diagrams using arrows that are all pushing against the sealed (as yet unopened valve) pressurised fuel cylinders, showing the arrows pointing in all directions. An even pressure pushing on those cylinders. If we assumed these cylinders we actually sphere's , then this would be true, so for the sake or argument, we will use this.
Ok, now the valve opens from the cylinders and now the arrows have changed. You see in N.A.S.A or affiliate drawing's, they now show arrows pointing at the sides and down throwing fuel into the combustion chamber and yet they show the arrow in this chamber in all directions again, when anyone seeing reality would know that all arrows would be pointing DOWN.
If anything, they should make the arrows facing down, FATTER as they fall because it means they're expanding as they are pushing out against EACH OTHER ....not against the inside of the rocket in any vertical way.
They are merely escaping by being squeezed against the nozzle and expanding as it gets wider and hitting the atmosphere which is what is pushing a resistance against that immense flow of BURNING AND EXPANDING fuel.
Let me make this even more simpler to under stand.
The next time you're stood in a queue for a bus or to get into a game or whatever; imagine what's happening as you're pushed against your will.
Here's what's happening.
The person at the very back of the queue is stood there. nobody is pushing him and he is not levering himself off a wall . All he is doing is resting against the person in front who is now trying to resist him resting against himself. The problem is, to do this, he must now use the person in front as a leverage to resist against the man at the back's push.
As this momentum builds, you find that each person is pushing on each person and you soon see that the people half way down the queue are actually using a lot more resistant force to stop being crushed.
the person's at the front as basically shoved forward, unless they are strong enough to create a resistance.
call that as ,valve closed.
Now if those people at the front can't hold the pressure from the rest of the crowd, they get pushed away. Let's call this, valve open.
Now you see everyone follows until the pressure is relieved.
If you think about that with rocket fuel under pressure, you will notice that there is no force going the opposite way once the valve is open.
If you're still a little confused. Try and picture the same queue tipped up vertically with all people leaning on the next from back to front and still the man who is on the top stack is using no leverage but himself upon the next person.
Open the valve and waheyyyyyy they all start to fall out. Set them all alight and you'll hear screaming and fighting as they expand in a frenzy to get out and not be last man out, stinks.
People who think 3000 ton rocket's and space rocket's etc are real after reading this whole topic, then all I can say is, I actually feel sorry that you can't grasp the truth and I hope that one day you actually wake up from the deep sleep.
Never be jealous of the internet know all's that have seen these rocket's and such, first hand. A clear as daylight and blue sky. Why?
Because they are sat there telling you about their fantasy of seeing one or are parroting what some other internet fantasy merchant has told them, or their own uncle or father or whatever.
The only rocket launches anyone has seen or ever will see, are small Earth rocket's and missiles, in comparison to the bullshit one's they tell us are real space one's. ;D
A favourite argument with some wannabe tefal head's is: "so you think you're smarter than a rocket scientist, do you? you think millions of people are in on it and that rocket scientists just don't know what they're doing?"
The truth is, No I'm not smarter than a rocket scientist. I am smarter than a SPACE rocket scientist because they do not exist and anyone who professes to be one, is nothing other than a rocket engineer, because rocket's are not complex. Only fantasy space rocket's are complex. because they ignore reality to make them work in fantasy land, which is fine as long as it's stamped on the tin that it is what it is. FANTASY.
Except people can actually go and SEE a launch.
People actually went and SAW the Saturn V launches.
Your like if someone were to see a large building in front of them and the claimed it couldn't exist because it's too large.
So why don't you go and actually WATCH a rocket launch.
-
Well DUH, conker!!!
OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!
No need to 'calculate' any 'complex flow charts' for THAT, you embarrassingly risible fraud!
My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU AVOID THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FACT??!!??
Really...
Not LOL!!!
Not LOL!!! at all...
11cookeawe1: Stop spamming the thread with your faux-naive b.s.
P.S. Oh! Another page turned I see; so that was your purpose, 11cookeaw1... Duly noted.
Duly. Noted...
-
Well DUH, conker!!!
OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!
No need to 'calculate' any 'complex flow charts' for THAT, you embarrassingly risible fraud!
My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU AVOID THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FACT??!!??
Really...
Not LOL!!!
Not LOL!!! at all...
11cookeawe1: Stop spamming the thread with your faux-naive b.s.
P.S. Oh! Another page turned I see; so that was your purpose, 11cookeaw1... Duly noted.
Duly. Noted...
If disk is not attached to the rocket then it will not stop the rocket however it is attached to the rocket it will affect the rocket.
The thrust is produced by the interaction of the exhaust and the rocket. Normally it ONLY happens before the exhaust leaves the thrusters. However, here the exhaust is interacting with the rocket AFTER leaving the thrusters.
The exhaust is exerting a force on the disk, which as it is attached to the rocket, has an affect on the rocket.
The exhaust ONLY produces thrust WHEN IT IS ACTING ON THE ROCKET.
-
You really need to look at how NASA claims a rocket works.
They claim it is due to a pressure imbalance within the combustion chamber; this is the only way they can justify it working in vacuum conditions.
Yet my experiment shows that the thrust is NOT all created within the combustion chamber, & that the exhaust interacting with an outside mass BELOW the exhaust will immobilise the rocket.
So the exhaust in NASA's model can push both UP and DOWN...
Does that sound right to you?
Really; just think about it, okay?
Just Try...
-
Well DUH, conker!!!
OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!
Then what's the point of attaching the shield to the rocket?
My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?
??? Didn't you just agree that if the shield is not attached to the rocket then the rocket will not be immobilized?
By the way, did you know that pretty much all rockets are launched very near to the ground or some other blast shield? If the thrust is being blocked by the ground, then how can the thrust interact with enough air to be able to take off?
-
For the last time.
THE SHEILD WILL ONLY STOP THE ROCKET IF IT IS ATTACHED TO IT.
Because the shield is attached to the rocket the exhaust is pushing down on part of the rocket.
Oh by the way have you actually DONE this experiment or ad least linked to a video of someone else doing it. If you haven't then this is just baseless speculation.
Let me give you an explanation to what is happening.
Remember the "throwing balls while on a skateboard experiment.
Well imagine you attached a wooden plank to the skate board and the balls you threw were to keep hitting the plank. This would prevent you from accelerating forward.
-
LOL!!!
& on the circle-jerk goes...
The exhaust pushes UP...
The exhaust pushes DOWN...
The exhaust DOES NOT affect an outside mass...
The exhaust DOES affect an outside mass...
The thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket...
The thrust is produced OUTSIDE the rocket...
Etc, etc, etc...
You lot have NO coherent model of how a rocket works do you?
& you refuse to propose one.
Yet on you type, for ever & ever, ad infinitum...
Yes, I have performed this experiment.
& yes, the results DO support my model of rocketry.
Further, as you have no coherent objections to my model, or even a coherent model of your own - let alone easily verified evidence & simple experiments to support it - I now declare this subject closed & the proposal 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing against an outside mass such as the atmosphere' PROVEN.
Ergo: no 'space travel'.
Sorry, cultists; you had your chance & you blew it.
So what's that now? Four- Nil to me? Five?
Dunno; I've lost count...
You lot are good with numbers though; care to help out?
LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
& on the circle-jerk goes...
The exhaust pushes UP...
The exhaust pushes DOWN...
The exhaust DOES NOT affect an outside mass...
The exhaust DOES affect an outside mass...
The thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket...
The thrust is produced OUTSIDE the rocket...
Etc, etc, etc...
You lot have NO coherent model of how a rocket works do you?
& you refuse to propose one.
Yet on you type, for ever & ever, ad infinitum...
Yes, I have performed this experiment.
& yes, the results DO support my model of rocketry.
Further, as you have no coherent objections to my model, or even a coherent model of your own - let alone easily verified evidence & simple experiments to support it - I now declare this subject closed & the proposal 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing against an outside mass such as the atmosphere' PROVEN.
Ergo: no 'space travel'.
Sorry, cultists; you had your chance & you blew it.
So what's that now? Four- Nil to me? Five?
Dunno; I've lost count...
You lot are good with numbers though; care to help out?
LOL!!!
Okay then, exactly what happened in your experiment. Secondly, do it again but this time film yourself. I am not going to rely on your word.
We have explained to you repeatedly how a rocket works, but you have just ignored us .
-
Oh, indeed, 11cookeaw1; you have provided PLENTY of 'explanations'.
But you have provided ZERO evidence, experiments or logic to back up those 'explanations'.
Except for your tired old nag of a 'man-on-skateboard' analogy that I see you're STILL trying to spam even after multiple debunkings.
You have also refused to address the relevant points in the posts of sceptimatic, legion & myself, indulged in endless evasion & circular reasoning, misapplied basic laws of physics such as Newton 3, denied the validity of others such as free expansion of gas in a vacuum, & generally made utter fools of yourselves.
You clearly have no coherent position & are thus dismissed.
Therefore this debate is closed & the proposal: 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing on an outside mass such as the atmosphere' is declared as FACT until proven otherwise.
Welcome to the world of SCIENCE, space-cultists.
Now go outside & enjoy the fireworks.
-
You have not once debunked the man on a skateboard analogy instead you have simply claimed that it's wrong. And you have yet to prove that you' em actually done your "experiment".
And I already showed you a video of a rocket engine producing thrust in a vacuum.
Finally, exactly how have we missaplied Newton 3.
-
You have also refused to address the relevant points in the posts of sceptimatic, legion & myself, indulged in endless evasion & circular reasoning, misapplied basic laws of physics such as Newton 3, denied the validity of others such as free expansion of gas in a vacuum, & generally made utter fools of yourselves.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever discussed your thoughts on Newton's laws and rocket thrust with a college physics professor? Or do you think that physics teachers are brainwashed too?
-
If you want to keep using the force POV (which is wrong, because force isn't even constant), you have the rocket being pushed both forward via thrust and backwards via the thrust hitting the shield (causing a momentum exchange), as I explained before. You have equal momentum vectors going in exactly oposite directions, causing them to cancel each other. Result? v=0
-
This thread is becoming interesting, Papa Legba, think's he is cleverly trolling a bunch of people, when he completely missed the fact that is the one being trolled. LOL. indeed.
The story so far, conservation of momentum is a consequence of Newton's third law, and explains clearly how rockets work, known since the 1600's in most of the civilized world, perhaps the only exception being the imagination of Papa Legba who has his own unique version of reality.
More generally, conservation of momentum derives from the invariance of the laws of physics with respect to translation. See Noether's Theorum, if you are up on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.
PS. Conker, How would I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,... just for experimental purposes you understand.
-
PS. Conker, How would I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,... just for experimental purposes you understand.
I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean
-
PS. Conker, How would I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,... just for experimental purposes you understand.
I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean
I was going by your avatar, I thought you might be the alter-ego of the famous (award winning) Magrathean planet designer.
-
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.
So if they can get to space they wont work. Bloody handy for the flatwits.
-
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.
How did nobody catch this? Sceptic is retarded.
Rockets that can get to space DON'T work?
Okay.
-
Here you go septic, is this one small enough for you,
(http://)
-
All legion, sceptimatic & my own experiments & evidence are easily tried or verified at home by neutral readers.
Yours are not, though; because you have not provided any.
The 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY was debunked by myself in reply#622, page 32, then in more detail in reply#1569, page 79.
Further; unlike myself, you do not even have a consistent position for how rocket propulsion is achieved, as neutral readers will now be all too painfully aware.
As they will be aware of your constant lies, flip-flops, evasion & attempts at brainwashing through peer-pressure; all of which provide evidence to confirm you as the Cultists I have implied you are all along.
What's more, Rayzor's claim that you are in fact trolling further undermines your cause. Thanks, Evil Edna!
For any neutral wishing to investigate this subject further, I recommend you visit cluesforum.info & read the thread 'Does rocketry work in the vacuum?'
A wealth of other information on the Great Space Hoax can also be found there.
Perhaps some of you space-cultists would care to leave this cosy little hugbox of a forum, join cluesforum.info & attempt to refute their findings?
Now THAT would be LOL!!!
-
All legion, sceptimatic & my own experiments & evidence are easily tried or verified at home by neutral readers.
Yours are not, though; because you have not provided any.
The 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY was debunked by myself in reply#622, page 32, then in more detail in reply#1569, page 79.
Further; unlike myself, you do not even have a consistent position for how rocket propulsion is achieved, as neutral readers will now be all too painfully aware.
As they will be aware of your constant lies, flip-flops, evasion & attempts at brainwashing through peer-pressure; all of which provide evidence to confirm you as the Cultists I have implied you are all along.
What's more, Rayzor's claim that you are in fact trolling further undermines your cause. Thanks, Evil Edna!
For any neutral wishing to investigate this subject further, I recommend you visit cluesforum.info & read the thread 'Does rocketry work in the vacuum?'
A wealth of other information on the Great Space Hoax can also be found there.
Perhaps some of you space-cultists would care to leave this cosy little hugbox of a forum, join cluesforum.info & attempt to refute their findings?
Now THAT would be LOL!!!
Now there's an interesting thought, Papa Legba is getting fitted for a customized tin foil hat, I want to see a picture of that. Oh, here it is.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Tin_foil_hat_2.png)
Welcome to conspiracy central, THE clueless forum, featuring the latest "truther" from the 911 forum, Papa Legba himself. Yay!
-
Look what I just found.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf)
Saturn V manual.
-
PS. Conker, How would I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,... just for experimental purposes you understand.
I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean
I was going by your avatar, I thought you might be the alter-ego of the famous (award winning) Magrathean planet designer.
God damnit, I didn't got the reference! Shame on me. I think you are the first one to notice.
-
Look what I just found.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf)
Saturn V manual.
Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.
Arthur RUDOLPH and D.K SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.
Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.
-
Look what I just found.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf)
Saturn V manual.
Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.
Arthur RUDOLPH and D.K SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.
Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.
Really Scepti, really?
It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.
-
Look what I just found.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf)
Saturn V manual.
Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.
Arthur RUDOLPH and D.K SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.
Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.
Really Scepti, really?
It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.
Good detectives have to examine all avenues no matter how clear or absurd they may be. They also rely on gut feeling as well. It's all part of solving issues to get to a truth.
Not everyone can be like me. It takes lot's of logic and the ability to allow yourself to see things that other's just can't or won't.
You appear like the kid who kept on losing his school lunch money from his coat and kept scratching his head as to why it always happens, even though you checked there were no holes in your pocket's and you don't recall giving it away.
You never think to look around you and wonder if it's a thief amid your bunch of friends, because you just know it's not that, right?
This is your mindset. Gullible. Too trusting. Unable to question something which you believe in your own mind is impossible or extremely so unlikely as to not warrant investigation.
You see, I'm the bastard that will set a trap or go around the people capable of stealing my lunch money and I'd be questioning to see who looks more guilty or who slips up. I'd make it my mission to find out. That's just me and it's why I just don't accept bullshit like a twat, like you.
-
Oh! So there's a manual for the Saturn V?
Well that settles it then; it must have existed...
LOL!!!
Wait a minute though - check out the website www.projectrho.com (http://www.projectrho.com) atomic rockets; it has all the specs of both 'real' & 'imaginary' space vehicles all bundled together...
Can any of you space-cultists honestly tell the difference?
It's harder than you think!
Whatever; 3,000-tonne aluminium-sheeting-&-mild-steel-bracing flying machines, powered by 3,400-tonne-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosions set off directly beneath them..?
LMAO!!!
Oh, & Rayzor/ZennerOne/ausGeoff/Evil Edna/Etc; ROFLMAO!!!
-
Look what I just found.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf)
Saturn V manual.
Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.
Arthur RUDOLPH and D.K SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.
Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.
Really Scepti, really?
It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.
Good detectives have to examine all avenues no matter how clear or absurd they may be. They also rely on gut feeling as well. It's all part of solving issues to get to a truth.
Not everyone can be like me. It takes lot's of logic and the ability to allow yourself to see things that other's just can't or won't.
You appear like the kid who kept on losing his school lunch money from his coat and kept scratching his head as to why it always happens, even though you checked there were no holes in your pocket's and you don't recall giving it away.
You never think to look around you and wonder if it's a thief amid your bunch of friends, because you just know it's not that, right?
This is your mindset. Gullible. Too trusting. Unable to question something which you believe in your own mind is impossible or extremely so unlikely as to not warrant investigation.
You see, I'm the bastard that will set a trap or go around the people capable of stealing my lunch money and I'd be questioning to see who looks more guilty or who slips up. I'd make it my mission to find out. That's just me and it's why I just don't accept bullshit like a twat, like you.
Wow! Sherlock Holmes, Columbo, Miss Marple, Alex Jones, and Eddie Haskell all rolled into one giant brain.
-
Say what you like about sceptimatic, but at least he's got brains enough to 'detect' that a 3,000-tonne flying machine, constructed no better than your average barn & stood arse upright, cannot be hurled into the sky by setting off a 3,400-tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3kms/s explosion underneath it.
It don't take no Sherlock Holmes to 'detect' THAT claim is bullshit.
But meh; believe what you like, Cultists.
'Science' is clearly a dirty word for you lot, so nowt you say surprises me any more...
LOL!!!
-
Say what you like about sceptimatic, but at least he's got brains enough to 'detect' that a 3,000-tonne flying machine, constructed no better than your average barn & stood arse upright, cannot be hurled into the sky by setting off a 3,400-tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3kms/s explosion underneath it.
What makes you think it's constructed no better then an average barn? A barn is thrown together with wood after making a few measurements, and the Saturn V costs tens of millions of dollars to build and that does not even include the years of R&D which wen into it.
-
What century do you live in, mikeman, where barns are made of wood?
Or are you Amish instead of Mormon?
Whatever; grow up.
-
Also; what is the temperature of Liquid Hydrogen; NASA's favourite ROCKET fuel...
& what is the temperature of ABSOLUTE ZERO?
Just LOL!!!
-
Also; what is the temperature of Liquid Hydrogen; NASA's favourite ROCKET fuel...
& what is the temperature of ABSOLUTE ZERO?
Just LOL!!!
Liquid Hydrogen is stored at 20 K (-253°C)
Absolute Zero is 0 K (273.15°C)
Your point?
-
What century do you live in, mikeman, where barns are made of wood?
So barns aren't made of wood now?
http://www.sandcreekpostandbeam.com/company/our-advantages (http://www.sandcreekpostandbeam.com/company/our-advantages)
Or are you Amish instead of Mormon?
Or are you brain damaged instead of just idiotic?
Whatever; grow up.
You should take your own advice
-
PS. Conker, How would I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,... just for experimental purposes you understand.
I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean
I was going by your avatar, I thought you might be the alter-ego of the famous (award winning) Magrathean planet designer.
God damnit, I didn't got the reference! Shame on me. I think you are the first one to notice.
Sorry, I was being a bit obtuse. But now we are on the same page, perhaps you could organize the Magrathean's to build a flat earth and we can ship all the flat earther's over there, that would keep everyone happy. Except Papa Legba, who, doesn't believe the earth is flat, but we would send him anyway. Then he could argue in favour of a round earth while living on a flat earth...
Maybe you could do a few nice fjords to make it look the part?
-
Doglover: think you missed a minus sign in your post, sloppy joe.
Typical of you cultists.
Point is, liquid hydrogen is only +20C above ABSOLUTE ZERO; far colder than liquid nitrogen.
Yet we're expected to believe that it was fed through yards of piping & pumps before being ignited..
& this is 1960's piping & pumps, using primitive nylon, rubber, solder etc..
Bearing in mind the effect such extremely low temperatures have on materials & the enormous vibration caused by a huge rocket engine, does anyone think that is possible without everything cracking, splitting, spilling & generally blowing to bits?
Cos I don't.
LOL!!!
P.s. Rayzor/ausGeoff/Evil Edna: LMAO!!!
You are SO bad at your job.
As for the barns thing; have any of you built one?
I have; out of modern materials like steel & concrete. This is the 21st century, in case you ain't noticed; stop pretending it ain't.
-
Doglover: think you missed a minus sign in your post, sloppy joe.
Typical of you cultists.
Point is, liquid hydrogen is only +20C above ABSOLUTE ZERO; far colder than liquid nitrogen.
Yet we're expected to believe that it was fed through yards of piping & pumps before being ignited..
& this is 1960's piping & pumps, using primitive nylon, rubber, solder etc..
It's more likely that the pipes and pumps were made out of stainless steel. Oh, and welding does not require solder.
-
Yes, I did build a barn. All wood.
-
To match your head, perhaps?
You ARE a bot, aren't you?
Btw; how's your firework rocket 'experiments' coming on?
You promised us results after 5th July, remember?
-
So markjo; stainless steel would not become brittle at -253C?
Ok.
LOL!!!
& how do you know if welds or solder was used - if you're an expert on the piping in the Saturn V, please tell us more about it...
I'll get my popcorn.
-
So markjo; stainless steel would not become brittle at -253C?
Ok.
LOL!!!
& how do you know if welds or solder was used - if you're an expert on the piping in the Saturn V, please tell us more about it...
I'll get my popcorn.
Why not just get evidence to back up any of your claims?
-
So markjo; stainless steel would not become brittle at -253C?
Why don't you look at the cryogenic handbook and decide for yourself?
http://www.tdd.org.cn/upload/2011-12/2011120952442829.pdf (http://www.tdd.org.cn/upload/2011-12/2011120952442829.pdf)
& how do you know if welds or solder was used - if you're an expert on the piping in the Saturn V, please tell us more about it...
Why would anyone solder stainless steel when welding is much stronger? Do you think that they solder ships together these days or do they weld them?
-
Doglover: think you missed a minus sign in your post, sloppy joe.
I, unlike you apparently, am not perfect.
Point is, liquid hydrogen is only +20C above ABSOLUTE ZERO; far colder than liquid nitrogen.
Yet we're expected to believe that it was fed through yards of piping & pumps before being ignited..
Yes, we believe it because it happened.
Bearing in mind the effect such extremely low temperatures have on materials & the enormous vibration caused by a huge rocket engine, does anyone think that is possible without everything cracking, splitting, spilling & generally blowing to bits?
Cos I don't.
Well, you should, because it actually happened!
LOL!!!
-
As for the barns thing; have any of you built one?
I have; out of modern materials like steel & concrete. This is the 21st century, in case you ain't noticed; stop pretending it ain't.
Somehow, I doubt you have built anything.
Did you know that wood is still very important in today's construction? Houses are constructed out of wood still. I even provided a link to a company that designs and builds BARNS out of wood. WHich totally refutes your claim that barns are not made out of wood anymore.
-
LOL!!!
So; no REAL answers from any of you?
Except to blindly repeat 'YES IT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!', like little children insisting IT REALLY ACTUALLY WAS SANTA THAT BROUGHT ALL THE PRESENTS ACTUALLY!
Pathetic.
You believe in the existence of a 3,000-tonne flying machine, hurled into space by setting off a 3,400-tones-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion under it, fuelled by something that's only +20C above absolute ZERO...
Does that sound like SCIENCE?
Or SCIENCE-FICTION?
Still, as you're clearly more expert on the construction of wooden barns than you are on the internal workings of the Saturn V, I guess it's unfair of me to expect much from hayseeds, yokels & red-necks...
LMAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
So; no REAL answers from any of you?
Except to blindly repeat 'YES IT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!', like little children insisting IT REALLY ACTUALLY WAS SANTA THAT BROUGHT ALL THE PRESENTS ACTUALLY!
Pathetic.
You believe in the existence of a 3,000-tonne flying machine, hurled into space by setting off a 3,400-tones-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion under it, fuelled by something that's only +20C above absolute ZERO...
Does that sound like SCIENCE?
Or SCIENCE-FICTION?
Still, as you're clearly more expert on the construction of wooden barns than you are on the internal workings of the Saturn V, I guess it's unfair of me to expect much from hayseeds, yokels & red-necks...
LMAO!!!
Just out of interest, your trolling is way past blatant at this point, but do you actually have any arguments of substance? This leaping up and down babbling incoherently is getting tedious.
-
LOL!!!
So; no REAL answers from any of you?
Except to blindly repeat 'YES IT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!', like little children insisting IT REALLY ACTUALLY WAS SANTA THAT BROUGHT ALL THE PRESENTS ACTUALLY!
Pathetic.
You believe in the existence of a 3,000-tonne flying machine, hurled into space by setting off a 3,400-tones-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion under it, fuelled by something that's only +20C above absolute ZERO...
Does that sound like SCIENCE?
Or SCIENCE-FICTION?
Still, as you're clearly more expert on the construction of wooden barns than you are on the internal workings of the Saturn V, I guess it's unfair of me to expect much from hayseeds, yokels & red-necks...
LMAO!!!
Just out of interest, your trolling is way past blatant at this point, but do you actually have any arguments of substance? This leaping up and down babbling incoherently is getting tedious.
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
All that's resisting it is pockets of people like you attempting to make out he's a troll in the hope that if you say it OFTEN enough, people will follow your thoughts.
You have lost the battle and the war. Accept it because it's all there as plain as the nose on your face.
-
LOL!!!
So; no REAL answers from any of you?
Except to blindly repeat 'YES IT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!', like little children insisting IT REALLY ACTUALLY WAS SANTA THAT BROUGHT ALL THE PRESENTS ACTUALLY!
Pathetic.
You believe in the existence of a 3,000-tonne flying machine, hurled into space by setting off a 3,400-tones-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion under it, fuelled by something that's only +20C above absolute ZERO...
Does that sound like SCIENCE?
Or SCIENCE-FICTION?
Still, as you're clearly more expert on the construction of wooden barns than you are on the internal workings of the Saturn V, I guess it's unfair of me to expect much from hayseeds, yokels & red-necks...
LMAO!!!
Just out of interest, your trolling is way past blatant at this point, but do you actually have any arguments of substance? This leaping up and down babbling incoherently is getting tedious.
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
All that's resisting it is pockets of people like you attempting to make out he's a troll in the hope that if you say it OFTEN enough, people will follow your thoughts.
You have lost the battle and the war. Accept it because it's all there as plain as the nose on your face.
All that's resisting are pockets??? When is 99.99999%of the world population considered a pocket? You and Papa should go out for some more aluminum foil.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
A pool of silage has more substance than what he has tried to provide.
Literally all he has given us is constant examples of a gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles and 'I don't understand it so it can't be true' lines.....
-
LOL!!!
So; no REAL answers from any of you?
Except to blindly repeat 'YES IT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!', like little children insisting IT REALLY ACTUALLY WAS SANTA THAT BROUGHT ALL THE PRESENTS ACTUALLY!
Pathetic.
You believe in the existence of a 3,000-tonne flying machine, hurled into space by setting off a 3,400-tones-of-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosion under it, fuelled by something that's only +20C above absolute ZERO...
Does that sound like SCIENCE?
Or SCIENCE-FICTION?
Still, as you're clearly more expert on the construction of wooden barns than you are on the internal workings of the Saturn V, I guess it's unfair of me to expect much from hayseeds, yokels & red-necks...
LMAO!!!
Just out of interest, your trolling is way past blatant at this point, but do you actually have any arguments of substance? This leaping up and down babbling incoherently is getting tedious.
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
All that's resisting it is pockets of people like you attempting to make out he's a troll in the hope that if you say it OFTEN enough, people will follow your thoughts.
You have lost the battle and the war. Accept it because it's all there as plain as the nose on your face.
You sure have a strange idea of what substance is, what pockets of resistance are, and what losing is don't you?
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
I like how you qualified your assertion with a probably. So you you first start off saying "This is how it is" Then you are hoping that the person reading doesn't finish your rant, and your throw is a "maybe" Anyways, do you have any evidence for your assertion, or just incredulity and paranoia?
I know I'm playing maybe games and such.
SO you admit that you are just here for the lulz.
It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
And all you do is automatically deny anything that you consider is even close to what you call "main stream science" The science is backed up by math, experiments, and repeatability. Your claims are just assertions that you say must be right because scientists must be lying.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
Show me your footage as well. Go on, you have the chance to actually put this to bed. Let's see what you have.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
Show me your footage as well. Go on, you have the chance to actually put this to bed. Let's see what you have.
No, you are the one that is sceptical of the evidence that is already available. You need to go out and do things yourself. Why don't you actually support you claims and carry your burden of proof. You need more than just assertions that you have qualified with a maybe or a possibly. If you want anything put to bed, you will need to go tuck it in yourself.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
Show me your footage as well. Go on, you have the chance to actually put this to bed. Let's see what you have.
I was at a technology exchange conference in Orlando Florida in April 1984, we left Orlando by bus at 5:00AM to get to Kennedy Space Center for a 9:00 Shuttle Launch, (STS-41C) it took 4 hours to get there, normally a one hour drive, the roads were blocked with traffic, people crowded on both sides of the road all the way from 20 miles out to the launch site with picnics and cameras set up, we finally just got there in time. Nothing more spectacular than a shuttle launch. I would have liked to see a Saturn V Apollo launch.
We didn't have mobile phones with video in those days, but there is plenty of tv news coverage.
Here's the footage (http://)
Here's the CNN Launch Coverage (http://)
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
Show me your footage as well. Go on, you have the chance to actually put this to bed. Let's see what you have.
No, you are the one that is sceptical of the evidence that is already available. You need to go out and do things yourself. Why don't you actually support you claims and carry your burden of proof. You need more than just assertions that you have qualified with a maybe or a possibly. If you want anything put to bed, you will need to go tuck it in yourself.
No problem a all, kid. I have all I need from you. Off to bed now and sleep tight. I won't be interrupting your slumber or your sleep talking. ;D
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Has anyone else noticed that when scepti get's rattled he stops making sense? Incoherent blather seems to take over.
-
I'd say that he's provided enough substance for genuine people to see through the official bullshit science.
Incredulity is not substance. Just because some people can't believe that a bunch of motivated engineers could accomplish some very difficult feats doesn't mean that those very difficult feats weren't accomplished.
Motivated engineers build things, such as (for instance) rocket's and missiles of various descriptions.
Liars and cheats pretend to build space rockets and space missiles. Their motivation is high but it's not for the want of building rocket's for space and such. It's called TAX DOLLARS divided into their bank accounts while the real rocket makers, or missile makers are paid a small potion of that...probably.
Why don't you get back to us when you have some a little more conclusive than "probably".
I know I'm playing maybe games and such. It's no more nor less than what you're doing in telling me what they're doing when you have no clue at all and are reliant on what you are told or read about.
There is no "maybe" about very large rockets like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle having flown. There are simply too many eye witnesses for there to be any doubt whatsoever.
Get back to me when you have some conclusive proof.
How much more conclusive can you get than watching a very large rocket taking off? Seriously, what more conclusive evidence could anyone provide than being at a launch?
I watched two shuttles lift off in the FILM "Armageddon." They looked different to he one's we've become used to. Did they build and launch 2 new shuttles for this film?
I saw a massive rocket lift off in the FILM "Capricorn 1." Was this just some Apollo rocket footage or did they make and launch one for the film? Get back to me on this if you can.
I'm sorry, but what part of "being at a launch" did you not understand? ???
The part where he actually had to get out of his mom's basement and verify something on his own.
Show me your footage as well. Go on, you have the chance to actually put this to bed. Let's see what you have.
No, you are the one that is sceptical of the evidence that is already available. You need to go out and do things yourself. Why don't you actually support you claims and carry your burden of proof. You need more than just assertions that you have qualified with a maybe or a possibly. If you want anything put to bed, you will need to go tuck it in yourself.
No problem a all, kid. I have all I need from you. Off to bed now and sleep tight. I won't be interrupting your slumber or your sleep talking. ;D
Typical scpeti response. "I can't be bothered with doing anything myself, so I will just act condescending to the poster and not actually make any sort of argument, then keep claiming I won."
Yup, typical.
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Has anyone else noticed that when scepti get's rattled he stops making sense? Incoherent blather seems to take over.
That implies that he made sense to begin with.
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Has anyone else noticed that when scepti get's rattled he stops making sense? Incoherent blather seems to take over.
And here's you so called tefal headed wannabe science brains actually expending as much time as possible dealing with a nutter like me and when called out you all say, " well it's fun to play with idiots." ;D
It makes you wonder who the real sad people are, doesn't it. ;D
I mean, I'm here questioning stuff on a site that questions stuff and you lot are on the very same site parroting what every person can look up in google and yet you believe you are trying to tell people something. ;D
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Has anyone else noticed that when scepti get's rattled he stops making sense? Incoherent blather seems to take over.
He never makes sence
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Has anyone else noticed that when scepti get's rattled he stops making sense? Incoherent blather seems to take over.
And here's you so called tefal headed wannabe science brains actually expending as much time as possible dealing with a nutter like me and when called out you all say, " well it's fun to play with idiots." ;D
It makes you wonder who the real sad people are, doesn't it. ;D
I mean, I'm here questioning stuff on a site that questions stuff and you lot are on the very same site parroting what every person can look up in google and yet you believe you are trying to tell people something. ;D
Thanks for the reminder, I've been meaning to tell you "tefal headed wannabe" is a dumb pommy reference to an advert that only aired in the UK, I had to look it up, but since it has no cultural meaning to anyone, you might update your insult library to things that people outside your home town understand.
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Scepti, you deny any evidence presented to you and you refuse to witness a launch yourself. I'm sorry but these are not the actions of someone who is interested in learning the truth. You say that you can see past the brainwashing and see the real truth, but you refuse put your convictions to the test. It sound to me like you've the one who is brainwashed.
-
You haven't been to a space rocket launch. If you have then you must have footage because nobody in their right mind would go to something like that without getting footage for bragging rights.
I'll await your footage.
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You're the skeptic, therefore you're the one who should see the evidence (launch) in person, not me.
Ok, marky, no problem. You've told me all I need to know in those few words. Next time it might be best not to keep patting your new friends arses. ;D
Scepti, you deny any evidence presented to you and you refuse to witness a launch yourself. I'm sorry but these are not the actions of someone who is interested in learning the truth. You say that you can see past the brainwashing and see the real truth, but you refuse put your convictions to the test. It sound to me like you've the one who is brainwashed.
I'd love to see the truth. the problem with the truth is what Neil Armstrong said.
There are great things undiscovered. Places to go BEYOND BELIEF, if we can remove one of truth's protective layers.
Now basically, no matter what we try to do in terms of looking for a truth, it's shrouded in a security blanket. We are simply not allowed to go too near the fire and that includes you, markjo.
You choose to accept that it's all above board and that's fine. The problem is, you have no direct physical proof to back it up so it's pointless telling me the same thing and believing you're correct just because you are backed up by mass opinion.
-
I'd love to see the truth. the problem with the truth is what Neil Armstrong said.
And why exactly is that a problem?
There are great things undiscovered. Places to go BEYOND BELIEF, if we can remove one of truth's protective layers.
Now basically, no matter what we try to do in terms of looking for a truth, it's shrouded in a security blanket. We are simply not allowed to go too near the fire and that includes you, markjo.
The truth is all around you, yet you constantly deny it. You refuse to believe something so simple and so fundamental as how Newton's laws of motion apply to rocket engines. The only security blanket is the one that you shroud yourself in to protect yourself from the real world and some of man's greatest achievements.
You choose to accept that it's all above board and that's fine. The problem is, you have no direct physical proof to back it up so it's pointless telling me the same thing and believing you're correct just because you are backed up by mass opinion.
I don't believe because of mass opinion. I believe because most of what I learned about rockets space flight makes sense and is easy enough to demonstrate experimentally. Just because I don't have direct physical proof, that doesn't mean that it isn't out there and ready to be found.
-
So; I asked for descriptions of the internal piping/workings of the Saturn V, so we could establish exactly what's going on in there & if it was capable of withstanding temperatures of -253C, coupled with all the massive vibration associated with a huge rocket motor (lol no!).
& I got NOTHING.
As usual.
Just LOL!!!
You gave me more details on wooden barn construction than you did on space-rocket construction...
What is wrong with you, space-cultists?
Come on; at least TRY to defend your nonsense scientifically!
This is SO hilarious...
-
So; I asked for descriptions of the internal piping/workings of the Saturn V, so we could establish exactly what's going on in there & if it was capable of withstanding temperatures of -253C, coupled with all the massive vibration associated with a huge rocket motor (lol no!).
& I got NOTHING.
What are you talking about? I provided you with a link to a cryogenic handbook describing what materials (including stainless steel) are appropriate for working with supercold fluids. Also, the rocket engines are designed and tuned so as to reduce vibration to manageable levels.
-
Typical markjo: good at making links; bad at answering questions.
LOL!!!
Also; explain how an engine that creates 3,400-tonnes of thrust at 3km/s can be so exquisitely 'tuned' as to cancel out all vibration?
Is it like Chris Hadfield's guitar?
LMAO!!!
Like I say; you don't even try any more... 'Science' is just a dirty word to you.
ROFLMAO!!!
-
Reducing vibration to manageable levels. Hahahahaha. I can just picture that with these supposed rocket's and how we are told they work.
-
Non-hypergolic liquid-fuelled rocketry has been known to be a technical dead-end since at least the late 1950's.
NASA has been an adjunct of Hollywood since around the same time.
There is nothing man-made in 'space'.
But meh; people want to believe this sci-fi crap...
Let em; who cares what idiots think?
-
! No longer available (http://#)
-
A youtube - oh, no - I'M MELTING! I'M MEEEELTIIING!!!
LOL!!!
The space shuttle is, of course, fake; its aerodynamics alone should tell you that.
If you knew anything about aerodynamics, that is...
But you don't; because you are engaged in a War Against Science.
I'll come back to this subject later; for now I am bored with your stupidity.
LOL!!!
-
A youtube - oh, no - I'M MELTING! I'M MEEEELTIIING!!!
LOL!!!
The space shuttle is, of course, fake; its aerodynamics alone should tell you that.
If you knew anything about aerodynamics, that is...
But you don't; because you are engaged in a War Against Science.
I'll come back to this subject later; for now I am bored with your stupidity.
LOL!!!
Ever seen a dewar of liquid helium? Do you know what temperature they are at?
And I don't thin the SPACE shuttle cares too much about aerodynamics.
-
Typical markjo: good at making links; bad at answering questions.
Typical Papa Legba: good at demanding proof; bad at reading.
Also; explain how an engine that creates 3,400-tonnes of thrust at 3km/s can be so exquisitely 'tuned' as to cancel out all vibration?
First of all, the F-1 engine didn't produce 3400 tonnes of thrust. It produced about 690 tonnes of thrust (there were 5 of them on the first stage, remember?).
Secondly, I never said that they were able to cancel out all vibration. I said that they did what they could to reduce vibration to a manageable level. One fairly common source of vibration they need to watch out for is called pogo oscillation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillation
Of course you're just going to LOL at this too, so go ahead and have your laugh. It's not as if you have any better argument.
-
Reducing vibration to manageable levels. Hahahahaha. I can just picture that with these supposed rocket's and how we are told they work.
No, I don't think that you can and that's why you scoff at the idea.
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......
Finally, some true words from you.
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......
Finally, some true words from you.
So you agree that the shuttle flies to space and then falls gracefully back down to a controlled touchdown on the ground.
If that's so then you also agree that spaceflight is possible and then ergo the earth is round as shown by all spaceflight achieved so far.
Round earth wins!
-
Idiots.
Learn about transonic shockwaves/buffeting.
I know you're all allergic to science, but just try...
Then look at the nose cone, wing leading edges & tail-plane of the shuttle.
Realise it could never exceed 450mph at best.
Why so slow?
Cos NASA made a half-size single-pilot model, with hidden jet engines in the rear fairings, for faking the landings.
Hence the stupid non-functional 'air-brake' on the tail; it's to pitch the nose up cos of the lack of front-end lift.
Oh, & the barely-hidden ejector-seat hatch above the cockpit is a give-away too.
Just check out the front end view of the shuttle compared to the SR-71; NASA didn't even attempt to properly streamline their useless p.o.s.
& if you think you're breaking Mach 1, let alone achieving hypersonic velocities, without adequate streamlining then you're clearly so dumb you'll believe a rocket can function in a vacuum & men can hoon about in dune-buggies on the Moon...
LOL!!!
P.s. markjo: Yawn! Posting links instead of explanations is quite the habit with you ain't it?
If you think a 3,400-tonne-thrust explosion travelling at 3km/s can be 'tuned' then whoopee for you.
Cos I don't.
Do NASA use blind people to 'tune' their engines, like piano tuners?
Do they have special 'engine-tuning forks'?
LMAO!!!
Fuel at -253C temps, through yards of piping & pumps, with no cracking, splitting or spillage?
Why of course it's true!
Nothing to see here, folks; move along now - Thought-Police at work!
ROFLMAO!!!
-
Idiots.
Learn about transonic shockwaves/buffeting.
What about them?
I know you're all allergic to science, but just try...
Sez the one who can't properly apply Newton's 3rd law to rockets.
Then look at the nose cone, wing leading edges & tail-plane of the shuttle.
Realise it could never exceed 450mph at best.
Are you referring to 450 mph on ascent or 450 mph on descent?
Why so slow?
Cos NASA made a half-size single-pilot model, with hidden jet engines in the rear fairings, for faking the landings.
Evidence, please. Because you say so doesn't count.
Just check out the front end view of the shuttle compared to the SR-71; NASA didn't even attempt to properly streamline their useless p.o.s.
Sharp edges are a bad idea for atmospheric reentry.
& if you think you're breaking Mach 1, let alone achieving hypersonic velocities, without adequate streamlining then you're clearly so dumb you'll believe a rocket can function in a vacuum & men can hoon about in dune-buggies on the Moon...
LOL!!!
Wow, how can anyone argue with logic like that? ::)
P.s. markjo: Yawn! Posting links instead of explanations is quite the habit with you ain't it?
If you think a 3,400-tonne-thrust explosion travelling at 3km/s can be 'tuned' then whoopee for you.
I already told you, it isn't one 3400 tonne thrust explosion. It's five 690 tonne thrust explosions.
Cos I don't.
Well duh.
Do NASA use blind people to 'tune' their engines, like piano tuners?
No, they use highly skilled rocket scientists and engineers.
Do they have special 'engine-tuning forks'?
No, they have test stands and a lot of diagnostic/telemetry sensors.
LMAO!!!
Yes, your display of ignorance is quite amusing.
Fuel at -253C temps, through yards of piping & pumps, with no cracking, splitting or spillage?
Why of course it's true!
Why wouldn't it be? Liquid fueled rockets have been using cryogenic fuels and/or oxidizers for aropund 40 years before Apollo.
Nothing to see here, folks; move along now - Thought-Police at work!
ROFLMAO!!!
Don't worry Papa, if the though police ever arrested you, they would have to let you go due to a lack of evidence.
-
Realise it could never exceed 450mph at best.
If the space shuttle was accelerated to orbital velocity in a vacuum, which it is, then air resistance wouldn't be a factor until it lands. When it reenters and lands it's supposed to slow down, that's what it's designed to do. When the shuttle enters the atmosphere it slows down to a more manageable speed. I don't see how this prove anything.
Cos NASA made a half-size single-pilot model, with hidden jet engines in the rear fairings, for faking the landings.
Your entire point here is that space shuttles can't fly, yet a 1/2 scale mock up can? I don't follow your logic here.
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......
Finally, some true words from you.
So you agree that the shuttle flies to space and then falls gracefully back down to a controlled touchdown on the ground.
If that's so then you also agree that spaceflight is possible and then ergo the earth is round as shown by all spaceflight achieved so far.
Round earth wins!
I agree with your original statement that the shuttle was never designed to fly, and that it falls back to earth.
-
The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.
The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines. Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel. The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.
Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......
Finally, some true words from you.
So you agree that the shuttle flies to space and then falls gracefully back down to a controlled touchdown on the ground.
If that's so then you also agree that spaceflight is possible and then ergo the earth is round as shown by all spaceflight achieved so far.
Round earth wins!
I agree with your original statement that the shuttle was never designed to fly, and that it falls back to earth.
And then when you strap some boosters and a big fuel tank to it, it is designed to rocket into space. Job done.
-
I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.
If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.
-
I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.
If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.
Don't tell me you are one of those conspiracy nutters...
-
I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.
If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.
Don't tell me you are one of those conspiracy nutters...
Of course not - the Zwickau 601M Flying Saucer was the closest you could get to a Spaceship in GDR at the time (1949-1989). It was low cost but with a 16 years waiting list. Millions of people wanted to buy it ... in spite of the waiting list.
-
Mjarkjo: LOL!!!
Stick to just posting links; when you RESPOND instead of EXPLAIN you only undermine your case even further.
Really, you are a joke.
Okay, markjo; when I refer to 450 mph tops, I mean that the shuttle will be uncontrollable above this speed.
Easy enough for you, idiot?
Because of the transonic shockwave/buffeting effects that you clearly do not understand.
Okay, idiot?
'Evidence please'? Oh, like the evidence you never provide for anything you say, ever?
LOL!!!
You claim sharp edges are a bad idea for atmospheric re-entry?
Well; as they are absolutely necessary for hypersonic flight, then how can the shuttle get OUT of the atmosphere without them?
Ever seen the X-15?
Idiot.
& would 5 x 690 tonne thrust explosions be easier to 'tune' than 1 x 3,450 tonne thrust (ooh - it just got 50-tonne-thrust bigger! Thanks, markjo) explosion?
Are 5 strings on a guitar easier to 'tune' than 1, idiot?
& it's you cultists who cannot apply Newton 3 correctly; if you could, then why did you try to change the term of reference from 'action-reaction pairing' to 'transfer of momentum' when you realised you were losing the debate on rockets working in a vacuum (lol no they don't - fact!)?
Again; Idiot.
& the rest of your post is just pure lies, without any regard for science, logic or anything but the slimiest gut-instincts of an ambulance-chasing lawyer...
You hate science & you disgust me.
Cultist Idiot.
As for everyone else; go learn about transonic aerodynamics.
Or carry on being IDIOTS...
Your choice.
Btw; the next lesson will be about ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVES & the temperatures at which they degrade; so bone up on em, Cultists...
LOL!!!
-
Okay, markjo; when I refer to 450 mph tops, I mean that the shuttle will be uncontrollable above this speed.
How do you know this? Have you studied the shuttle's aerodynamics in a wind tunnel?
Because of the transonic shockwave/buffeting effects that you clearly do not understand.
Since when is 450 mph considered transonic? ???
'Evidence please'? Oh, like the evidence you never provide for anything you say, ever?
I tend to present my evidence in the form of links.
You claim sharp edges are a bad idea for atmospheric re-entry?
Well; as they are absolutely necessary for hypersonic flight, then how can the shuttle get OUT of the atmosphere without them?
By strapping on some big ass rocket engines and making sure that you don't get into the hypersonic realm until you're above most of the atmosphere.
Ever seen the X-15?
Yes, I have. The X-15 was designed for hypersonic flight within the atmosphere. The shuttle wasn't.
& it's you cultists who cannot apply Newton 3 correctly; if you could, then why did you try to change the term of reference from 'action-reaction pairing' to 'transfer of momentum' when you realised you were losing the debate on rockets working in a vacuum (lol no they don't - fact!)?
Because momentum and action/reaction are very closely related.
& the rest of your post is just pure lies, without any regard for science, logic or anything but the slimiest gut-instincts of an ambulance-chasing lawyer...
Would you care to point out where I lied?
You hate science & you disgust me.
Actually, I quite like science, especially physics. I'm just not crazy about calculus.
As for everyone else; go learn about transonic aerodynamics.
Just out of curiosity, what are your credentials regarding transonic aerodynamics?
-
Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.
But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.
Anyhow; moving on...
What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?
Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.
Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.
But still; let's go with 200C eh?
Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...
NASA only knows how it's done!
Just LOL!!!
I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!
Instead, we'll move on again.
So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?
Bone up, Cultists!
LMAO at YOU!!!
-
Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.
But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.
Anyhow; moving on...
What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?
Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.
Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.
But still; let's go with 200C eh?
Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...
NASA only knows how it's done!
Just LOL!!!
I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!
Instead, we'll move on again.
So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?
Bone up, Cultists!
LMAO at YOU!!!
The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
(http://)
-
Oh! Another youtube!
The cultist's favourite evidence...
& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?
Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...
LOL!!!
Just impossible.
Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...
Enjoy the Fantasy!
LMAO at YOU TOO!!!
-
Oh! Another youtube!
The cultist's favourite evidence...
& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?
Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...
LOL!!!
Just impossible.
Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...
Enjoy the Fantasy!
LMAO at YOU TOO!!!
Why is thermal protection so miraculous, cultish and impossible? And please stop vomiting out the words "LMAO" "LOL" and "cult". It's disgusting.
-
Oh! Another youtube!
The cultist's favourite evidence...
& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?
Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...
LOL!!!
Just impossible.
Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...
Enjoy the Fantasy!
LMAO at YOU TOO!!!
Have you even seen the video? The guy is blasting with a mini propane torch to a single tile for the whole video, while holding it on his hand. Those torches can melt copper.
-
Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to say that.
-
Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.
But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.
Anyhow; moving on...
What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?
Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.
Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.
But still; let's go with 200C eh?
Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...
NASA only knows how it's done!
Just LOL!!!
I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!
Instead, we'll move on again.
So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?
Bone up, Cultists!
LMAO at YOU!!!
The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
(http://)
So how are he gaps sealed when the landing gear is closed, plus how are the holes sealed when the wonder bolts shear off to release the shuttle from the struts?
Do they magically seal up?
-
Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.
But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.
Anyhow; moving on...
What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?
Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.
Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.
But still; let's go with 200C eh?
Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...
NASA only knows how it's done!
Just LOL!!!
I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!
Instead, we'll move on again.
So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?
Bone up, Cultists!
LMAO at YOU!!!
The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
(http://)
So how are he gaps sealed when the landing gear is closed, plus how are the holes sealed when the wonder bolts shear off to release the shuttle from the struts?
Do they magically seal up?
(http://i.imgur.com/KPkB7.jpg)
The landing gear would be easily sealed during flight, as the aerodynamic forces would push the plated onto the shuttle and they have that massive opening and closing mechanism. The external tank is not drilled into the shuttle with holes.
-
So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?
Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. ;D
Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.
Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. ::) ;D
[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg] (http://postimg.org/image/q7i7spscz/)
-
So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?
Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. ;D
Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.
Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. ::) ;D
[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg] (http://postimg.org/image/q7i7spscz/)
Does this answer your question?
(http://)
-
So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?
Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. ;D
Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.
Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. ::) ;D
[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg] (http://postimg.org/image/q7i7spscz/)
Does this answer your question?
(http://)
How does that answer my question?
Showing me a few glowing blocks is supposed to explain how this wonder bolt keeps the shuttle attached to the large fuel tank?
Open your eyes and look at the picture I put up. Look at the bolt popping out from underneath the strut. Now pay attention and try not to look up at the ceiling whilst blinking.
What is that bolt attached to of it only pops out a few inches. The tiles are about 6 inches thick by the looks of it, so is the bolt simply stuck inside the tiles with some glue or resin or whatever, or is the bolt attached to the frame of the shuttle.
Also, does the hole close up on that tile if the bolt is drilled into it?
Just a few things to answer. Oh and just to save you people wasting too much energy and aiding you on keeping on track to give me a legitimate or plausible answer, I do understand that , to you people, I am a nutter and unstable. A tin foil hat conspiracy nut bag. I should never be a parent and I shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. My mother is any name mentioned in any context and any other things that can be bestowed upon my family and myself.
Now that we have that out of the way, can anyone answer the questions about the shuttle?
-
How does that answer my question?
Showing me a few glowing blocks is supposed to explain how this wonder bolt keeps the shuttle attached to the large fuel tank?
Oh, I thought you were rambling about the tiles. I guess you moved on. The bolt appears to be stuck to a hole in the plates. Similar to RCSs, very small holes can be carefully made in the heat shield. (Nevermind, it seems there are a kind of airlock that closes the umbilicals after staging: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html#sts-etsep-sys (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html#sts-etsep-sys). Endeavour, for example, uses some kind of doors that close and seal: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/120310endeavour/index3.html (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/120310endeavour/index3.html))
(http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/120310endeavour/sc32.jpg)
Various bolt joints keep the shuttle joined to the external tank, as shown in this picture:
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/images/et_1.jpg)
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_ET.html (http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_ET.html)
(http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-091412a/050.jpg)
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html)
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc)
Does this answer your question?
-
Correct me if I'm seeing something different here, but are those rear struts actually fitted to the shuttle via open hatches?
Do the hatches shut after the shuttle jettisons the tank?
What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.
-
What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.
Here is a link to a thread on another site discussing that very question:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17437.2780 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17437.2780)
Here is a picture of the forward attachment after the ET is jettisoned. It's the metal fitting right behind the landing gear door ceterline.
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/521274main_iss026e029923_hires.jpg)
-
Correct me if I'm seeing something different here, but are those rear struts actually fitted to the shuttle via open hatches?
Do the hatches shut after the shuttle jettisons the tank?
What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc)
Does this answer your question?
You should have read my whole post.
-
So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?
GOOD little cultists!
Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?
Nowhere; that's where...
Oh, sorry; except youtube.
lol.
Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?
How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?
Come on, Cultists; THINK!!!
lol.
P.s. To all neutral readers; look up the difference between Subsonic, Transonic, Supersonic & Hypersonic Aerodynamics, then look afresh at the Space Shuttle...
Oh! Seems you can't just blast through Mach 1 via brute force alone...
The laws of physics simply do not work that way.
Educate yourselves, folks, & get OFF the CULTIST'S bus...
&, as ever, LOL!!!
-
So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?
GOOD little cultists!
Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?
Nowhere; that's where...
Oh, sorry; except youtube.
lol.
Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?
How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?
Come on, Cultists; THINK!!!
lol.
P.s. To all neutral readers; look up the difference between Subsonic, Transonic, Supersonic & Hypersonic Aerodynamics, then look afresh at the Space Shuttle...
Oh! Seems you can't just blast through Mach 1 via brute force alone...
The laws of physics simply do not work that way.
Educate yourselves, folks, & get OFF the CULTIST'S bus...
&, as ever, LOL!!!
I give up with arguing with you. Stupidity and blind faith wins every argument.
-
So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?
GOOD little cultists!
Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?
They don't make heat disappear. They are nothing but extremelly insulant ceramics. They get hot, but the heat moves very slowly through it. The trick is, though, to make them insulant, very fast dissipants when cooled via forced cooling, and resistant to such high temperatures. Aerogels would be the similar modern and affordable substitutes, but they are possibly too fragile for spaceflight.
Nowhere; that's where...
The NASA visitor center sells scrap tiles at the gift shop. They are quite popular. Where did you think the people at youtube got the tiles?
(http://)
Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?
Ammonium perchlorate is a solid fuel used in solid fuel boosters. They aren't used in orbital conditions as far as I know.
How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?
What's the relevance?
-
GOOD little cultists!
Could you stop calling us cultists? Do you even know what the word means?
One of it's definitions is "A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. "
The fact that the vast majority of people believe that space travel is real makes it not a cult. Under this definition, FET and the belief that space travel is all fake is actually a cult.
-
Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?
You don't buy refractory materials much do you? Otherwise you'd know that you sound like a complete plonker.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?
Mm-hmm?
So, is your argument "I don't own those tiles, therefore they don't exist," again?
-
I call you cultists because you believe in the existence of things despite all evidence being counter to their existence.
& I doubt the existence of a material that can make a 1450C temp. differential totally disappear because such a material cannot exist.
Emperor's New Clothes, you know?
It's all quite simple, despite your efforts to make it otherwise.
Cultists...
Also, stop posting links & youtubes as evidence & start using your own words to explain things.
You know; like I do.
Anyhow; I'd really like you to state the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel before we carry on.
I already know it, but let's get a consensus before the next lesson; I don't want to quibble over numbers.
The thickness & steel type of the casings of the shuttle SRB's would be useful too...
Come on, NASA cultists, spam me them 'facts'; it's all public-domain knowledge, surely?
P.s. to all neutral readers: investigate transonic aerodynamics then look at the leading edges of the shuttle's wings; a bit thick, aren't they?
Free your minds & get OFF the cult-bus; cos it's going nowhere good.
-
Are you saying that no material can withstand 1450C temperature?
-
No, idiot.
What is WRONG with you?!?
You just HAVE to be a bot...
Anyhow; burn-temp of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel please!
& thickness & steel-type of the SRB's casings too.
Plus burn-temp of thermite if you please...
& why not the max temp of blast-furnaces, wherein ALL types of steel not only melt but run like water, while we're at it?
Let's crunch some numbers, CULTISTS; see what we come out with at the end...
It won't be 'space-travel'.
But it will be lol...
Really LOL!!!
P.s. Oh - I now see what misero's pointless post was for; just to move the thread on a page...
Good work, vile CULTISTS!
But any neutrals who may have missed anything can easily skip back a page, or just read through all my posts, to catch up on what you brainwashing psychos clearly wanted to censor...
LMAO at YOU!!!
-
& I doubt the existence of a material that can make a 1450C temp. differential totally disappear because such a material cannot exist.
Fire brick can do it, and I have some lying around my house. You can buy some too, they are not very expensive.
-
Anyhow; burn-temp of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel please!
What do you mean by that? The temperature of a flame depends of many factors that you aren't giving u- Oh. Wait. You mean autoignition temperature? About 240 degrees C at normal conditions. Why does it matter?
Ammonium perchlorate isn't rocket fuel, though. It is an oxidant.
thickness & steel-type of the SRB's casings
That level of detail isn't disclosed directly by NASA. You will have to ask them yourself (Im sure a skeptic like you would not ASSUME that the data doesn't exist just because some clown on the internet can't find it with a single Google search, would you?). Call Johnson Space Center, and ask them where can you get your FOI request put for those details. They may even cite you the papers.
burn-temp of thermite
Thermite is a mix-bag of very different kinds of metal powder pyrotechnics. You will have to specify.
& why not the max temp of blast-furnaces, wherein ALL types of steel not only melt but run like water, while we're at it?
http://www.outokumpu.com/en/products-properties/more-stainless/stainless-steel-types/heat-resistant/pages/default.aspx (http://www.outokumpu.com/en/products-properties/more-stainless/stainless-steel-types/heat-resistant/pages/default.aspx)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JohnChu.shtml (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JohnChu.shtml)
What is the relevance, though? The cases aren't made of steel. They seem to be made of high density fiberglass of some sort, although, again, I haven't actually checked. You tell me, you are the truthie.
Also, check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum_hafnium_carbide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum_hafnium_carbide)
A refractory material with a melting temperature of around 3940 C, higher than tungsten. It was known enough for it to be included in the Encyclopædia Britannica in the 1930s.
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: Liar.
Now tell me the burn-temp of both ammonium perchlorate rocket-fuel & thermite, the thickness & steel-type of the SRB casings, & the max. temp of a blast-furnace, wherein all types of steel melt until they run like water.
Oh; & how long the burn-time of the shuttle's SRB's allegedly was, too...
Come on, cultists; spam them numbers!
Neutrals wanna LOL!!!
At YOU, cos your NASA Emperor HAS NO CLOTHES...
LMAO!!!
P.s. conker; so the type of steel & it's thickness is SECRET?
Why, if NASA is a publicly-funded company?
Do you not find this strange? It's only steel ffs!
Still; steel is steel - & it ALL runs like water at temps above that of a blast furnace.
So; what is the burn-temp of ammonium perchlorate, cultists: is it HIGHER or LOWER than that of a blast furnace?
& how about thermite?
& what is the alleged burn-time of the SRB?
Give me the numbers, Cultists; the more you prevaricate the worse it looks for you...
ROFLMAO!!!
-
Here is a bunch of quote tags for you to use. This way you can make a coherent post.
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
[quote][/quote]
-
Oh, & conker: I did not ask for the ignition temp of ammonium perchlorate, you moron; I asked for the BURN temperature.
What is wrong with you? Oh, I forgot; you're a cultist idiot.
My bad...
& yes, there's lots of different types of thermite; so give me a rough average, eh?
Shouldn't be hard for a super-brain like yourself.
*Sigh!*
Let me spell out what's happening here for neutrals; the cultists know damn well that ammonium perchlorate burns at a far higher temp. than even the hottest blast-furnace.
Google it for yourself if you disbelieve me, dear readers...
& that there's allegedly 1,000,000 lbs of the stuff in a shuttle SRB, which burns for 120 seconds, inside a steel casing of 'secret' specifications..
Of course, there is no way that this is possible; it just cannot happen in Reality.
The casings would melt; everything would explode.
As designed, the shuttle SRB's are no more than giant bombs...
So it's a good thing they never existed, eh?
LOL!!!
Keep on enjoying the cartoons though, cultists!
LMAO at YOU!!!
P.s. sokarul; I seem to be doing pretty well as I am; unlike yourself, Mr. 'War On Science'.
So any 'advice' you offer is to be firmly rejected.
ROFLMAO!!!
-
If you were doing well then why once again are you asking for the burn temperature of ammonium perchlorate? Like they said, it's an oxidizer. It's like asking what is the temperature of oxygen in a camp fire. Quite stupid.
-
Liar.
Ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; about the same as thermite, in fact.
Anyone can google this.
Except you.
Because you are actively engaged in a war on all forms of science.
Because you are a cultist.
LMAO at YOU!!!
Again...
-
Now tell me the burn-temp of both ammonium perchlorate rocket-fuel & thermite,
Burn temperature is dependant on so many variables you aren't giving us, so the question isn't answerable.
max. temp of a blast-furnace,
I gave it to you already. You missed the link again.
wherein all types of steel melt until they run like water.
Not necesarilly, but its obvious that the parts that are at such a temperature wouldn't be made of steel, but rather refractive materials (the page I gave you quotes the nozzle being covered in a ablative carbon cloth: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html))
Oh; & how long the burn-time of the shuttle's SRB's allegedly was, too...
(http://Oh; & how long the burn-time of the shuttle's SRB's allegedly was, too...)
Burn-time is not constant, the separation is based on chamber pressure drop. However, normal burn time is around 120-130s
Come on, cultists; spam them numbers!
We gave you most of the numbers you ask of us. Do you think that just because me, an idiot with google skills that (aparently) are far beyond yours, since you cant search shit for yourself, can't find some random piece of data, that means NASA faked it? Why don't ask NASA? Give them a call.
P.s. conker; so the type of steel & it's thickness is SECRET?
No its not. I spent 20 seconds googling "SRB" in google, and feeling lucky. I simply not care enough to spend more time searching for it, but since you ask: http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2563&context=space-congress-proceedings (http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2563&context=space-congress-proceedings)
There, I spent 20 more seconds searching. If you ask me something it is answered there, or here: http://www.nasa-klass.com/Curriculum/Get_Oriented%202/Space%20Shuttle%20Information/PRES_Space-Shuttle-Info.pdf (http://www.nasa-klass.com/Curriculum/Get_Oriented%202/Space%20Shuttle%20Information/PRES_Space-Shuttle-Info.pdf)
I will call you a retard, and tell you that you already know.
Oh, & conker: I did not ask for the ignition temp of ammonium perchlorate, you moron; I asked for the BURN temperature.
Which is why I said that the bun temperature is dependant on many variables you don't give. In order to solve a 3 variable equation system, you need 3 linear independent equations. You aren't given enough data to answer that question.
& yes, there's lots of different types of thermite; so give me a rough average, eh?
There isn't data on "average thermite". A common thermite mix is iron thermite, using iron oxide and aluminium. It usually ignites at around 3000 ºF, and burns at 4000 ºF. Note the significant drop in accuracy in the data I'm giving: Im using commercial data instead of experimental data.
Shouldn't be hard for a super-brain like yourself.
I'm no genius. All that I do, you could do yourself. You don't, because you smugly think there is no answer when someone doesn't force-feed you the answers. Quite unscientific of you to expect all data in the world to be avaliable. I'm sure you would claim "VICTORY" if the only data I couldn't find were the threading slope angle on the screws that fix the OMS controllers to the hull.
Let me spell out what's happening here for neutrals; the cultists know damn well that ammonium perchlorate burns at a far higher temp. than even the hottest blast-furnace.
Ammonium perchlorate doesn't burn. Above 200 degrees, it decomposes, but it doesn't burn. It MAKES things burn. Like oxygen. You aren't giving enough data for me to answer the question.
Google it for yourself if you disbelieve me, dear readers...
I did.
Of course, there is no way that this is possible; it just cannot happen in Reality.
[citation needed]
The casings would melt; everything would explode.
[citation needed]
As designed, the shuttle SRB's are no more than giant bombs...
[citation needed]
So it's a good thing they never existed, eh?
Wait wait wait wait. You are saying that the SRB's don't exist? ehm...
LOL!!!
That's the word.
Ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; about the same as thermite, in fact.
Perchlorate doesn't burn, just as oxygen doesn't burn. It decomposes, though. This paper even suggests that fuel/perchlorate mixes don't burn higher than 1000º: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/637771.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/637771.pdf)
-
Mikeman.nasa.gov: Liar.
From Google:
"firebrick, brick that can withstand high temperatures, used to line flues, stacks, furnaces, and fireplaces. In general, such bricks have high melting points that range from about 2,800°F (1.540°C) for fireclay to 4,000°F (2,200°C) for silicon carbide."
If you have $5 lying around you could buy yourself some firebrick and test it out for yourself:
https://www.google.com/search?q=firebrick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=firebrick&tbm=shop (https://www.google.com/search?q=firebrick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=firebrick&tbm=shop)
-
Yawn!
The fuel inside the SRBs burns at 3,000+C for 120+ seconds: FACT.
The maximum temperature of a blast furnace, which melts all steel, is 2,400C: FACT.
The SRB casings are made of steel: FACT.
Ergo: The SRBs are impossible objects: FACT.
1,000,000+ pounds of explosive going off inside a steel casing of 'secret' specification; yeah, right - that's not a BOMB, it's a SPACE-ROCKET ENGINE...
LMAO!!!
Now go spam your pompous, science-like-but-in-fact-utter-crap nonsense elsewhere, cult-boy.
Cos no-one's buying your schtick.
ROFLMAO - at YOU!!!
P.s. mikeman: you have missed both my point & the bus back to Cultsville; now shut up.
-
Liar.
Ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; about the same as thermite, in fact.
Anyone can google this.
Except you.
Because you are actively engaged in a war on all forms of science.
Because you are a cultist.
LMAO at YOU!!!
Again...
From wiki
The primary use of ammonium perchlorate is in making solid fuel propellants.[9] When AP is mixed with a fuel (like a powdered aluminum and/or with an elastomeric binder), it can generate self-sustained combustion at far under atmospheric pressure. It is an important oxidizer with a decades-long history of use in solid rocket propellants — space launch (including the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster), military, amateur, and hobby high-power rockets, as well as in some fireworks.
So yeah, it is the oxidizer. It makes fuel burn, it's not the chemical burning.
-
Sokarul: The fuel in the SRBs is ammonium perchlorate.
It burns at 3000+C.
I know you hate science & want to fight it to the death, but facts are facts.
Well, maybe not on wikipedia, where I'm sure busy little cultists are beavering away trying to change the entry on the SRBs as we speak, in the Ever-Evolving Lie that is NASA's history...
But other rockets use the same fuel; & it burns at 3000+C.
Deal with it; you're Defeated yet again.
Which is LOL!!!
-
Yawn!
The fuel inside the SRBs burns at 3,000+C for 120+ seconds: FACT.
The maximum temperature of a blast furnace, which melts all steel, is 2,400C: FACT.
The SRB casings are made of steel: FACT.
Ergo: The SRBs are impossible objects: FACT.
1,000,000+ pounds of explosive going off inside a steel casing of 'secret' specification; yeah, right - that's not a BOMB, it's a SPACE-ROCKET ENGINE...
LMAO!!!
Now go spam your pompous, science-like-but-in-fact-utter-crap nonsense elsewhere, cult-boy.
Cos no-one's buying your schtick.
ROFLMAO - at YOU!!!
P.s. mikeman: you have missed both my point & the bus back to Cultsville; now shut up.
I currently own many model rocket engines which are pretty much smaller solid rocket boosters. The boosters are insulated by solid fuel which will burn in moments anyway, and all that heat is what ignites it.
-
Yes, mikeman; smaller rockets suffer far less from the problem of burning out their casings; this is because their burn-time is much shorter.
The shuttle SRBs, however, contain OVER ONE MILLION POUNDS of fuel & burn for OVER TWO MINUTES; do any of your models do that?
No?
Then shut up.
LOL!!!
-
The fuel inside the SRBs burns at 3,000+C for 120+ seconds: FACT.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
The maximum temperature of a blast furnace, which melts all steel, is 2,400C: FACT.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. Besides:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
The SRB casings are made of steel: FACT.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
Ergo: The SRBs are impossible objects: FACT.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/876/830/14c.jpg)
1,000,000+ pounds of explosive going off inside a steel casing of 'secret' specification; yeah, right - that's not a BOMB, it's a SPACE-ROCKET ENGINE...
No secret specification. I told you, call NASA, they will tell you. I wont sit through even more papers that I am chucking at you. Besides, you write too quickly to be actually reading what I send to you. The manual I sent you has the case specifications of the original SRBs. As I said, you are retarded.
-
Sokarul: The fuel in the SRBs is ammonium perchlorate.
It burns at 3000+C.
I know you hate science & want to fight it to the death, but facts are facts.
Well, maybe not on wikipedia, where I'm sure busy little cultists are beavering away trying to change the entry on the SRBs as we speak, in the Ever-Evolving Lie that is NASA's history...
But other rockets use the same fuel; & it burns at 3000+C.
Deal with it; you're Defeated yet again.
Which is LOL!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Propellant
The rocket propellant mixture in each SRB motor consisted of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight), aluminium (fuel, 16%), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%), a polymer (PBAN, serving as a binder that held the mixture together and acted as secondary fuel, 12.04%), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96%).[7][8] This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP. This mixture develops a specific impulse of 242 seconds (2.37 km/s) at sea level or 268 seconds (2.63 km/s) in a vacuum.
What were you saying? Maybe learn some chemistry?
-
Yes, mikeman; smaller rockets suffer far less from the problem of burning out their casings; this is because their burn-time is much shorter.
The shuttle SRBs, however, contain OVER ONE MILLION POUNDS of fuel & burn for OVER TWO MINUTES; do any of your models do that?
No?
Then shut up.
LOL!!!
My solid rocket boosters produce a flame hot enough to burn the ground below it in the fraction of a second before liftoff and yet the outer casing is made of cardboard. It can get away with this because the fuel acts as an insulator before it burns, just like what happens in a space shuttle solid rocket booster.
-
LOL!!!
No, conker; YOU are retarded if you think that a segmented, bolted-together steel casing filled with 1,000,000+ pounds of explosives, all burning at 3,000+C & allegedly producing 2,800,000 pounds of thrust (& therefore the same pressure inside the casings) can be anything but an absolutely gi-bloody-normous BOMB!
But I already knew that anyway - as do all neutral readers - because you think a rocket can work in a vacuum, despite all the laws of physics adamantly proclaiming it can not.
Retard...
& science-hater.
LMAO!!!
At YOU!!!
& mikeman: learn about problems of scale.
& shut up.
Retard.
-
Sokarul: The fuel in the SRBs is ammonium perchlorate.
It burns at 3000+C.
I know you hate science & want to fight it to the death, but facts are facts.
Well, maybe not on wikipedia, where I'm sure busy little cultists are beavering away trying to change the entry on the SRBs as we speak, in the Ever-Evolving Lie that is NASA's history...
But other rockets use the same fuel; & it burns at 3000+C.
Deal with it; you're Defeated yet again.
Which is LOL!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Propellant
The rocket propellant mixture in each SRB motor consisted of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight), aluminium (fuel, 16%), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%), a polymer (PBAN, serving as a binder that held the mixture together and acted as secondary fuel, 12.04%), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96%).[7][8] This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP. This mixture develops a specific impulse of 242 seconds (2.37 km/s) at sea level or 268 seconds (2.63 km/s) in a vacuum.
What were you saying? Maybe learn some chemistry?
What's it like always being wrong?
-
What's it like not knowing how to READ, you lunatic?
Damn, you defeated YOURSELF with that post; no work on my part necessary!
LMAO - at YOU!!!
AGAIN!!!
-
What's it like not knowing how to READ, you lunatic?
Damn, you defeated YOURSELF with that post; no work on my part necessary!
LMAO - at YOU!!!
AGAIN!!!
I also know what an oxidizer is. You should look it up. That way you won't make such stupid claims.
-
LOL!!!
No, conker; YOU are retarded if you think that a segmented, bolted-together steel casing filled with 1,000,000+ pounds of explosives solid fuel
FTFY
, all burning at 3,000+C
I will make this the new FES meme, I tell you.
(https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0311/20/1396038913019.png)
& allegedly producing 2,800,000 pounds of thrust (& therefore the same pressure inside the casings) can be anything but an absolutely gi-bloody-normous BOMB!
Thrust isnt a boom. A 747 engine produces over 50,000 pounds of thrust. That isn't that much, really. A shitty Cold-war old-fashined outdated Minuteman nuclear missile has three stages, with 210,000 lb, 60,300 lb, and 34,400 lb of thrust each. All solid fuel.
But I already knew that anyway - as do all neutral readers - because you think know a rocket can work in a vacuum, despite all the laws of physics adamantly proclaiming it can not.
FTFY. I've seen rockets in vacuum chambers work (and I have reasons to trust that there are satellites on space, which inderectly proves it, but I'll admit this isn't as strong as just seen a rocket working on a vacuum chamber). Besides, I've proven to you that it does work. You seem to have allergy to maths (you didn't even undestood the mathematical formulation of Newton's laws), which implies you really don't know that much about physics. Which is fine, don't get me wrong. I have little idea about biology, chemistry, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, mechanical design (although another of my pasions is robotics, and I have performed FEA analysis of my fighting robots), semiconduction, finances, statistics, medicine, and a long etc. Which is why I usually avoid questioning the experts opinion on those matters. I may have doubts, but it is more likelly that the experts know something I don't, so I raise questions, respectfully. In Spanish, there is a word for this kind of people: "cuñado" (brother-in-law), because of a running Spanish joke/stereotype about how family reunions end up with silly discussions about subjects no one understands, with the brother-in-law ignorantly spewing up opinion as fact, and so on.
Retard...
Ok
& science-hater.
Don't tell me what to hate. I love science.
-
Sokarul: Illiterate Idiot.
Conker: Lying Liar.
Enough of your deluded gigantism for one night; see you later for more NASA-kicking.
The beatings will continue until sanity prevails...
Now go on; get the last word in, like good little robots.
LOL!!!
-
Sokarul: Illiterate Idiot.
You said ammonium perchlorate was the fuel. It is not. This was not me being an idiot, it was you. I want you to say you understand.
Conker: Lying Liar.
Enough of your deluded gigantism for one night; see you later for more NASA-kicking.
The beatings will continue until sanity prevails...
Now go on; get the last word in, like good little robots.
LOL!!!
Maybe you will learn some chemistry by then.
-
Look like Papa Legba wins hands down. I'm 100% sure that there are more and more rational normal people looking in and seeing how desperate these global wannabe scientists are.
I think it's proven with absolute certainty, not just beyond reasonable doubt, that rocket's do not work in space and the rocket's we are told that do work in space, are nothing but a load of fictional tripe for the sizes depicted.
Models and CGI, special effects are the best that science has to off with this stuff. It's Hollywood specials, made with high budgets and sold to the public as reality.
Great job Papa Legba, you got them panicking and damping down their dungarees.
-
Look like Papa Legba wins hands down. I'm 100% sure that there are more and more rational normal people looking in and seeing how desperate these global wannabe scientists are.
I think it's proven with absolute certainty, not just beyond reasonable doubt, that rocket's do not work in space and the rocket's we are told that do work in space, are nothing but a load of fictional tripe for the sizes depicted.
Models and CGI, special effects are the best that science has to off with this stuff. It's Hollywood specials, made with high budgets and sold to the public as reality.
Great job Papa Legba, you got them panicking and damping down their dungarees.
Haha There's our chess playing pigeon, struts about knocks over pieces, craps on the board and flies off with Papa Legba claiming victory.
For Papa Legba, I did promise to tell you that LMAO, is either Lick Me All Over, or Leave Me Alone Ok. I'll leave you to guess LOL.
-
Look like Papa Legba wins hands down. I'm 100% sure that there are more and more rational normal people looking in and seeing how desperate these global wannabe scientists are.
I think it's proven with absolute certainty, not just beyond reasonable doubt, that rocket's do not work in space and the rocket's we are told that do work in space, are nothing but a load of fictional tripe for the sizes depicted.
Models and CGI, special effects are the best that science has to off with this stuff. It's Hollywood specials, made with high budgets and sold to the public as reality.
Great job Papa Legba, you got them panicking and damping down their dungarees.
Haha There's our chess playing pigeon, struts about knocks over pieces, craps on the board and flies off with Papa Legba claiming victory.
For Papa Legba, I did promise to tell you that LMAO, is either Lick Me All Over, or Leave Me Alone Ok. I'll leave you to guess LOL.
You and your little backward crew have lost; pin head. ;D
-
We've lost?! How do you work that out?
You guys have not once demonstrated a grasp of diencephalic and engineering. We've just had flapping of hands and random statements saying that certain things couldn't possibly work despite our constant replies with actual evidence and numbers.
-
We've lost?! How do you work that out?
You guys have not once demonstrated a grasp of diencephalic and engineering. We've just had flapping of hands and random statements saying that certain things couldn't possibly work despite our constant replies with actual evidence and numbers.
When I said that you lot had lost, I didn't mean you would all disappear and admit it. I know you lot aren't like that.
It's like telling the slow kids not to get chocolate on their clothes and to make sure they eat their kitkats whilst holding the wrapper.
Of course, you and your little crew just throw the wrapper away and grab the 4 fingers in a clenched fist, then gorge and wipe on your clothing.
Whilst us sensible one's get to go to the real science museum due to our cleanliness, we also get a big mac and fries, plus a milk shake, whilst you lot - you pack of scruffy gits, get told to get back on the bus until the sensible one are ready to come back. ;D
-
& mikeman: learn about problems of scale.
& shut up.
Retard.
Way ahead of you. The probelem with your idea that big solid rocket boosters will burn through their casing is that the fuel insulates the casing until just a few seconds before burnout which actually happens after they are jettisoned because the boosters loose power over time and they eventually produce so little thrust that there is no point in keeping them around. Problems of scale do make larger solid rocket boosters harder to make space shuttle scale boosters, but it's nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket scientists and engineers can't handle.
Space shuttle launches are public events and you can see the shuttle all the way until solid rocket booster separation, so there is no denying that they do exactaly what we are told.
-
Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'
There's no denying THAT!
You retard.
In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.
& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.
But meh; believe what you want...
Like 3.000-tonne 'moon-rockets'.
LOL!!!
-
Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'
There's no denying THAT!
You retard.
In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.
& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.
But meh; believe what you want...
Like 3.000-tonne 'moon-rockets'.
LOL!!!
And how did you come by the max size of 25 feet high and two feet wide?
-
How did you come to the max size of 363 feet tall & 3,000 tonnes weight for the Saturn V?
Wikipedia & pure gullibility?
LMAO!!!
Nah; I just used logic & science.
Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists; you should meet some.
Not that they'd talk to the likes of you...
ROFLMAO!!!
-
Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists;
Do these "REAL rocket engineers and physicists" think that rockets push off the atmosphere too?
-
Victory Legba!!!!!!
FE 1
RE 0
-
How did you come to the max size of 363 feet tall & 3,000 tonnes weight for the Saturn V?
Wikipedia & pure gullibility?
LMAO!!!
Nah; I just used logic & science.
Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists; you should meet some.
Not that they'd talk to the likes of you...
ROFLMAO!!!
Please takes us through your logic and scientific step used to derive the limits you have quoted. Please include all fact, equations and theories used.
Also please name the engineers and scientists, their qualifications and current employment.
-
Victory Legba!!!!!!
FE 1
RE 0
Pffft. Hardly.
All he's done is pull a number out of his arse and then blow hot air with no backing.
-
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
-
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.
-
Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'
Which law or laws of physics do you think this breaks?
In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.
And that size is so arbitrarily large that we will never have need for such things.
& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.
How did you get to that conclusion? Citation badly needed.
Rocket launches are public events. Anyone can come and watch a building sized rocket lift off. How is this possible if it's impossible?
Victory Legba!!!!!!
FE 1
RE 0
All Papa Legba is doing is pretending like he knows physics and that physics bend to his will. He indirectly denies that every action have an equal and opposite reaction and thinks that his bullcrap will fool people with a pulse.
The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.
That's probably because you people keep refusing to understand to simple concepts. If you want to have an intelligent discussion then start acting like adults and stop plugging you ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you!"
-
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
<snip>
The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.
And that's your rebuttal? Pitiful is hardly an adequate descripton, Non existent would be closer.
Revised scoring. TF = tin foil numnuts, RW = real world, Papa isn't a flat earther, you flat earthers should at least be grateful for that small mercy. He is however a tin foil numnut.
TF = 0
RW= 1780
I'll concede to award the TF team one point if they can adequately describe the principle of conservation of momentum.
-
The silence is deafening.
Still waiting for a detailed proof of your maximum rocket size Papa.
-
Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.
Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.
So STFU.
Same goes for the rest of you.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.
Enter; or Do Not Enter...
I do not care which.
Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.
If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.
So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.
The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.
Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.
Why?
Again, I do not care...
But LOL!!! anyway.
-
Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.
Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.
So STFU.
Same goes for the rest of you.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.
Enter; or Do Not Enter...
I do not care which.
Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.
If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.
So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.
The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.
Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.
Why?
Again, I do not care...
But LOL!!! anyway.
The pressure inside the combustion chamber of a Saturn V is less then that of a scuba tank, and there are pressure tanks which are bigger then a Saturn V engine. This alone disproves your argument.
-
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.
Not my fault a simple MS paint destroys everything they believe in.
-
Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.
Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.
So STFU.
Same goes for the rest of you.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.
Enter; or Do Not Enter...
I do not care which.
Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.
If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.
So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.
The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.
Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.
Why?
Again, I do not care...
But LOL!!! anyway.
That's not entirely true. If you have a hollow cylinder 1m in diameter and 1m tall and.1m thick walls its volume would be approximately 0.3m3 and able to hold 0.5m3 of fuel. If you double the radius and height but keep the width of the walls approximately the same thickness, the volume of the hollow cylinder becomes 1.2 m3 while able to hold 5.1m3 of fuel; a four-fold increase in structure volume gives a ten-fold increase in fuel capacity! You will have a much lower acceleration curve but ultimately you can put more force/kg in to the system overall. If you keep drag forces relatively the same, which is feasible then you end up with a higher velocity assuming all fuel is consumed.
-
Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.
Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.
So STFU.
Same goes for the rest of you.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.
Enter; or Do Not Enter...
I do not care which.
Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.
If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.
So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.
The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.
Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.
Why?
Again, I do not care...
But LOL!!! anyway.
My post count is less than four a day. That hardly qualifies as on all the time.
I never stated that the Shuttle does not need aerodynamics. Please show the quote.
And finally the V2 hardly struggled to take off. It was able to reach suborbital altitude which was really very good given it was pretty much the first of its kind.
-
So, "It's heavy so there's no way it could possibly be lifted," is your argument?
What, pray tell, do you believe happens at the open to public rocket launches?
-
Again; you are all so very DEMANDING, are you not?
Are you as incapable of doing your own research as you are of thinking logically, comprehending basic scientific laws or addressing the main points in any post that goes counter to your despicable cultist brainwashing?
Anyhow...
Bijane: no, that is not my argument; learn to read.
& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.
I have proven this already, remember?
Mainframes: seems it was sokarul who said the shuttle does not need aerodynamics, not you.
But so what? You all say so many stupid things, so regularly, that it's hard to keep track.
Whatever; enjoy your tiny 'win'.
Rama set: so what if a bigger rocket can hold more fuel, if the extra mass of that same fuel then prevents it from taking off?
Learn to think.
sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?
I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...
But maybe that's just me?
Mikeman: You may have noticed a big bunch of flames shooting out the back of a rocket; this looks kinda like a big explosion to me.
& if a rocket on a launch-pad doesn't get out of the way of that big explosion sharp-ish, it will get blown to bits by it.
This is why REAL rockets accelerate FAST, whilst FANTASY rockets accelerate VEEEERY SLOOOOWLY, so it looks good for sc-fi fan-boys like yourself & your cultist brethren.
But that's enough of addressing your inane & pointless drivel; in my next post we'll be moving on again.
No clues as to where, this time...
But I promise you; it will be LOL!!!
-
We are demanding because you are abusive and state that all the science and engineering we know is wrong yet you can provide no actual basis for your arguments other than hot air. Still no prrof of your 'maximum' size of a rocket either.
In the mean time, most of us can provide you with a fairly detailed analysis with facts, figures and scientific theory to explain exactly how and why rockets work.
-
& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.
I have proven this already, remember?
Except you really should care because you're insisting it's impossible, which it's clearly not... ah well.
If by 'proven' you mean 'asserted falsely despite repeated correction', then sure.
-
We are demanding because you are abusive and state that all the science and engineering we know is wrong yet you can provide no actual basis for your arguments other than hot air. Still no prrof of your 'maximum' size of a rocket either.
In the mean time, most of us can provide you with a fairly detailed analysis with facts, figures and scientific theory to explain exactly how and why rockets work.
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
There's a difference between people who believe in fantasy and those who can actually see fantasy. You see: you don't need direct physical proof for this; all you need is to see the absurdity for what it is when pushed into your face.
You people just hang on to clear as day bullshit for reasons that baffle. You've all been explained to in nearly every manner available as to how absurd these space rockets are and somehow you try and aid in keeping them alive.
I accept the fantasist to do this. If you are a fantasist, then fair enough. If not, then if you believe this crap after being shown what it is, then you are not functioning correctly.
3000 ton space rockets? ;D
Rockets filled with hydrogen that ignite on a launch pad where the fire engulf's a quarter of the rocket with no problem. ::)
A rocket lifting off as slow as a bicycle with no stability problems. ::)
The list is endless with the things that can show this crap up for what it is but there's a few.
It absolutely beggars belief how people can buy into this blatant garbage; it really does.
-
& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.
I have proven this already, remember?
Except you really should care because you're insisting it's impossible, which it's clearly not... ah well.
If by 'proven' you mean 'asserted falsely despite repeated correction', then sure.
It clearly is impossible with so called apace rockets.
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
Indeed. Let me see, what evidence do we have?
Huge amounts of documentary footage
Thermodynamics
Materials science
Chemistry
Fluid dynamics
Reaction engineering
Physics and mechanics
Equations of motion
Newtons laws
Acoustics and sonic dynamics
Electronics
Orbital mechanics
I'm sure I've barely touched the surface but all of these disciplines are involved and all are reproducible and in constant use in other engineering fields.
In addition to this we can provide a large amount of the engineering specs for multiple types of rockets.
In response all we've received from you and Papa is an obvious and complete ignorance of how newtons 3rd law is applied. If you can't even get that basic concept correct it's no wonder you don't get rocketry.
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
Physical proof has not been provided.
The famous five solving a crime with pictures showing the scene is not evidence of reality. It is evidence that a story has been told that is backed up with pictures.
So here's the key. Definitive proof is seeing a 3000 ton rocket lift off into space, or at least simply lift off, as long as that rocket can be physically inspected enough, even by ordinary vision to be deemed to be legitimate.
Astronauts getting inside and staying inside would be a bonus.
What is not definitive proof is a TV launch in conjunction with a small missile launch seen by people who are probably 10 miles away.
What also does not constitute definitive proof is bozo's like yourself who pop into topics and proclaim that their uncle seen a launch close up, or better still, the actual person saying they have seen it close up.
Also, crying and screaming by numb nut people like yourself that it's all true, means absolutely eff all to me. :P
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
Physical proof has not been provided.
The famous five solving a crime with pictures showing the scene is not evidence of reality. It is evidence that a story has been told that is backed up with pictures.
So here's the key. Definitive proof is seeing a 3000 ton rocket lift off into space, or at least simply lift off, as long as that rocket can be physically inspected enough, even by ordinary vision to be deemed to be legitimate.
Astronauts getting inside and staying inside would be a bonus.
What is not definitive proof is a TV launch in conjunction with a small missile launch seen by people who are probably 10 miles away.
What also does not constitute definitive proof is bozo's like yourself who pop into topics and proclaim that their uncle seen a launch close up, or better still, the actual person saying they have seen it close up.
Also, crying and screaming by numb nut people like yourself that it's all true, means absolutely eff all to me. :P
Very true, I've noticed that physical evidence and visual proof means nothing to people who have their head up their arse. You need to pull your head out and have a dose of reality. Numbnut!
-
Rama set: so what if a bigger rocket can hold more fuel, if the extra mass of that same fuel then prevents it from taking off?
You are evidently wrong in this regard since there is ample documentation of rockets up to the Saturn V taking off. Your arguments have to deal with the fact that large heVy objects can lift off or prove that the preponderance of evidence is all incorrect.
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
The only proof in this thread was provided by legba. The Sci-fi fans are just cheering NASA on.
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
Physical proof has not been provided.
How do you propose that someone provide physical proof on an internet discussion forum? ???
-
Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.
However, I must take you to task on one thing.
That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.
It does not.
It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.
& it is only when the latter is done away with that we can begin to address the true nature of the object we inhabit...
The answer will shock you, I believe.
But as it will be as LOL as anything can ever be, I will be content...
Cos I just love to LOL!!!
I'm doing it now, in fact, after reading markjo's latest self-contradictory post...
-
Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.
However, I must take you to task on one thing.
That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.
It does not.
It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.
Incorrect. Mathematics is the language of real science. If you've provided no math, then you've done no real science.
-
Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.
However, I must take you to task on one thing.
That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.
It does not.
It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.
& it is only when the latter is done away with that we can begin to address the true nature of the object we inhabit...
The answer will shock you, I believe.
But as it will be as LOL as anything can ever be, I will be content...
Cos I just love to LOL!!!
I'm doing it now, in fact, after reading markjo's latest self-contradictory post...
Refer to the quote in my forum signature. It's not science unless it's based off of measurement and supported by math.
-
...
sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?
I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...
But maybe that's just me?
..
You can't explain how a spent fuel molecule can hit an air molecule to propel a rocket. All you do is sidestep the question. Just like you did here.
So I ask again, how does a molecule hitting a molecule propel a rocket?
-
Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason? Proof has been provided already numerous times.
What would you consider to be definitive proof? Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.
The only proof in this thread was provided by legba. The Sci-fi fans are just cheering NASA on.
Care to quote this 'proof'?
-
Markjo: Liar.
Nothing new there though...
Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?
No?
Then STFU about 'measurement'.
& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.
Again.
Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.
So STFU too.
Liar.
AGAIN...
Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.
You lot provided NOTHING.
Ergo; I won.
& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.
That's how science works, cultists...
No 'maths' necessary at all.
So deal with it, losers.
As ever; LOL!!!
-
Markjo: Liar.
Nothing new there though...
Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?
No?
Then STFU about 'measurement'.
& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.
Again.
Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.
So STFU too.
Liar.
AGAIN...
Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.
You lot provided NOTHING.
Ergo; I won.
& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.
That's how science works, cultists...
No 'maths' necessary at all.
So deal with it, losers.
As ever; LOL!!!
The words of a defeated little boy.
-
Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?
Well, nice of you to ask! We kind of do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)
That's how science works, cultists...
No 'maths' necessary at all.
http://webmup.com/62477/ (http://webmup.com/62477/)
-
No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.
Anyhow; moving on again...
In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.
These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.
Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...
LMAO!!!
& it gets better...
SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!
Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.
What a fraud!
Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.
George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.
The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...
It is HILARIOUS!
Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...
But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?
LMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
SCHMUCKS!!!
P.s. conker; stop lying.
-
No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.
Anyhow; moving on again...
In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.
These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.
Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...
LMAO!!!
& it gets better...
SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!
Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.
What a fraud!
Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.
George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.
The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...
It is HILARIOUS!
Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...
But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?
LMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
SCHMUCKS!!!
P.s. conker; stop lying.
This post has had me crying with laughing at the names. It absolutely beggars belief how poeople cannot see through this absolute utter laughable drivel. ;D
Nice on Papa. ;D
-
P.s. conker; stop lying.
Oh god! I lied?? Oh NO! I must correct this inmediatly. Please tell me what did I said that was a lie, and cite a source that refutes me. I appreciate your time.
-
P.s. conker; stop lying.
Oh god! I lied?? Oh NO! I must correct this inmediatly. Please tell me what did I said that was a lie, and cite a source that refutes me. I appreciate your time.
Whenever one of the numnuts like Papa Legba calls someone a liar, it means that you've proven them to be wrong about something or other and they have no answer.
-
No, conker; you appreciate WASTING my time.
So stop it, liar.
Same goes for you, super-troll Rayzor/Evil Edna/Psyopticon...
Now; anyone care to explain why Four of the top internet 'rocket experts' are named after slang words for idiots & paid liars?
They are RIPPING the piss out of you & you just cannot see it...
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
Legba has beat the sh*t out of you sci-fi fans.
-
Markjo: Liar.
Nothing new there though...
Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?
No?
Then STFU about 'measurement'.
& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.
Again.
Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.
So STFU too.
Liar.
AGAIN...
Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.
You lot provided NOTHING.
Ergo; I won.
& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.
That's how science works, cultists...
No 'maths' necessary at all.
So deal with it, losers.
As ever; LOL!!!
How does one do science without math? Seriously, please explain.
-
No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.
Anyhow; moving on again...
In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.
These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.
Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...
LMAO!!!
& it gets better...
SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!
Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.
What a fraud!
Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.
George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.
The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...
It is HILARIOUS!
Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...
But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?
LMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
SCHMUCKS!!!
P.s. conker; stop lying.
Why is it so hard to answer such an easy question? You preached on and on about how rockets push off of air and now you can't explain how. Seems to me you believe in something you know nothing about.
But I'm going to ask again. How does s spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule propel a rocket?
-
Cheers, Hoppy; but it wasn't hard, was it?
All neutrals should google & even download John Schilling & George William Herbert's net history asap, before it all gets deleted.
NASA made a huge mistake naming them so blatantly; their identities were being established from at least year 2000 though, before the term 'shill' became well-known.
Plus it's just so LOL!!! to read.
Star Trek SCHILLS...
Star Wars SCHMUCKS...
Intergalactic HERBERTS...
Oh, my!
L.M.F.A.O!!!
What a world we live in...
P.s.: markjo; you do MATH with MATH; you do SCIENCE with OBSERVATION & EXPERIMENTS.
You know; like the ones you DIDN'T provide for your model of rocketry...
Which is why you LOST the 'debate'.
Ok, simpleton?
Btw; have you met John Schilling?
LOL!!!
P.s. sokarul: 'spent' fuel molecule?
LMAO, con-man!!!
You mean 'spent' like your argument?
Whatever; have YOU met John Schilling?
Why not ask HIM your pointless questions; he's a real, proper ROCKET-SCIENTIST, you know!
ROFLMFAO - AGAIN!!!
-
No, conker; you appreciate WASTING my time.
So stop it, liar.
Yeah yeah, I heard you the first time, I know you have proof I'm a liar. So, can you please provide it?
-
Conmker: can YOU please stop wasting my time?
Or, better yet, go ask a SCHILL, SCHMUCK or HERBERT for the answer; they oughta know, eh?
LOL!!!
-
Cheers, Hoppy; but it wasn't hard, was it?
All neutrals should google & even download John Schilling & George William Herbert's net history asap, before it all gets deleted.
NASA made a huge mistake naming them so blatantly; their identities were being established from at least year 2000 though, before the term 'shill' became well-known.
Plus it's just so LOL!!! to read.
Star Trek SCHILLS...
Star Wars SCHMUCKS...
Intergalactic HERBERTS...
Oh, my!
L.M.F.A.O!!!
What a world we live in...
P.s.: markjo; you do MATH with MATH; you do SCIENCE with OBSERVATION & EXPERIMENTS.
You know; like the ones you DIDN'T provide for your model of rocketry...
Which is why you LOST the 'debate'.
Ok, simpleton?
Btw; have you met John Schilling?
LOL!!!
P.s. sokarul: 'spent' fuel molecule?
LMAO, con-man!!!
You mean 'spent' like your argument?
Whatever; have YOU met John Schilling?
Why not ask HIM your pointless questions; he's a real, proper ROCKET-SCIENTIST, you know!
ROFLMFAO - AGAIN!!!
What should I call them? They can be a few different things. Anyways your lack of answering the question clearly show just how little you understand about what you preach. Like we all know, rockets work by Newton's 3rd law.
-
LOL!!!
Have you conveniently forgotten the monumental verbal & logical beat-down I gave you over the last 90+ pages, sokarul?
Or are you now just shit-posting too?
Seems that's all you space-cultist Trolls have left...
SCHILLS...
SCHMUCKS...
& HERBERTS...
LMFAO!!!
-
Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all. We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.
-
Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all. We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.
There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.
-
Any neutral outsider looking in will conclude that Papa, scepti and hoppy know nothing about science and engineering, just spout hot air and waffle and have been owned repeatedly by several of us on here.
-
You are simply lying & shitposting now, mainframes & sokarul, in a clear attempt to lengthen & derail the thread, turn a page & thus deflect attention from my discovery that four of the top internet 'rocket experts' have names that are slang terms for Idiots & Paid Liars.
Any neutrals wishing to read this post can just go back a page, though, or click on my name & read through my posts without all you & your space-cultist brethren's witless jabbering.
Really, sokarul; all the way throughout this thread you have repeatedly made statements of the most breathtaking stupidity.
For example; that ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is not ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel, & that the space-shuttle does not need aerodynamics.
& that's just two off the top of my head.
You have ZERO credibility in the eyes of any neutral reader & are utterly & completely DEFEATED.
So STFU & please change your arrogant & dishonest tag-line.
Now: SCHILLS, SCMUCKS & HERBERTS; what's that all about, 'coincidence-theorists' & cultists?
I remain, like everyone else by now: LMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
-
Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all. We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.
There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.
Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?
-
Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all. We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.
There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.
Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?
Explaining that to you would go right over your weird shaped head.
As long as you believe that atmosphere is full of particles just freely banging into each other randomly with a vacuum between them, then how in the hell can I explain anything to you, you dunter.
-
Indeed, sceptimatic; the subject has been done to death & the space-cultists LOST.
Comprehensively.
Now they are trying to deflect from my latest findings, namely that FOUR OF THE TOP INTERNET 'ROCKET EXPERTS' ARE NAMED AFTER SLANG TERMS FOR IDIOTS OR PAID LIARS.
This is doubtless to give them time to whip up a photoshop of the seemingly non-existent 'John Schilling Ph.d', delete as much evidence as they can, or just generally confer on tactics.
They are stupid; they are useless; they are trolls & they are SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS...
& right now, everyone is laughing at them.
No need for even a little 'lol' at this point...
Oh - who am I kidding?
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
Indeed, sceptimatic; the subject has been done to death & the space-cultists LOST.
Comprehensively.
Now they are trying to deflect from my latest findings, namely that FOUR OF THE TOP INTERNET 'ROCKET EXPERTS' ARE NAMED AFTER SLANG TERMS FOR IDIOTS OR PAID LIARS.
This is doubtless to give them time to whip up a photoshop of the seemingly non-existent 'John Schilling Ph.d', delete as much evidence as they can, or just generally confer on tactics.
They are stupid; they are useless; they are trolls & they are SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS...
& right now, everyone is laughing at them.
No need for even a little 'lol' at this point...
Oh - who am I kidding?
ROFLMFAO!!!
Exactly like playing chess with a pigeon, Papa struts around the board, knocking pieces over, squawks a bit, then craps all over the board before flying back to the flock claiming victory.
Good, so now that you've claimed victory you can go home to the flock and pretend you know how to play chess. LOL!!!
My guess is you won't stop trolling. I live in the vain hope that you might actually say something intelligent, instead of squawking and crapping everywhere.
-
Ammonium Perchlorate is the oxidiser, it is not the fuel.
Can you name the fuel component of the SRB boosters?
-
Rayzor/Evil Edna/Psyopticon/deepconfusion/etc: still trolling & shitposting I see?
Old habits die hard...
Mainframes: You do realise that anyone is free to google the term 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel' & see you for the maniacal Liar, Troll & Shitposter you truly are?
They're also free to google the temperature it burns at...
In fact they are all free to do their own research & think for themselves, Mr. Thought-Policeman, much as you may hate the idea.
Really; what is WRONG with you all?
Oh, hang on, I know - I've backed you into a corner & all you have left is LIES.
Good luck with them!
John SCHILLing, Markus SCHILLer, Robert SCHMUCKer & George William HERBERT; top 'rocket scientists' all...
People are free to google them too; & laugh at the paper-thin FRAUD they discover...
ROFLMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
-
Right now I am doing what my extended family calls a "staycation" where we see the local sights of Utah. As part of that I got the opertunity to visit the company which makes the solid fuel boosters for the Space Shuttle, which by the way is in Utah. They are one of countless contractors who help MASA build and operate their rockets and they are actively helping NASA develop the solid fuel boosters for the SLS. They also build boosters for the military for things like ICBM's and many other various missiles and warheads. That company actually did the first tests with space shuttle sized boosters to see if it was feasible because just like you they had their doubts. I got to see an actual Space Shuttle booster and it's arduous is about the same as my height.
The Space shuttle boosters work because the solid fuel burns from the inside out so the reaction only touches the outer casing for a few seconds, which is not nearly enough time to melt through a few inches of steel especially considering that gas is not very conductive. The boosters have a very thick casing because they have to be very strong to counter problems with scale.
-
What is the thickness of that steel casing & what type of steel is it constructed from, mikeman?
PRECISE answers, please!
Also, no matter how the fuel burns, the pressure INSIDE the casings will be the same as the pressure OUTSIDE; i.e. 2,800,000 lbs; which would blow it apart.
That's the problem with solid-fuel rockets, mikeman; above a certain size they simply cannot accelerate without bursting/burning out their casings.
& the biggest they can get before they do that - & still have a useful range/payload capability - is about 25 feet high & 3 feet wide.
& even those won't be going above 30km altitude max; cos of lack of atmospheric pressure.
Everyone knows this... Except you.
Sorry, space-cultists; rockets are rubbish as anything but artillery devices.
Oh; & fireworks - so enjoy them, cos that's as close as you'll ever get to going to 'space' on one.
LOL!!!
P.s. still working on the whole SCHILL/SCHMUCK/HERBERT mess, are we?
That's cool; I know you'll need time to sort out such a massive f**k-up...
Bet someone at JPL Head Office is having a shit-fit about it though; poor you!
LMFAO!!!
-
Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all. We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.
There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.
Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?
Explaining that to you would go right over your weird shaped head.
As long as you believe that atmosphere is full of particles just freely banging into each other randomly with a vacuum between them, then how in the hell can I explain anything to you, you dunter.
i have s degree in chemistry with a minor in physics, I can handle the answer. The real reason is you and papa kid can't answer the simple question
-
So you have "s degree in chemistry" do you, sokarul?
But not "s degree in English", I assume?
Also; we have already agreed that your Physics is quite extraordinarily 'minor'; so no argument there...
Anyhow; your simple question is based on a fraudulent & idiotic drawing that does not represent reality in any way, shape or form.
However; your continued spamming of it does deflect from any relevant points I am making...
Which is your sole purpose here, Mr. War On Science; so drag your utterly-defeated ass elsewhere.
For everyone else; my replies #1809 & #1817 on page 91 of this thread have gone totally unrefuted thus far by the space-cultists; check em out to find out what they're so scared of & desperate that you do not read.
LOL!!!
-
So you have "s degree in chemistry" do you, sokarul?
But not "s degree in English", I assume?
Also; we have already agreed that your Physics is quite extraordinarily 'minor'; so no argument there...
Anyhow; your simple question is based on a fraudulent & idiotic drawing that does not represent reality in any way, shape or form.
However; your continued spamming of it does deflect from any relevant points I am making...
Which is your sole purpose here, Mr. War On Science; so drag your utterly-defeated ass elsewhere.
For everyone else; my replies #1809 & #1817 on page 91 of this thread have gone totally unrefuted thus far by the space-cultists; check em out to find out what they're so scared of & desperate that you do not read.
LOL!!!
Still can't answer the question. Better luck next time kid.
-
P.s.: markjo; you do MATH with MATH; you do SCIENCE with OBSERVATION & EXPERIMENTS.
Please explain how someone can perform an observational experiment without any math to figure out exactly what you're supposed to be observing? How does someone design a rocket engine to provide 1000 pounds of thrust at sea level and then test said rocket engine without doing any math?
Are you sure that you know how science works? Physics is pretty much using math to explain the real world. At the very least, you need to do some statistical analysis of your multiple observations to see whether or not they really mean anything.
-
Sokarul: you have no 'question'; how can I answer what does not exist?
Please stop wasting everyone's time.
Markjo: are you insane?
Are you genuinely implying that no physical experiment is possible without mathematics??!!??
You are now truly disgusting me; you have no respect for, or knowledge of, science & are just promoting LIES.
Anyone who can google 'steps of the scientific method' will know this too; so 'sucks to be you' seems as good a finale as any.
Oh & BTW; any of you got an answer to my posts #1809 & 1807 on page 91 of this thread yet?
About how 4 of the internet's top 'rocket experts have names that are slang for IDIOT or PAID LIAR?
No.
No, you ain't, have you...
LMFAO!!!
-
Now; anyone care to explain why Four of the top internet 'rocket experts' are named after slang words for idiots & paid liars?
Well Schilling, Schiller and Schmucker are surnames of German origin, likely Jewish. Shill is a word of North American origin. All fairly common names that are not spelled like "shill".
They are RIPPING the piss out of you & you just cannot see it...
ROFLMFAO!!![/b]
Either that or you are grasping at straws.
-
Pronounce the word 'shill'. Rama Set.
Now try 'schill'...
Sound similar?
Then STFU.
Really; is that the best you can do?
But what about SCHMUCK?
Or HERBERT?
And how about actually proving that ANY of these idiots are actually REAL?
Still working on it are we?
Is it THAT hard?
In the days of Web 2.0?
LMFAO!!!!
You mugs...
-
Sokarul: you have no 'question'; how can I answer what does not exist?...
Were you born retarded or did some accident happen after?
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg (http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg)
...
sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?
I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...
But maybe that's just me?
..
You can't explain how a spent fuel molecule can hit an air molecule to propel a rocket. All you do is sidestep the question. Just like you did here.
So I ask again, how does a molecule hitting a molecule propel a rocket?
Why is it so hard to answer such an easy question? You preached on and on about how rockets push off of air and now you can't explain how. Seems to me you believe in something you know nothing about.
But I'm going to ask again. How does s spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule propel a rocket?
Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?
-
I pity you, sokarul; you are clearly the 'useful idiot' pushed forwards as being Expendable.
Sadly, as I am now going to bed, whatever 'point' you have will have to wait...
Idiot.
Still; enjoy being used, 'Mr. Undefeated'!
LOL!!!
-
Sokarul: you have no 'question'; how can I answer what does not exist?...
Were you born retarded or did some accident happen after?
Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg (http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg)
...
sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?
I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...
But maybe that's just me?
..
You can't explain how a spent fuel molecule can hit an air molecule to propel a rocket. All you do is sidestep the question. Just like you did here.
So I ask again, how does a molecule hitting a molecule propel a rocket?
Why is it so hard to answer such an easy question? You preached on and on about how rockets push off of air and now you can't explain how. Seems to me you believe in something you know nothing about.
But I'm going to ask again. How does s spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule propel a rocket?
Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?
You have a load of questions around the subject of molecules. Define a 'spent' molecule. That may get you an answer. Probably not as PL has a low tolerance for trolls (which I share).
-
You have a load of questions around the subject of molecules. Define a 'spent' molecule. That may get you an answer. Probably not as PL has a low tolerance for trolls (which I share).
I think a spent molecule would be a molecule that has interacted with the ship for the last time.
-
I pity you, sokarul; you are clearly the 'useful idiot' pushed forwards as being Expendable.
Sadly, as I am now going to bed, whatever 'point' you have will have to wait...
Idiot.
Still; enjoy being used, 'Mr. Undefeated'!
LOL!!!
Well even when yo get destroyed you still have time for a laugh.
You have a load of questions around the subject of molecules. Define a 'spent' molecule. That may get you an answer. Probably not as PL has a low tolerance for trolls (which I share).
A spent fuel molecule would be anything that comes out of a rocket nozzle. They claimed the rocket exhaust pushes off the atmosphere. I asked how and have not gotten an answer.
-
Pronounce the word 'shill'. Rama Set.
Now try 'schill'...
Sound similar?
Then STFU.
You have discovered that words can sound the same. Good for you. Now can you please explain how it is relevant to anything?
Really; is that the best you can do?
But what about SCHMUCK?
Or HERBERT?
I can only work with the material you give me.
And how about actually proving that ANY of these idiots are actually REAL?
Still working on it are we?
Is it THAT hard?
In the days of Web 2.0?
LMFAO!!!!
You mugs...
I actually have no idea who these people are or why you are constructing such an elaborate straw man around them. Have you gotten around to proving that Saturn Vs cannot lift off the ground?
-
You have a load of questions around the subject of molecules. Define a 'spent' molecule. That may get you an answer. Probably not as PL has a low tolerance for trolls (which I share).
Rocket fuel burns, the combustion products are sometimes called spent fuel, but I'd be surprised if you knew that. Spent molecule, refers to a molecule of whatever the combustion products are. Sometimes called the exhaust. What's behind the dislike for trolls? Family dispute?
Do you want to lead the cheer squad to get Papa Legba to explain conservation of momentum?
LOL!! ROTFLMAO. ( just a little Papa language )
-
Papa - you still haven't answered my question. What is the combustible fuel that reacts with ammonium perchlorate in SRB boosters.
-
Moving on again...
Please read Reply #1803 on page 91 of this thread, wherein Mikeman says: 'Refer to the quote in my forum signature. It's not science unless it's based off measurement and supported by math'.
The problem is, that mikeman's forum signature reads: 'The only source of knowledge is experience'.
Whereas it is markjo's forum signature that reads: 'You cannot have a science without measurement'.
My question is : why was mikeman referring to markjo's forum signature as though it were his own?
Oops... A bit late for an edit now, eh?
Maybe deleting it'll help?
The only thing lamer than using sock-puppets is being caught using sock-puppets; BUSTED, lame-o markjo!
ROFLMFAO!!!
At all you SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS!!!
-
Papa - you still haven't answered my question. What is the combustible fuel that reacts with ammonium perchlorate in SRB boosters.
Answer the question now that you're back......
-
Google 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel', dumbass.
And what about markjo's sock-puppeting bust, as outlined in my last post?
Does that not disturb you?
Of course not...
You HERBERT!
LMAO!!!
-
Google 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel', dumbass.
And what about markjo's sock-puppeting bust, as outlined in my last post?
Does that not disturb you?
Of course not...
You HERBERT!
LMAO!!!
I already know so I dont need to google it. I would however like you to answer the question, as Ammonium Perchlorate is NOT fuel it is the oxidiser for the fuel.
So AGAIN, what is the fuel in SRB's?
As for the Markjo thing. Don't really care as it has nothing to do with the debate regarding rockets.
-
LOL!!!
I'm sitting here waiting for mikeman's reply #1803 on page 91 of this thread, which shows clear proof he is a sock-puppet of markjo, to be either edited or deleted.
You are sitting here waiting for me to reply to an irrelevant question whereof you already know the answer.
Seems we must wait together...
Which will, as ever, be unpleasant.
LOL!!!
Schills, schmucks & Herberts EVERYWHERE!
-
Google 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel', dumbass.
And what about markjo's sock-puppeting bust, as outlined in my last post?
Does that not disturb you?
Of course not...
You HERBERT!
LMAO!!!
Ammonium perchlorate is still an oxidizer. The fuel is something else.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how one molecule hitting another molecule propels a rocket.
-
No, sokarul; you are - as ever - WASTING MY TIME.
Perhaps if you change your tag to 'utterly defeated round-earther & idiot' I may respond to your nonsense.
Then again, perhaps not...
Anyhow; what do YOU think to the evidence I just provided to prove mikeman is a sock-puppet of markjo?
Nothing?
How very surprising...
LMFAO - at all you SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS!!!
-
Papa - answer the question.
What is the other reactant (the fuel) other than Ammonium Perchlorate in the SRB's?
-
No, sokarul; you are - as ever - WASTING MY TIME.
Perhaps if you change your tag to 'utterly defeated round-earther & idiot' I may respond to your nonsense.
Then again, perhaps not...
Anyhow; what do YOU think to the evidence I just provided to prove mikeman is a sock-puppet of markjo?
Nothing?
How very surprising...
LMFAO - at all you SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS!!!
I should change my title because you know nothing about chemistry and can't even explain your claims?
No, I'm good.
-
LOL!!!
Let's enliven the wait for your little double-act to say anything relevant with a little culture...
'I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.'
Now; markjo's sock-puppetry bust - any comment?
Do you consider trying to force a debate by using sock-puppets in any way ethical?
Or do you not care?
Do you not have any moral scruples?
So many questions; none of which you will answer...
Though you petulantly insist I answer yours, even though they have already been answered.
How very peculiar; you're not Trolls by any chance are you?
Or schills?
Or schmucks?
Or herberts?
lol.
-
Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.
However, I must take you to task on one thing.
That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.
It does not.
It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.
& it is only when the latter is done away with that we can begin to address the true nature of the object we inhabit...
The answer will shock you, I believe.
But as it will be as LOL as anything can ever be, I will be content...
Cos I just love to LOL!!!
I'm doing it now, in fact, after reading markjo's latest self-contradictory post...
Refer to the quote in my forum signature. It's not science unless it's based off of measurement and supported by math.
Here's the offending post, unaltered by myself; any comments as to why mikeman is referring to markjo's forum signature as his own?
I have plenty of patience; perhaps more poetry would help while away the wait?
'The fool sees not the same tree the wise man sees...' William Blake.
-
mikeman never had any credibility because we all knew he was a multi playing games. It looks like markjo has now lost all credibility now that's he's been sussed as mikeman. Probably one of many names he's used over the period of time he's been on this forum.
There's a few people from that other duplicate forum that are also playing games on here. They stand out like a sore thumb to those who take enough notice.
Funny as hell to watch. ;D
-
mikeman never had any credibility because we all knew he was a multi playing games. It looks like markjo has now lost all credibility now that's he's been sussed as mikeman. Probably one of many names he's used over the period of time he's been on this forum.
There's a few people from that other duplicate forum that are also playing games on here. They stand out like a sore thumb to those who take enough notice.
Funny as hell to watch. ;D
I thought you ran away from this thread. Are you going to explain how a molecule hitting another molecule can propel a rocket?
-
Indeed, sceptimatic; I knew from my very first posts here that someone was sock-puppeting a LOT, but had to be patient until evidence turned up.
I noticed markjo/mikeman's mistake in attributing forum signatures immediately but let it mature a while before revealing it.
I'd say he's had it now; in the light of this, all his 27,000+ posts mean NOTHING.
& by God; that is LOL!!!
Btw; is there any kind of punishment for this sort of thing?
You'd think so...
Any mods out there care to enlighten us?
Or perhaps the main-frames & sock-arul double-act can suggest something?
I vote PERMA-BANS ALL ROUND!
ROFLMFAO at all the SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS INFESTING THIS PLACE!!!
p.s. sock-arul; if a molecule hitting another molecule cannot propel a rocket, then what is the purpose of the combustion chamber?
Or is that not made of molecules?
Non-existent Idiot.
-
Indeed, sceptimatic; I knew from my very first posts here that someone was sock-puppeting a LOT, but had to be patient until evidence turned up.
I noticed markjo/mikeman's mistake in attributing forum signatures immediately but let it mature a while before revealing it.
I'd say he's had it now; in the light of this, all his 27,000+ posts mean NOTHING.
& by God; that is LOL!!!
Btw; is there any kind of punishment for this sort of thing?
You'd think so...
Any mods out there care to enlighten us?
Or perhaps the main-frames & sock-arul double-act can suggest something?
I vote PERMA-BANS ALL ROUND!
ROFLMFAO at all the SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS INFESTING THIS PLACE!!!
p.s. sock-arul; if a molecule hitting another molecule cannot propel a rocket, then what is the purpose of the combustion chamber?
Or is that not made of molecules?
Non-existent Idiot.
A combustion chamber is the location that combustion takes place. It's in the name. Although it would be tough for you as you think ammonium perchlorate is a fuel.
-
Indeed, sceptimatic; I knew from my very first posts here that someone was sock-puppeting a LOT, but had to be patient until evidence turned up.
I noticed markjo/mikeman's mistake in attributing forum signatures immediately but let it mature a while before revealing it.
I'd say he's had it now; in the light of this, all his 27,000+ posts mean NOTHING.
& by God; that is LOL!!!
Btw; is there any kind of punishment for this sort of thing?
You'd think so...
Any mods out there care to enlighten us?
Or perhaps the main-frames & sock-arul double-act can suggest something?
I vote PERMA-BANS ALL ROUND!
ROFLMFAO at all the SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS INFESTING THIS PLACE!!!
p.s. sock-arul; if a molecule hitting another molecule cannot propel a rocket, then what is the purpose of the combustion chamber?
Or is that not made of molecules?
Non-existent Idiot.
What is the other reactant in SRB's? Answer the question.
The purpose of the combustion chamber is to allow the reactants to combust in an enclosed environment to allow pressure to build. The increase in pressure will result in large numbers of exhuast molecules to impact the chamber wall imparting force upon the rocket. Exhaust molecules that impact air molecules only impart force upon the air not the rocket.
-
SOCK-arul; if - as you claim - a molecule hitting another molecule cannot propel a rocket then Newton's 3rd is dead in the water.
Because it's kinda reliant on molecules hitting other molecules to produce motion.
But you wouldn't know that as you are a veritable Suicide-Bomber in The War On Science.
LOL!!!
Oh, & yes; I do believe that ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is a 'fuel'; again, your mindless hatred of science & refusal to actually read anything I write blinds you to that fact.
LMAO!!!
At YOU, HERBERT!!!
& MAIN-frames; just stop your Schill-y wiki-spamming & go away, eh?
You're finished too.
ROFLMFAO at your embarrassing antics!!!
-
So you cant even tell us what the reactants in a SRB are?
-
SOCK-arul; if - as you claim - a molecule hitting another molecule cannot propel a rocket then Newton's 3rd is dead in the water.
Because it's kinda reliant on molecules hitting other molecules to produce motion.
But you wouldn't know that as you are a veritable Suicide-Bomber in The War On Science.
LOL!!!
Oh, & yes; I do believe that ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is a 'fuel'; again, your mindless hatred of science & refusal to actually read anything I write blinds you to that fact.
LMAO!!!
At YOU, HERBERT!!!
& MAIN-frames; just stop your Schill-y wiki-spamming & go away, eh?
You're finished too.
ROFLMFAO at your embarrassing antics!!!
That's not how his 3rd law works. Read up on it and report back.
A rocket engine produces thrust from the exhaust leaving the nozzle at very high speed using Newton's 3rd law as the mechanism. It does not profucd thrust from the exhaust hitting the air.
I'm not quite sure why you are changing my question. My question was always about the exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule. It was never about anything else.
How can you read so many webpages claiming ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer and still call it a fuel?
-
SOCK-arul: Reported for lying, trolling, shitposting & being a laughable sock-puppet.
LOL!!!
-
SOCK-arul: Reported for lying, trolling, shitposting & being a laughable sock-puppet.
LOL!!!
Bravo. A+ rebuttal.
-
What is the reactant other than Ammonium Perchlorate in a SRB?
Easy question. Why don't you answer?
-
MAIN-frames: ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel; I have never suggested it is not.
You are reported for trolling, lying, shitposting & being a laughable sock-puppet user.
LOL!!!
-
MAIN-frames: ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel; I have never suggested it is not.
You are reported for trolling, lying, shitposting & being a laughable sock-puppet user.
LOL!!!
Ok smart arse. What is the Ammonium Perchlorate reacting with to produce thrust?
-
You already told us.
Or have you forgotten?
Will the answer somehow stop ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel from being ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?
Or from burning at 3000+C?
If not, then please stop trolling & shitposting.
-
You already told us.
Or have you forgotten?
Will the answer somehow stop ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel from being ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?
Or from burning at 3000+C?
If not, then please stop trolling & shitposting.
For the last time. Ammonium Perchlorate is not fuel. It is an oxidiser. There is another component that is called fuel. What is it?
-
Now; markjo's sock-puppetry bust - any comment?
I will say this one time and one time only. I am no one's sock puppet or alt and have no active alt accounts on this forum. I am not responsible for anyone's typos or misstatements except for my own. Whether you choose to believe me or not is none of my concern, but I consider this unnecessary derailment to be closed.
BTW, aluminum is the fuel that the ammonium perchlorate oxidizer reacts with in the SRB.
Flexibility of the propellant is controlled by the ratio of binder to curing agent and the solid ingredients, namely oxidizer and aluminum. The solid fuel is actually powdered aluminum -- a form similar to the foil wraps in your kitchen -- mixed with oxygen provided by a chemical called ammonium perchlorate.
-
MAIN-frames: ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel; I have never suggested it is not.
You are reported for trolling, lying, shitposting & being a laughable sock-puppet user.
LOL!!!
If gasoline(fuel) in a car reacts with oxygen from air,, what does ammonium perchlorate(fuel according to you) react with?
-
Why are you arguing with this lunatic?
LOL!!!
ROFOLA!!!
LOLROLALOL!!!
-
Markjo: how DARE you tell US how to react to OBVIOUS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING A SOCK-PUPPET?!?
'Typos or mis-statements' my arse; YOU messed up; there is a HUGE difference between the words 'my' & 'markjo's', which even as dumb an entity as mikeman allegedly is would never make.
You are BUSTED, markjo; deal with it instead of puffing your pompous self up & pretending it all never happened, you crook.
And how the f**k is my PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING A SOCK-PUPPET TO TRY TO FORCE A 'WIN' IN A DEBATE 'derailing' the very thread you are attempting to FORCE A 'WIN' IN?!?
So; NO - this matter is not 'closed', no matter how much you wish it were...
Good God, you have managed to disgust me even more than you usually do; & you disgust me A LOT, markjo!
Mainframes/sock-arul: enough of your nonsense - reported for shitposting.
Oh - & now 'jimmy the crab' scuttles to the rescue... LMFAO!!!
-
Markjo: how DARE you tell US how to react to OBVIOUS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING A SOCK-PUPPET?!?
'Typos or mis-statements' my arse; YOU messed up; there is a HUGE difference between the words 'my' & 'markjo's', which even as dumb an entity as mikeman allegedly is would never make.
You are BUSTED, markjo; deal with it instead of puffing your pompous self up & pretending it all never happened, you crook.
And how the f**k is my PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING A SOCK-PUPPET TO TRY TO FORCE A 'WIN' IN A DEBATE 'derailing' the very thread you are attempting to FORCE A 'WIN' IN?!?
So; NO - this matter is not 'closed', no matter how much you wish it were...
Good God, you have managed to disgust me even more than you usually do; & you disgust me A LOT, markjo!
Mainframes/sock-arul: enough of your nonsense - reported for shitposting.
Oh - & now 'jimmy the crab' scuttles to the rescue... LMFAO!!!
You are BUSTED, Papa Legba; deal with it instead of puffing your pompous self up & pretending it all never happened, you crook.
-
SOCK-arul - reported for shitposting.
Again.
Markjo - you are BUSTED for sock-puppeting; & every single neutral reader knows it.
I would say 'shame on you', but it is abundantly clear you have no shame whatsoever.
So, instead, I say: ROFLMFAO!!!
Goodnight, losers...
-
No way of getting out of this markjo. Think yourself lucky that you're backed by the admin and mods. Be more careful with all your other names.
-
No way of getting out of this markjo. Think yourself lucky that you're backed by the admin and mods. Be more careful with all your other names.
Scepti you have some questions to answer in other threads, we really need your insightfulness. I didn't know you were hiding here?
On a different note, some tones I noticed from one post to the next...
RE: "Some basic questions...."
FE: "Some insults, some counter questions, some deflection, some more insults..."
RE: Some more basic questions, same ones from previous unanswered post"
FE: "Some more insults, deflections and counter questions, some added gibberish, some more insults"
RE: "Patiently asking the same questions still unanswered"
FE: "Repeat of previous insults and some more gibberish"
And so the pattern carries on...
-
Indeed Pavarotti.
It is clear that Papa had no understanding of rocketry or indeed basic physics and chemistry. His claim that space flight is completely without merit or any evidential backing and is therefore null and void.
Papa until you provide some actual fact based evidence you have well and truly lost this debate.
-
Markjo - you are BUSTED for sock-puppeting; & every single neutral reader knows it.
What would you know about being neutral?
BTW, did you figure out that powdered aluminum is the fuel in the shuttle's SRBs yet?
-
I always knew that, proven sock-puppet user & attempted brain-washer mikeman/markjo.
What's more I never disputed it.
A simple google-search of 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel' shows that I was referring to a generic term for the type of fuel used in the SRB's, as well as many other rockets.
& you know this; but, as you are utterly uninterested in Truth, you & your cronies chose to spam & shitpost on the subject for pages, rather than address what is important, i.e. the burn-temperature of this type of fuel.
Which is over 3000C; easily hot enough to melt all types of steel.
& what are the SRB's made of?
Steel, allegedly.
What type of steel? & how thick?
NASA won't say.
Which is a bit suspicious, no?
But carry on lying, shitposting, spamming & sock-puppeting if you think it'll help your fubar case.
Cos the fact is, you lost this debate weeks ago & nothing you do now can change that.
& nobody cares what you think about anything, anyway, Mr. 27,000 posts-of-wasted-life...
So; to sum up: ROFLMFAO at YOU, busted sad-sack sock-user!!!
-
Indeed Pavarotti.
It is clear that Papa had no understanding of rocketry or indeed basic physics and chemistry. His claim that space flight is completely without merit or any evidential backing and is therefore null and void.
Papa until you provide some actual fact based evidence you have well and truly lost this debate.
Papa should just go to a fireworks shop and buy some fireworks. The rockets work on the same principle. If we believe Papa then we are all going to wait in vain for next new years fireworks as it wont work anymore.
Doh! I forgot fireworks is fake as well, part of the conspiracy.
-
A simple google-search of 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel' shows that I was referring to a generic term for the type of fuel used in the SRB's, as well as many other rockets.
From the first hit of just such a Google search:
Oxidizers:
Ammonium perchlorate as the primary oxidizer
Metal-oxide catalysts as thermite oxidizers
High energy fuels:
Aluminium (high performance, most common)
Magnesium (medium performance)
Zinc (low performance)
Low energy fuels acting as binders:
HTPB
CTPB
PBAN
& you know this; but, as you are utterly uninterested in Truth, you & your cronies chose to spam & shitpost on the subject for pages, rather than address what is important, i.e. the burn-temperature of this type of fuel.
Which is over 3000C; easily hot enough to melt all types of steel.
First of all, we know that amonium perchlorate is just one component of the fuel. Secondly, solid rocket fuel generally burns from the inside out, meaning that the 3000C burn temperature doesn't hit the steel casing until the fuel is almost completely spent.
& what are the SRB's made of?
Steel, allegedly.
What type of steel? & how thick?
NASA won't say.
Which is a bit suspicious, no?
Not really, considering that NASA doesn't make the SRBs; Alliant Techsystems does.
BTW:
The two SRBs, which could withstand greater aerodynamic loads, separated from the ET and continued in uncontrolled powered flight. The SRB casings were made of half-inch (12.7 mm) thick steel and were much stronger than the orbiter and ET; thus, both SRBs survived the breakup of the space shuttle stack, even though the right SRB was still suffering the effects of the joint burn-through that had set the destruction of Challenger in motion.
-
As noted in one of my previous posts... started with insults:
I always knew that, proven sock-puppet user & attempted brain-washer mikeman/markjo.
The body contains counter questions, lots of deflecting and some gibberish thrown in for good measure:
What's more I never disputed it.
A simple google-search of 'ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel' shows that I was referring to a generic term for the type of fuel used in the SRB's, as well as many other rockets.
& you know this; but, as you are utterly uninterested in Truth, you & your cronies chose to spam & shitpost on the subject for pages, rather than address what is important, i.e. the burn-temperature of this type of fuel.
Which is over 3000C; easily hot enough to melt all types of steel.
& what are the SRB's made of?
Steel, allegedly.
What type of steel? & how thick?
NASA won't say.
Which is a bit suspicious, no?
But carry on lying, shitposting, spamming & sock-puppeting if you think it'll help your fubar case.
Cos the fact is, you lost this debate weeks ago & nothing you do now can change that.
Closing statements as predicted ends with some choice insults:
& nobody cares what you think about anything, anyway, Mr. 27,000 posts-of-wasted-life...
So; to sum up: ROFLMFAO at YOU, busted sad-sack sock-user!!!
-
Legba, I already gave you the data on the SRB casings. Which isnt important because if you check a SRB schematic you will see that there is material between the casings and the fuel chamber. Besides, the nature of solid rocketry is such that the hot exhaust never enters in contact with the casing: it is the fuel itself what acts as a combustion chamber. This can be perceived even with cardboard-gunpowder model rockets. I assume you have studied those first, right?
I also would like a source on the exhaust temperature. Not that I doubt you, its just that I simply dont have the time to check myself, and it is kind of nice to source our own claims.
You still havent answered thst simple physics question that was proposed to you. Please do answer
-
It's now official, the Papa Legba style of insulting posts sprinkled with LOL's and ROTFL's is classified as Angry Ranting.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64168.0#.Va8_5_2oBZ4 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64168.0#.Va8_5_2oBZ4)
Too funny for words, the signature sleuth fails again.
-
Hi rayzor/ausgeoff/evil edna/psyopticon/deepconfusion!
Butt-hurt much, losers?
LOL!!!
Markjo: IGNORED for using sock-puppets.
Conker: Use google, genius.
& the problem of solid fuel rockets burning out &/or bursting their cases is as old as rocketry itself.
You'd know this if you were even slightly interested in anything except spreading Lies.
Everyone else - unlike yourself, inexplicably - can google 'rockets burst casings' & 'rockets burn out casings' & see I am correct.
Rheinmettal do some excellent research on the subject; but then they're REAL rocket scientists, unlike NASA's FAKE rocket scientists.
Pavarotti: read the entire thread before jumping in with your foot in your mouth; most of your b.s. has already been dealt with.
*Yawn!*
So; anyone got anything else to add that is not pointless, idiotic trolling & derailing?
No?
Then we'll move on...
-
So; let's talk about the Space Shuttle Ejector seats.
Seems they were fitted for the first 4 flights, then removed.
For several alleged reasons, none of which make much sense if thought about for long...
But forget that; making sense is not the purpose of NASA; for example, why was the Shuttle not designed with an Ejection Capsule built-in?
The B58, XB-70 & F-111 all had them; so why not the Shuttle?
Again, it makes no sense to leave the crew with no means of escape whatsoever; they're human beings, not crash-test dummies...
Ah! But they had 'the right stuff'; such things wouldn't matter to them, even though they would to any normal pilot.
Again; forget all the above nonsense; because I will tell you why the Shuttle had ejector seats to start with.
It is so NASA could leave the ejector seat hatches in place; look at any photo or plan of the Shuttle & there they are, plain as day.
Thus, when NASA used their silly little scaled-down jet-powered mock-up of the Shuttle to fake the landings, the pilot could have an ejector seat (as any sane pilot would in such a lashed-up p.o.s.) & NASA could give the public a reason for the ejector seat hatches being there at all.
Simple stuff...
But you'll nit-pick & blather otherwise forever, won't you, space-cultists?
Star Trek-loving Schills, Schmucks & Herberts, on a 5-year mission to seek out the Truth & stifle it, wherever it may be found...
Laughing. Out. Loud... At you!!!
-
So; let's talk about the Space Shuttle Ejector seats.
Seems they were fitted for the first 4 flights, then removed.
For several alleged reasons, none of which make much sense if thought about for long...
But forget that; making sense is not the purpose of NASA; for example, why was the Shuttle not designed with an Ejection Capsule built-in?
The B58, XB-70 & F-111 all had them; so why not the Shuttle?
Again, it makes no sense to leave the crew with no means of escape whatsoever; they're human beings, not crash-test dummies...
Ah! But they had 'the right stuff'; such things wouldn't matter to them, even though they would to any normal pilot.
Again; forget all the above nonsense; because I will tell you why the Shuttle had ejector seats to start with.
It is so NASA could leave the ejector seat hatches in place; look at any photo or plan of the Shuttle & there they are, plain as day.
Thus, when NASA used their silly little scaled-down jet-powered mock-up of the Shuttle to fake the landings, the pilot could have an ejector seat (as any sane pilot would in such a lashed-up p.o.s.) & NASA could give the public a reason for the ejector seat hatches being there at all.
Simple stuff...
But you'll nit-pick & blather otherwise forever, won't you, space-cultists?
Star Trek-loving Schills, Schmucks & Herberts, on a 5-year mission to seek out the Truth & stifle it, wherever it may be found...
Laughing. Out. Loud... At you!!!
I'm forever amazed by your stupidity, ejector seats on a spacecraft? What for? So they can eject into the vacuum of outer space? FFS.
What's with the Schills, Schmucks & Herberts, are they your neighbours or something?
Seriously, if you are sitting on top of so much rocket fuel, not having an ejector seat is the least of your problems. Oh, almost forgot ROTFLMAO!!! LOL!!!
-
And the Trolling never stops...
The most dangerous part of the Shuttle's mission is when it is in the atmosphere & below hypersonic speeds; thus, ejector seats - or, better, an ejection capsule for the entire crew - would be a desirable safety feature, would it not, unthinking Troll-entity rayzor/ausgeoff/psyopticon/evil edna/deepconfusion?
And you'd know exactly what I mean by Schills, Schmucks & Herberts if you'd actually read the thread; thanks for showing that you have not, buffoonish Troll-entity ausgeoff/psyopticon/etc.
& of course I am ROFLMAO at you; everyone is.
Or have you not noticed that, Billy No-mates?
-
And the Trolling never stops...
The most dangerous part of the Shuttle's mission is when it is in the atmosphere & below hypersonic speeds; thus, ejector seats - or, better, an ejection capsule for the entire crew - would be a desirable safety feature, would it not, unthinking Troll-entity rayzor/ausgeoff/psyopticon/evil edna/deepconfusion?
And you'd know exactly what I mean by Schills, Schmucks & Herberts if you'd actually read the thread; thanks for showing that you have not, buffoonish Troll-entity ausgeoff/psyopticon/etc.
& of course I am ROFLMAO at you; everyone is.
Or have you not noticed that, Billy No-mates?
Of course I read your inane drivel about peoples names, but I don't see why you are keeping on about it, unless you have some personal connection, are they friend of yours?
The most dangerous part of the shuttle mission, apart from when it's in space is the re-entry, not when it's taking off, ejecting either in space or during re-entry is not a good survival plan.
"Billy No-mates"? ROTFLMAO!! is that the best you've got? !!!
-
LOL!!!
So Challenger blew up whist in space or on re-entry, did it, stupid lying Troll-entity?
Pathetic.
Fact is, ANY ejection system would give the crew a vastly better chance of survival than ABSOLUTELY ZERO; which is what they currently have.
But as long as you divert from my main point, which is that the ejector-seat hatches are still there so the pilot of the scaled-down jet-powered version of the shuttle NASA employ for faking the landings can use them, you're happy I guess?
No matter how foolish & retarded you look in the process.
Wow - sucks to be you!
& as for your silly conclusion - gr8 b8, m8; I r8 8/8.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
& the problem of solid fuel rockets burning out &/or bursting their cases is as old as rocketry itself.
Which means that they've had plenty of time to work out a solution to the problem.
-
LOL!!!
So Challenger blew up whist in space or on re-entry, did it, stupid lying Troll-entity?
Pathetic.
Fact is, ANY ejection system would give the crew a vastly better chance of survival than ABSOLUTELY ZERO; which is what they currently have.
But as long as you divert from my main point, which is that the ejector-seat hatches are still there so the pilot of the scaled-down jet-powered version of the shuttle NASA employ for faking the landings can use them, you're happy I guess?
No matter how foolish & retarded you look in the process.
Wow - sucks to be you!
& as for your silly conclusion - gr8 b8, m8; I r8 8/8.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
I've seen a Challenger Launch, (not the STS-51) and yes it's dangerous in the extreme, us space "cultists" who can understand the power of those shuttle solid rocket boosters know that there's no way to stop once they are going. It's like sitting on top of a rocket, oh, wait you don't understand rockets, so that wouldn't make sense, no wonder you think ejector seats are a good idea.
Columbia (STS-107) broke up on re-entry, which I would maintain is probably the most dangerous period of a shuttle mission. But you are so retarded you think it's all fake so that would mean it was a jet powered fake that burnt up at an altitude of 50 km, (160,000ft ) which I understand is relatively late in the re-entry, but still higher than any jet aircraft could ever reach, certainly you wouldn't be keen to eject at that altitude.
-
Indeed, markjo; & that 'solution' is to not make solid-fuel rockets any bigger than around 25 feet high & 3 feet wide if you expect them to have any useful range/payload capability.
Cos if they're any bigger they either won't take off or won't go very far.
This is old news btw; I suggest neutrals search out pre-1960 publications for more info - it all got a bit more controlled after that...
But you're free to believe in NASA's million-pound-bomb SRB's if you like...
Enough of that though; why are you even here, busted sock-puppet user?
You should be perma-banned imo, but at the very least you should be too ashamed to show your lying face...
Oh - that's right - you have no shame!
I overlooked your total moral bankruptcy...
My bad.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Rayzor: so you've seen a Challenger launch now, have you?
Was ausGeoff there with you?
As for the rest of your post; LOL!!!
They use a jet-powered fake for the landings; it is clearly subsonic, as demonstrated by its laughable aerodynamics, & probably doesn't go above a few thousand feet in altitude or 450mph speed.
It also has ejector seat hatches so the pilot can escape if he loses control of this frankenstein-like lash-up.
The rest is crappy special effects.
You are such a transparent, lying old troll that it is embarrassing; no wonder you were such a failure on other, more perceptive, forums.
But I like your new signature; good to see you're learning something, at least.
& they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...
ROFLMAO - as ever, at YOU!!!
-
Indeed, markjo; & that 'solution' is to not make solid-fuel rockets any bigger than around 25 feet high & 3 feet wide if you expect them to have any useful range/payload capability.
Cos if they're any bigger they either won't take off or won't go very far.
If only you could actually prove your assertion with some evidence.
This is old news btw; I suggest neutrals search out pre-1960 publications for more info - it all got a bit more controlled after that...
Why should someone search out pre-1960 publications about rockets developed in the 1970s? ???
But you're free to believe in NASA's million-pound-bomb SRB's if you like...
And I suppose that you're free to disbelieve them if you like.
It also has ejector seat hatches so the pilot can escape if he loses control of this frankenstein-like lash-up.
Actually, the first few test flights of Columbia had ejector seats because it was just a 2 man crew. Once the shuttle became operational, the ejector seats were removed because it didn't seem fair for the crew members on the lower deck to not have them.
-
'...because it didn't seem fair for the crew on the lower deck to not have them.'
'didn't seem fair' - LMAO!!!
Just listen to yourself for a minute, you demented fraud!
As if that's how the safety systems on a multi-billion dollar hypersonic space-craft project are worked out - on the basis of what is 'fair'!
Like it's divvying up a birthday cake at a kid's party or something!
Oh my God; you are simply beyond parody, you sock-puppet-using, delusional, 27,000+ posts-of-utter-garbage-spewing madman!
Really; you have made my day with that statement...
'didn't seem fair'.
Just ROFLMFAO!!!
-
& the problem of solid fuel rockets burning out &/or bursting their cases is as old as rocketry itself.
Which means that they've had plenty of time to work out a solution to the problem.
The fireworks industry and Estes Rockets solved this by using paper.
-
Problems of Scale, SOCK-arul; already explained.
&, as you are well aware of the above fact, this: reported for shitposting.
-
As if that's how the safety systems on a multi-billion dollar hypersonic space-craft project are worked out - on the basis of what is 'fair'!
You're right, let the crew on the flight deck eject and screw the rest of the crew on the second deck. ::)
-
Whatever 'seems fair' to you, markjo...
You watch too many movies, boy-scout.
Now; just stew in the pure idiot-juice of your last statement for a while, until I stop laughing.
Then we'll move on again...
-
Whatever 'seems fair' to you, markjo...
You watch too many movies, boy-scout.
Now; just stew in the pure idiot-juice of your last statement for a while, until I stop laughing.
Then we'll move on again...
Are you going to explain how rockets push of the atmosphere anytime soon?
-
I already have, SOCK-arul.
Repeatedly.
As has sceptimatic.
Repeatedly.
Therefore: you are reported for shitposting.
Repeatedly.
Getting the picture yet, time-wasting idiot?
LOL!!!
-
I already have, SOCK-arul.
Repeatedly.
As has sceptimatic.
Repeatedly.
Would you care to try and explain it in a way that makes sense?
Air molecules stacking up?
LOL!!!
-
markjo: LOL!!!
You are a very silly & butt-hurt little man & are losing your marbles.
Blow on a piece of paper; does it move?
Yes?
Ergo: air molecules stacking up!
Idiot.
Anyway; let's look at Newton 3 again; it deals with Forces.
So what is a Force?
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Forces result from interactions.
So; when a rocket ignites its exhaust, it produces an ACTION, or FORCE, in one direction of, say, 5,000 mph.
What OTHER OBJECT, then, in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from the exhaust, does that force INTERACT with?
It has to be something OTHER than the rocket; what, then, is it?
& how can that EQUAL & OPPOSITE interaction EXCEED the original 5,000 mph FORCE?
The NASA-cultist's model of a rocket 'pushing on itself', or its own exhaust - somehow - is, of course, impossible...
But the crazed sci-fi addicts will try to convince you otherwise; caveat emptor!
P.s. markjo: reported for shitposting.
LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
ROFLCOPTER!!
SHITPOSTING!!
LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
& in scuttles Jimmy-the-sock, to detract from my perfectly legible, relevant & constructive post, which was the one above his btw, Reply #1909.
Anyhoo; reported for shitposting.
Cos that's all you got left, ain't it, cultists?
-
markjo: LOL!!!
You are a very silly & butt-hurt little man & are losing your marbles.
Blow on a piece of paper; does it move?
Yes?
Ergo: air molecules stacking up!
Idiot.
Anyway; let's look at Newton 3 again; it deals with Forces.
So what is a Force?
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Forces result from interactions.
So; when a rocket ignites its exhaust, it produces an ACTION, or FORCE, in one direction of, say, 5,000 mph.
What OTHER OBJECT, then, in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from the exhaust, does that force INTERACT with?
It has to be something OTHER than the rocket; what, then, is it?
& how can that EQUAL & OPPOSITE interaction EXCEED the original 5,000 mph FORCE?
The NASA-cultist's model of a rocket 'pushing on itself', or its own exhaust - somehow - is, of course, impossible...
But the crazed sci-fi addicts will try to convince you otherwise; caveat emptor!
P.s. markjo: reported for shitposting.
LOL!!!
Rocket pushes exhaust, exhaust pushes rocket. Rocket physics 101.
-
Wrong.
Please READ my post properly, plus the entirety of this thread, including viewing all the easily-verifiable evidence & trying all the simple experiments I suggest, then THINK AGAIN.
You won't; but then you're probably not here to 'think', are you?
Your problem...
LOL!!!
-
Problems of Scale, SOCK-arul; already explained.
&, as you are well aware of the above fact, this: reported for shitposting.
AllI have seen is you run away from the question.
markjo: LOL!!!
You are a very silly & butt-hurt little man & are losing your marbles.
Blow on a piece of paper; does it move?
Yes?
Ergo: air molecules stacking up!
No, that is air molecules imparting a force on the paper. Throw a baseball at glass window, did the window break? Baseballs stacking up? See, it doesn't work.
The exhaust of a rocket is moving opposite direction of the rocket, there is no way for it to hit air and then transfer a force back to the rocket.
Idiot.
Yes you are.
Anyway; let's look at Newton 3 again; it deals with Forces.
So what is a Force?
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
One type yes.
Forces result from interactions.
Or a field.
So; when a rocket ignites its exhaust, it produces an ACTION, or FORCE, in one direction of, say, 5,000 mph.
Umm a force isn't measured in mph. Are you talking about the rockets speed at a certain time or it's exhaust speed?
What OTHER OBJECT, then, in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from the exhaust, does that force INTERACT with?
It has to be something OTHER than the rocket; what, then, is it?
The exhaust does hit air when it's present. The air doesn't matter though. The act of exhaust escaping imparts a force on the rocket due to the third law.
& how can that EQUAL & OPPOSITE interaction EXCEED the original 5,000 mph FORCE?
Well now you just changed arguments. First and foremost, 5,000 mph force is nothing. A force casues a mass to accelerate.
The NASA-cultist's model of a rocket 'pushing on itself', or its own exhaust - somehow - is, of course, impossible...
But the crazed sci-fi addicts will try to convince you otherwise; caveat emptor!
P.s. markjo: reported for shitposting.
LOL!!!
NASA knows what Newton knew.
-
So; your war on science continues, SOCK-arul...
If you expect me to reply to the mass of steaming manure you just auto-spammed, you are sadly mistaken.
There is something seriously wrong with you; please stop wasting my time.
-
So; your war on science continues, SOCK-arul...
If you expect me to reply to the mass of steaming manure you just auto-spammed, you are sadly mistaken.
There is something seriously wrong with you; please stop wasting my time.
Destroyed. Better luck next time kid.
-
Blow on a piece of paper; does it move?
Yes?
Ergo: air molecules stacking up!
I am happy you are not an engineer right now.
-
SOCK-arul: LOL!!!
Words are not Reality, nut-case.
Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.
My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.
But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.
As usual.
Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.
But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.
Which is, as ever, LOL!!!
-
SOCK-arul: LOL!!!
Words are not Reality, nut-case.
Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.
My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.
But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.
As usual.
Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.
But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.
Which is, as ever, LOL!!!
Explain how the exhaust moving in one direction can propel the rocket in the other direction using your logic.
-
SOCK-arul: LOL!!!
Words are not Reality, nut-case.
Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.
My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.
But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.
As usual.
Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.
But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.
Which is, as ever, LOL!!!
If you want to you can become an astronaut or an engineer by NASA. Anyone can, if they put a fair bit of dedication into it.
-
LOL!!!
Are you mikeman's even more retarded twin sibling?
Who the f**k would want to be a NASA engineer? They do NOTHING!
Or, even worse, be like Chris Bloody Hadfield; playing guitar in a zero-g f**king plane?!?
Yeah - that takes some REAL 'dedication', don't it?
Dedication to being a repugnant, fraudulent scumbag?
NO THANKS!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
Are you mikeman's even more retarded twin sibling?
Who the f**k would want to be a NASA engineer? They do NOTHING!
Or, even worse, be like Chris Bloody Hadfield; playing guitar in a zero-g f**king plane?!?
Yeah - that takes some REAL 'dedication', don't it?
Dedication to being a repugnant, fraudulent scumbag?
NO THANKS!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!
I you became NASA engineer you could teach them that their rockets don't work and provide the public with proof that NASA is a fraud.
-
If I became a NASA engineer I'd be too busy spending your tax money on hookers, blow & bizarre magickal rituals to give even 1 single flying f**k about rockets or any other 'outer space' crap; that'd be for the CGI & cartoon department to deal with.
-
If I became a NASA engineer I'd be too busy spending your tax money on hookers, blow & bizarre magickal rituals to give even 1 single flying f**k about rockets or any other 'outer space' crap; that'd be for the CGI & cartoon department to deal with.
Why don't you do it then? Sounds great right?
-
Because I value my Soul, kid...
& so should you.
Now; enough derailing for one night.
Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.
If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!
-
SOCK-arul: LOL!!!
Words are not Reality, nut-case.
Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.
My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.
But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.
As usual.
Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.
But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.
Which is, as ever, LOL!!!
Explain how the exhaust moving in one direction can propel the rocket in the other direction using your logic.
Backing up claims is tough.
-
Because I value my Soul, kid...
& so should you.
Now; enough derailing for one night.
Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.
If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!
The action of exhaust flying back has the reaction of the rocket flying forwards. Exhaust goes back, rocket goes forwards. Rocket science 101.
-
Mr. Sock: Not as tough as actually comprehending what I write is for yourself, it seems; because if you COULD comprehend what I'd written, you'd know I've already answered your dumb, trolling question.
Repeatedly.
Plus provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my claims.
Really, Mr. Sock; there is something very badly wrong with your brain.
Be honest; are you retarded?
Cos if not, you are trolling & will be reported as such every single time you post from now on, Mr. Sock.
Okay?
LOL!!!
Mikeman v2.0: Wrong. Read the thread. STFU.
-
Mr. Sock: Not as tough as actually comprehending what I write is for yourself, it seems; because if you COULD comprehend what I'd written, you'd know I've already answered your dumb, trolling question.
Repeatedly.
Plus provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my claims.
Really, Mr. Sock; there is something very badly wrong with your brain.
Be honest; are you retarded?
Cos if not, you are trolling & will be reported as such every single time you post from now on, Mr. Sock.
Okay?
LOL!!!
Mikeman v2.0: Wrong. Read the thread. STFU.
The rocket moves in the north direction. The exhaust moves in the south direction. How again can south moving exhaust impart a force to move a rocket north, from pushing on air?
This will shut you up.
-
According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.
Which would be inconvenient.
According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.
It's not hard to understand.
Unless you don't WANT to, that is...
You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?
Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!
LMFAO!!!
-
According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.
Which would be inconvenient.
According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.
It's not hard to understand.
Unless you don't WANT to, that is...
You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?
Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!
LMFAO!!!
If exhaust flies backwards, where does it get that energy from?
-
What 'energy'?
Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?
Any comments on Free Expansion yet?
-
According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.
Which would be inconvenient.
Which they clearly do.
You think the exhaust shouldn't leave the rocket? Are you aware that your car exhaust leaves the tail pipe?
According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.
And I keep pointing out there is no way for a force to be transferred from the exhaust hitting air to the rocket. You have not explained how it is done. Stacking is not a response as the exhaust is clearly not changing directions.
It's not hard to understand.
Then why do you have trouble?
Unless you don't WANT to, that is...
You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?
Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!
LMFAO!!!
No, I'm still just waiting for you to explain how exhaust traveling the opposite direction of a rocket can impart a force on it from hitting air.
-
Needing something extrinsic to push on is the Totality of Newton's 3rd Law.
Object A; and Object B...
Further; if a Gas could not push on another Gas, then we would not have weather, would we?
Or will you now start denying that weather exists too, Mr. Science-Hater?
Whatever; let's leave it there for the night, Spock-a-roony; you have clearly been sampling too much of your own product & are incapable of Rational Thought.
Toodle-pip, Cultists!
&, as ever, LOL!!!
-
Needing something extrinsic to push on is the Totality of Newton's 3rd Law.
Object A; and Object B...
For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. No part of that claims to objects have to hit each other. A force is required to accelerate the exhaust of the rocket engine so in return, an opposite force accelerates the rocket.
Further; if a Gas could not push on another Gas, then we would not have weather, would we?
Never said it couldn't. Just said exhaust can't move one direction while creating a force as you describe in the other direction.
Or will you now start denying that weather exists too, Mr. Science-Hater?
Once again, not related to the topic at hand.
Whatever; let's leave it there for the night, Spock-a-roony; you have clearly been sampling too much of your own product & are incapable of Rational Thought.
Toodle-pip, Cultists!
&, as ever, LOL!!!
Why don't you explain in detail how the force is transferred from the exhaust hitting an air molecule.
-
Because I value my Soul, kid...
& so should you.
Now; enough derailing for one night.
Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.
If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!
How do you reconcile the free expansion of gas with the behavior of gas as a single body. Also, how do you reconcile your prodigious use of ad hominems with your disdain for ad hominems?
-
What 'energy'?
Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?
Any comments on Free Expansion yet?
You don't know what energy is?
In this case, the movement.
-
What 'energy'?
Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?
Any comments on Free Expansion yet?
You don't know what energy is?
In this case, the movement.
@Master Evar, don't bother reading the whole thread, I'll summarize for you. Papa Legba, doesn't understand free expansion, in a rocket the expansion occurs inside the combustion chamber, ( Oh he doesn't understand combustion either ), the other things he fails to grasp, are conservation of momentum, Newton's third law, solid rocket boosters, kinetic energy, oxidizers, cryogenics, in fact pretty much anything that requires more than grade school maths. In short he's an imbecile, and we just like to rattle his cage and watch him spew forth inane LOL's and insults. Most gave up trying to educate him ages ago. One or two still try.
Watch him come out of his cave and jump up and down rattling the bars. You can throw him peanuts if you like.
-
What 'energy'?
Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?
Any comments on Free Expansion yet?
You don't know what energy is?
In this case, the movement.
@Master Evar, don't bother reading the whole thread, I'll summarize for you. Papa Legba, doesn't understand free expansion, in a rocket the expansion occurs inside the combustion chamber, ( Oh he doesn't understand combustion either ), the other things he fails to grasp, are conservation of momentum, Newton's third law, solid rocket boosters, kinetic energy, oxidizers, cryogenics, in fact pretty much anything that requires more than grade school maths. In short he's an imbecile, and we just like to rattle his cage and watch him spew forth inane LOL's and insults. Most gave up trying to educate him ages ago. One or two still try.
Watch him come out of his cave and jump up and down rattling the bars. You can throw him peanuts if you like.
I've read most of the thread already, just haven't posted until now.
-
As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.
I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Forces result from interactions.
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
What is object B?
It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.
Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.
& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.
Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.
Does a gas molecule have mass?
Yes.
Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.
It's all simple stuff...
You just don't want it to be.
Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.
Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?
If not, try this: IDIOTS.
LOL!!!
-
As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.
I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Forces result from interactions.
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
What is object B?
It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.
Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.
& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.
Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.
Does a gas molecule have mass?
Yes.
Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.
It's all simple stuff...
You just don't want it to be.
Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.
Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?
If not, try this: IDIOTS.
LOL!!!
Object A is rocket, object B is exhaust. Rocket pushes exhaust, exhaust pushes rocket. Why do you think exhaust flies back? If exhaust is a part of the rocket, it would follow the rocket. It doesn't.
-
The problem with Papa Legba is that he doesn't understand basic stuff, we need to regress him back to a 5 year old, and start again.
Conservation of momentum. 101.
What is momentum? Papa, your definition of momentum please.
-
As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.
I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.
A force is a push or pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Forces result from interactions.
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
What is object B?
It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.
Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.
& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.
Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.
Does a gas molecule have mass?
Yes.
Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.
It's all simple stuff...
You just don't want it to be.
Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.
Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?
If not, try this: IDIOTS.
LOL!!!
Another post full of crap and still no answer on how the exhaust hitting air propels a rocket. It's because you can't. I asked for the step on how it's done and got nothing. Obviously gas molecule can hit each other. What I want to know is how two molecules hitting each other 10 feet away from a rocket can propel the rocket. You still cannot answer this. You still cannot explain how the force is transferred. You still don't understand Newton's laws.
-
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
What is object B?
It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.
If the rocket and its exhaust are the same object, then why is one a solid object going in one direction and the other a gas going in the opposite direction?
-
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?
It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...
So what is it, Cultists?
Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.
-
A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
The exhaust reacts against the rocket. You idiot.
LOL!!!
ROFL!!!
LOLOLOLOLO!!!
-
Can't you guys understand that the rocket exhaust exiting the nozzle creates high pressure under the rocket. If the rocket was in space the exhaust gas would just expand in the nothingness off space and not push the rocket. However when the rocket is in an atmosphere the exhaust gas pushes against the standing atmosphere at the end of the nozzle, which creates high pressure in the area of the nozzle . The high pressure then pushes against the nozzle and rocket , creating movement.
-
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?
It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...
So what is it, Cultists?
Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.
The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket-365x285.jpg)
That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.
-
A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
The exhaust reacts against the rocket. You idiot.
LOL!!!
ROFL!!!
LOLOLOLOLO!!!
It was already determined that the exhaust is part of the rocket until it leaves the nozzle. So you are saying the rocket pushes itself. Which as any idiot knows is impossible. If you don't believe it, try as Legba has said. Lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoes.
-
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?
It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...
So what is it, Cultists?
Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.
The "recoil force" of a gun and the propulsion force of a rocket use the same principle, Newton's 3rd law. A gun is one and done while a rocket is continuous. I also will add you don't believe in "recoil force". What you believe is the bullet and spent gunpowder push off the air and cause recoil.
-
A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?
The exhaust reacts against the rocket. You idiot.
LOL!!!
ROFL!!!
LOLOLOLOLO!!!
It was already determined that the exhaust is part of the rocket until it leaves the nozzle. So you are saying the rocket pushes itself. Which as any idiot knows is impossible. If you don't believe it, try as Legba has said. Lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoes.
Agreed. The nozzle restricts flow thus speeding up the exhaust. Once the exhaust leaves the nozzle the equal and opposite force comes into play and accelerated the rocket.
-
Thank you, hoppy; you have clearly been following the entire thread in a rational manner & come to a logical conclusion.
Do not be deflected by all the schills, schmucks & herberts infesting this place; rocketry is not a complex matter.
They work by pushing on the medium upon which they travel, same as every single other thing in Creation that produces motion does.
It is all very simple, no matter what the sci-fi cultists claim...
Now; watch them Howl, like dogs in the night barking at a noise they cannot comprehend...
Like sock-arul; a deluded & raving liar to the bitter end.
-
Thank you, hoppy; you have clearly been following the entire thread in a rational manner & come to a logical conclusion.
Do not be deflected by all the schills, schmucks & herberts infesting this place; rocketry is not a complex matter.
They work by pushing on the medium upon which they travel, same as every single other thing in Creation that produces motion does.
It is all very simple, no matter what the sci-fi cultists claim...
Now; watch them Howl, like dogs in the night barking at a noise they cannot comprehend...
Like sock-arul; a deluded & raving liar to the bitter end.
Another post that does not address anything. You really should just admit defeat. It will save us all time. You clearly have no proper rebuttal and instead just spew random crap.
-
My post addressed EVERYTHING, sock-arul.
& 'a proper rebuttal' to WHAT, exactly?
The FACT that gas molecules can be compressed, with all that implies?
Strain at your leash & Howl away, unthinking dog; nobody cares what your brainless barking means anyway...
-
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion;
Nope. Rocket propulsion is a recoil force.
... if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
Yes, that's why you see exhaust go down and rockets go up (as in the opposite direction of down). The exhaust interacting with the atmosphere is a separate action/reaction from the exhaust's action/reaction interaction with the rocket.
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Umm... No. Rocket exhaust is no more connected to a rocket than water is connected to a fire hose.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
Then you need to look closer, because that isn't what's happening at all.
-
Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.
See how it works yet?
The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...
-
Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.
See how it works yet?
The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?
It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...
So what is it, Cultists?
Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.
The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket-365x285.jpg)
That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.
There you go. Evidence.
-
markjo/mikeman v2.0; admit it; you are broken.
-
Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.
See how it works yet?
The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...
Where is your evidence? You can't even explain your claims.
-
Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.
First of all, I've provided at least as much evidence as you have. Secondly, socks are only weird when worn with sandals.
See how it works yet?
Yes, I can see quite clearly that you have no interest whatsoever in having a civil discussion.
The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...
Whatever. ::)
-
Sock-arul: liar.
Markjo: ditto.
Care to provide any evidence for your claims?
After all, if I'm so crazy it should be easy...
So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
-
Sock-arul: liar.
Markjo: ditto.
Care to provide any evidence for your claims?
After all, if I'm so crazy it should be easy...
So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
No, the exhaust pushes the rocket:
Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.
See how it works yet?
The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...
You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?
BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.
Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?
It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...
So what is it, Cultists?
Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.
The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket-365x285.jpg)
That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.
There you go. Evidence.
-
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Are you blind? No offense.
The exhaust is definately flying out of the rocket.
-
Wrong.
Not Wrong
-
So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
No, that isn't what I claim. I claim that the rocket's exhaust is pushing against the rocket.
Think about it this way: If you inflate a balloon, is the air in the balloon a part of the balloon or is the air a separate object contained within the balloon?
-
! No longer available (http://#)
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.
This video is all the evidence anyone needs.
-
! No longer available (http://#)
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.
This video is all the evidence anyone needs.
Or this one for the ones that don't understand momentum:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
! No longer available (http://#)
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.
This video is all the evidence anyone needs.
Or this one for the ones that don't understand momentum:
! No longer available (http://#)
Well that just ended this thread.
-
! No longer available (http://#)
This is a bit corny, but the science is accurate.
-
Super videos. I was amazed at them all. WOW......JUST WOW.
Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.
You see, what Papa is asking you. All you tefal headed supposed rocket scientists - is - HOW DO YOUR SPACE ROCKETS WORK.
This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all?
Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.
There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
-
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.
More fuel + more fast = more up
-
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Conservation of Momentum, look it up. Momentum equals mass times velocity. Mass is a scalar, velocity is a vector, a scalar times a vector is a vector, momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction. The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon, in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy, or deep in outer space it's still the same. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.
You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder, whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that, but physics will win every time. You can't beat it. You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.
-
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.
More fuel + more fast = more up
You need to put a bit more effort in. No wonder people can't grasp it. You haven't a clue how it really works. You are happy to be duped with explanations that do not make any sense when thought about clearly for 5 minutes.
-
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Conservation of Momentum, look it up. Momentum equals mass times velocity. Mass is a scalar, velocity is a vector, a scalar times a vector is a vector, momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction. The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon, in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy, or deep in outer space it's still the same. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.
You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder, whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that, but physics will win every time. You can't beat it. You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.
What's your vector, Victor. ;D
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.
-
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Conservation of Momentum, look it up. Momentum equals mass times velocity. Mass is a scalar, velocity is a vector, a scalar times a vector is a vector, momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction. The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon, in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy, or deep in outer space it's still the same. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.
You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder, whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that, but physics will win every time. You can't beat it. You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.
What's your vector, Victor. ;D
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.
I shudder to ask, but what is the sceptimatic version of conservation of momentum?
-
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Conservation of Momentum, look it up. Momentum equals mass times velocity. Mass is a scalar, velocity is a vector, a scalar times a vector is a vector, momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction. The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.
Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon, in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy, or deep in outer space it's still the same. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.
You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder, whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that, but physics will win every time. You can't beat it. You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.
What's your vector, Victor. ;D
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.
He knows what he is talking about. You obviously don't. Imagine the guy on the skateboard is the rocket and the ball is the exhaust. If the exhaust is more massive (a more massive ball) and has higher momentum (Throw the ball harder) the rocket goes faster (The guy goes back further and with more speed) and vice versa. if you would bring a lot of balls with you on a low-friction vehicle, like a skateboard, you could propell yourself by throwing the balls behind you. That is what the rocket is doing - throwing the exhaust behind itself to propell forwards.
-
Super videos. I was amazed at them all. WOW......JUST WOW.
Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.
You see, what Papa is asking you. All you tefal headed supposed rocket scientists - is - HOW DO YOUR SPACE ROCKETS WORK.
This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Already explained. It's works off of Newton's third law. It takes a force to accelerate the exhaust so an equal and opposite force accelerates the rocket.
Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all? Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.
Notice how water rockets work better than air rockets? They need the mass of the water to provide more lift than air. Your explanation is just gibberish.
There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.
So it takes of just sitting there empty?
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Hoe does a force get transferred from an exhaust molecule hitting air to the rocket? You still cannot answer this.
-
Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.
But those videos explain the very principles that make space rockets work.
This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.
By using Newton's third law as explained in those videos that you don't seem to like.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Well, you get a big tank of liquid oxygen and a big tank of kerosene and get some large, powerful pumps to send the liquid oxygen and kerosene through some pipes to 5 very large rocket engines where they are mixed together and some big spark plugs ignite the mix.
Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all?
That's because they aren't burning the water. The action/reaction principle is exactly the same, however.
Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.
In an open system, like the atmosphere, less dense air isn't compressed by more dense water, it's displaced (moved out of the way).
There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.
Yes there is. It's the mass of the water being quickly pushed out through a small opening at the end of the bottle.
Those that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.
Apparently you don't realize that we feel the exact same way about you.
-
You need to put a bit more effort in.
Except they don't. Not matter how much you whine and whinge, this shit just works. Newton's laws of motion are used by engineers every day to build real, working stuff. From skyscrapers to cars to aircraft to bridges. All of these "indoctrinated egg heads" use this apparent "bullshit" to get real things done, rather than just arguing on obscure internet forums.
Look at the sort of thing that is built with this knowledge:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Creissels_et_Viaduct_de_Millau.jpg/800px-Creissels_et_Viaduct_de_Millau.jpg)
What has been been built by denpressure? Oh yeah, fuck all....
-
Everyone except sceptimatic: DISMISSED FOR PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE.
Oh, & in the case of markjo, for being a proven sock-puppeteer too...
LOL!!!
Or do you wanna try spamming your 'man on lol-board with lol-ball' false analogy again?
Cos it's been repeatedly debunked, specifically in reply #622, page 32, & reply #1569, page 79 of this thread.
& apart from that 1 stupid analogy, you Cultists got precisely NOTHING in the way of evidence, have you?
Just your lame-ass tactic of DENY, DENY & DERIDE, & keep denying & deriding, until you have worn the opposition down...
The exact same tactic that Scientologists use against their critics, in fact.
Which is no surprise, as Jack Parsons, founder of JPL, & L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, were best buddies & performed Magickal Ceremonies together...
Just fyi.
Anyway; now we're done here, we'll move on again...
Be ready.
-
Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.
-
Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.
Well, your posts have no content whatsoever. You just butt into conversations to throw personal attacks at round earthers.
-
& the content of your post was, Quail?
Zero.
& was it on-topic?
No.
Troll much, loser?
-
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.
Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.
More fuel + more fast = more up
You need to put a bit more effort in. No wonder people can't grasp it. You haven't a clue how it really works. You are happy to be duped with explanations that do not make any sense when thought about clearly for 5 minutes.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's just how conservation of momentum works. "more fuel + more fast = more go" is the cornerstone of all propellant-based modes of transportation, including rockets. You've been given a technical explanation by Rayzor and you've been given a childishly simple explanation by me. Take your pick.
-
I've been Lied to by you & I've been Lied to by Rayzor; I 'pick' neither.
'Poko'; that's a new one... you gonna start shrilly banging on about 'forces', by any chance?
-
I've been Lied to by you & I've been Lied to by Rayzor; I 'pick' neither.
'Poko'; that's a new one... you gonna start shrilly banging on about 'forces', by any chance?
So, I suppose that all of Newtonian Physics is a lie then? I guess all the photographs I've seen of skyscrapers are fake. I guess all the memories I have of being in skyscrapers have been implented in my brain by NASA. I guess every airplane trip I've ever taken was actually just a roller coaster at Disneyland built to look like an airplane. I guess the computer I'm using right now is fake.
If you have a model of physic that contradicts Newtonian physics, I implore you to share that model with all of us so that we may correct our mistakes.
-
Everyone except sceptimatic: DISMISSED FOR PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE.
Oh, & in the case of markjo, for being a proven sock-puppeteer too...
LOL!!!
Or do you wanna try spamming your 'man on lol-board with lol-ball' false analogy again?
Cos it's been repeatedly debunked, specifically in reply #622, page 32, & reply #1569, page 79 of this thread.
& apart from that 1 stupid analogy, you Cultists got precisely NOTHING in the way of evidence, have you?
Just your lame-ass tactic of DENY, DENY & DERIDE, & keep denying & deriding, until you have worn the opposition down...
The exact same tactic that Scientologists use against their critics, in fact.
Which is no surprise, as Jack Parsons, founder of JPL, & L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, were best buddies & performed Magickal Ceremonies together...
Just fyi.
Anyway; now we're done here, we'll move on again...
Be ready.
Apparently you missed this video.
! No longer available (http://#)
Destroyed again.
-
Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.
Well, your posts have no content whatsoever. You just butt into conversations to throw personal attacks at round earthers.
Incorrect.
-
Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?
As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.
You know; like you just spammed?
'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?
Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.
Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...
Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.
Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.
I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.
That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.
Hoppy: hello.
-
Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?
As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.
You know; like you just spammed?
'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?
Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.
Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...
Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.
Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.
I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.
That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.
Hoppy: hello.
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Is this picture clear enough?
-
Newton's third law is the only reason that rockets do work. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Fuel goes down, rocket goes up. It's the same principle behind how a helicopter works. The propeller pushes the air down, which pushes the helicopter up.
So, now you might ask "Well how does something as light as rocket fuel affect something as heavy as a rocket?" Well, the answer is that there is a lot of fuel and it's moving very very fast. When the fuel combusts, it releases a great burst of kinetic energy which shoots the exhaust downward. Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the rocket is pushed with the same amount of force in the opposite direction, propelling it upward.
Rocketry isn't in conflict with the third law. Rocketry is entirely dependent on the third law.
-
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.
You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.
-
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.
You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.
You're misunderstanding what is happening here. Kinetic energy isn't being created out of nothing. Chemical energy in Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules is being turned into kinetic energy through the process of combustion. If the helicopter analogy wasn't good enough, here's a better one.
A gun works by combusting gunpowder which releases kinetic energy. This kinetic energy propels the bullet out of the barrel. Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the gun recoils. This is the exact same mechanism that a rocket uses to propel itself.
-
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.
You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket.jpeg)
This picture clearly shows that exhaust is not part of the rocket.
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
This picture clearly shows how exhaust pushes inside a rocket engine to generate thrust.
If you believe it is false provide evidence.
-
Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?
Another false analogy & thus dismissed.
Mikeman v2.0: already answered, repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.
For example; have you tried lifting yourself up by your own ankles yet?
If so, are you in space?
If YES: your silly drawing is an accurate representation of reality.
If NO: Houston, you have a problem...
Whatever; reported for spamming/trolling/whatever the hell it is that you are attempting here, madman...
Probably 'DESTROYING ME!!!', somehow, in the privacy of your own deluded little mind.
Or maybe, like Poko, just wasting everybody's time?
-
Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?
Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.
In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".
In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".
-
Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?
Another false analogy & thus dismissed.
Mikeman v2.0: already answered, repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.
For example; have you tried lifting yourself up by your own ankles yet?
If so, are you in space?
If YES: your silly drawing is an accurate representation of reality.
If NO: Houston, you have a problem...
Whatever; reported for spamming/trolling/whatever the hell it is that you are attempting here, madman...
Probably 'DESTROYING ME!!!', somehow, in the privacy of your own deluded little mind.
Or maybe, like Poko, just wasting everybody's time?
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.
You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket.jpeg)
This picture clearly shows that exhaust is not part of the rocket.
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
This picture clearly shows how exhaust pushes inside a rocket engine to generate thrust.
If you believe it is false provide evidence.
Still waiting for evidence.
Also, are you really so stupid you think you can go to space by lifting up your ankles? LOL.
-
Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?
Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.
In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".
In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".
We just explained this to him yesterday.
Papa Legba pay the fuck attention.
-
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Just what kind of evidence that proves that you're wrong and we're right will you accept?
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
Then it's a good thing that no on is claiming that it does. A rocket and it's combustion gasses are no more the same object than a inflated balloon and the air inside that balloon are the same object.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
I'm sorry, but defeating your own straw man does not prove us or NASA wrong.
-
No, mikeman v2.0: it is YOU who is stupid enough to think that you can get to space just by lifting on your ankles; because that is EXACTLY what your nonsensical model of rocket thrust implies.
&, as you clearly cannot, it is therefore PROVEN FALSE.
So stop spamming us with it, ok?
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
Answer that correctly & this whole ludicrous sham can end; answer it incorrectly & you demonstrate you have no understanding of even the most basic Newtonian physics & simply want to believe in sci-fi nonsense, like a good little brainwashed & proselytising Cultist.
As you said earlier: Take Your Pick...
Sock-arul: if you lied to me yesterday, does that make it true today?
Idiot.
Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.
Still; the JPL/NASA Thought-Police night-shift seems to have called in for duty now - so goodnight, Cultists; happy space-dreams...
& of course; to conclude: LOL!!!
-
No, mikeman v2.0: it is YOU who is stupid enough to think that you can get to space just by lifting on your ankles; because that is EXACTLY what your nonsensical model of rocket thrust implies.
&, as you clearly cannot, it is therefore PROVEN FALSE.
So stop spamming us with it, ok?
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
Answer that correctly & this whole ludicrous sham can end; answer it incorrectly & you demonstrate you have no understanding of even the most basic Newtonian physics & simply want to believe in sci-fi nonsense, like a good little brainwashed & proselytising Cultist.
As you said earlier: Take Your Pick...
Sock-arul: if you lied to me yesterday, does that make it true today?
Idiot.
Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.
Still; the JPL/NASA Thought-Police night-shift seems to have called in for duty now - so goodnight, Cultists; happy space-dreams...
& of course; to conclude: LOL!!!
Quote me where I said that you can go to space by pulling your own ankle, otherwise you are wrong.
Also, the exhaust is not part of the rocket, as seen in this picture:
(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/05/rocket.jpeg)
-
Mikeman v2.0: LOL!!! You are a hopeless illiterate...
& 'the exhaust is not part of the rocket'; another blind man!
Still, as long as you distract from my comprehensive, logical & scientifically accurate post then you're doing your job I guess...
Shall we sane readers enjoy some poetry whilst the JPL drones all shit-post? Why not...
'The prophets Isaiah & Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spake to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answered. 'I saw no God, nor heard any, in a Finite organical perception; but my senses discovered the Infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain convinced, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.'
William Blake; 'Marriage of Heaven & Hell'.
Beautiful... if you have not read it, dear readers, I urge you to do so; Blake was a great man.
Now; let's allow the drones to play a while, eh?
-
...
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
The trick here is to just look at a picture of a rocket, which there is a nice one posted just above this post. See how the exhaust LEAVES the rocket? The exhaust is object B. More specifically it's object B when it separates from the rocket. Both a gun and a rocket require one object to become two objects to get the force from Newton's law. If only you were smart enough to see this.
...
-
No; if only I were DUMB enough to see it...
Then I could be a brainwashed Cultist like you.
Alas; I am not.
Thus, mere Reality will have to suffice for me...
How very sad!
Or very LOL!!!
Depending...
-
No; if only I were DUMB enough to see it...
Then I could be a brainwashed Cultist like you.
Alas; I am not.
Thus, mere Reality will have to suffice for me...
How very sad!
Or very LOL!!!
Depending...
Delusions from a destroyed little kid.
-
Yes, I agree; all your posts are.
& I have been telling you this for a while now...
I would suggest you get help for your massive cognitive dysfunction; but, as that might imply I give a flying f**k about you, I must forebear.
Toodle-pip, cultist; read some Blake - that may help you better understand our reality...
Though probably not.
LOL!!!
-
Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.
Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.
If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.
If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.
If not: NASA loses.
End of story.
This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.
You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.
Once again, we are lucky you are not responsible for engineering. Pull itself up? Wow.
-
Once again, Rama Set, we are lucky you are not a real person; because you are incapable of taking anything in its correct context & thus would be a horrible embarrassment at any social occasion.
But enough of that; how about some more poetry, for intelligent people to appreciate, whilst you Thought-Police shit-post?
'Down the winding caverns we groped our tedious way, till a void boundless as the nether sky appeared beneath us, and we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said: if you please we will commit ourselves to this void and see whether Providence is here also.'
Do you believe in Providence in the unknown, Rama Set?
Or that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God?
Or anything of any true value?
You do not believe in the laws of physics; because you absolutely refuse to apply them correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.
So; what, exactly, do you believe in?
Apart from ruthlessly crushing any attempt at free-thought on obscure web forums, that is...
Not lol, shameful harasser Rama Set.
Not lol at all.
-
Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?
Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.
In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".
In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".
We just explained this to him yesterday.
Papa Legba pay the fuck attention.
Did you use the gun analogy? If so I'm shocked that he still doesn't understand. Actually, I'm not shocked.
-
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
Actually, it does.
Really tiny ones.
Lots of them.
Very quickly.
They're called "exhaust gasses".
Or do you think that rocket exhaust doesn't have any mass?
LOL!!
Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.
You don't ignore someone by acknowledging their existence.
IDIOT!!
ROTFL
-
I'm just curious Papa, what do you think is causing rockets to fly? I mean, any civilian could have gone and watched a shuttle launch before the program was cancelled. Is God pulling them up by a string?
-
Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?
As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.
You know; like you just spammed?
'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?
Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.
Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...
Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.
Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.
I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.
That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.
Hoppy: hello.
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Is this picture clear enough?
Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.
-
No. The arrows pointing up is ambient air pressure and is also show by arrows all around the rocket engine giving no net effect.
Once we will ask, when the exhaust hits the air outside how does that translate as force on the rocket?
What actually happens is that the exhaust particles strike the air and transfer a slight bit of energy to the air particles pushing the air down and away from the rocket and slowing the exhaust gas slightly. There is no force effect on the rocket.
All the force on the rocket is shown by the rather larger arrows in the combustion chamber Pi and the exit nozzle Pe.
-
Hitler launched over 1400 V2 rockets at London in WWII and over 500 actually hit London. If rockets can't work then how was it possible for Germany to do this.
Or is WWII also a conspiracy?
Wernher von Braun is considered the father of rockets, he is the chap that designed and build the V2 rockets and then worked for the USA after WWII
Watch ep 02 of Nazi Mega Structures (http://) on the V2 rockets
-
Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?
As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.
You know; like you just spammed?
'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?
Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.
Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...
Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.
Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.
I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.
That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.
Hoppy: hello.
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Is this picture clear enough?
Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.
No, that is the pressure caused by the exhaust. In fact, the ambient pressure (in this case the atmospheric pressure) decreases the thrust, as seen in this equation:
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_23.png)
Where Pa is the ambient/atmospheric pressure.
Source:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html (http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html)
-
I can work with that bulletless gun analogy, Legba. Question: does a cannon or a musket without a bullet have recoil?
I will also add that in this kind of engines, there is a distinction between fuel and propellant. Fuel heata the propellant and shoots it. In chemical conventional rockets, fuel and propellant are basically the same. In most nuclear rockets, the fuel is the fissible material, and the propellant is usually hydrogen or water.
-
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
Answering this question with another question, as conker has just done, will not suffice.
Also, his referring to 'nuclear rockets' as if they are things that actually exist does not help his case.
But, as you are all hopelessly mired in a science-fiction fantasy world already, where words outrank reality & numbers outrank even words, it is not surprising.
-
You haven't answered my question, nor the question on how does exhaust interact with air. I will answer the question, though: it does have recoil. And, believe it or not, nuclear engines have been built. If you dont like the example, ion engines have that distinction too. The fuel is plutonium if the probe is equiped with RTGs, or nothing if its solar powered. Xenon or another similar gas woyld be the propellent.
-
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
Answering this question with another question, as conker has just done, will not suffice.
Also, his referring to 'nuclear rockets' as if they are things that actually exist does not help his case.
But, as you are all hopelessly mired in a science-fiction fantasy world already, where words outrank reality & numbers outrank even words, it is not surprising.
I'm going to ask you this as you seem to have missed my previous post. What do you think causes rockets to fly? Any civilian could have gone and watched the shuttle launches back when they were still happening. My dad personally saw a rocket launch, and I hardly think that my dad is part of The Conspiracy.
-
Conker; so are you saying that when a gun fires a blank it DOES produce recoil?
If so, what extrinsic mass has replaced the bullet as Object B - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - in order to create the action-reaction pairing necessary to produce that recoil?
Poko: So; answering a question with another question?
Again?
Quite the habit with you cultists, isn't it?
LOL!!!
-
If so, what extrinsic mass has replaced the bullet as Object B - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - in order to create the action-reaction pairing necessary to produce that recoil?
The end product from the gunpowder, aka exhaust.
-
But we have just seen that the bullet was Object B; when it is removed, it must be replaced by another mass or no recoil will be produced.
This is elementary stuff, mikeman v2.0.
*Sigh!*
We are back to the whole 'rocket pushing on itself' (lol!) thing, are we not?
Except now it is a blank-firing gun which 'pushes on itself'...
LOL!!!
More Magical Cult-Physics for Magical Space-Cult rockets!
Enjoy your febrile fantasy-lives, Cultists; I'll post poetry from now on whenever you spout nonsense.
At least that way any cultured readers will still get something worthwhile from this shambles of a thread.
-
But we have just seen that the bullet was Object B; when it is removed, it must be replaced by another mass or no recoil will be produced.
This is elementary stuff, mikeman v2.0.
*Sigh!*
We are back to the whole 'rocket pushing on itself' (lol!) thing, are we not?
Except now it is a blank-firing gun which 'pushes on itself'...
LOL!!!
More Magical Cult-Physics for Magical Space-Cult rockets!
Enjoy your febrile fantasy-lives, Cultists; I'll post poetry from now on whenever you spout nonsense.
At least that way any cultured readers will still get something worthwhile from this shambles of a thread.
We have also seen that the exhaust is object B. Did you know that the gunpowder and the bullet is the same object? They are connected, so they are closer to being object B than the gunpowder and the gun is to be object A. In fact, the gunpowder is a object B and the bullet is then a object C. The gunpowder pushes the gun, that pushes the gunpowder. The gunpowder pushes the bullet. (All that after ignition). Fuel and exhaust is not part of a rocket, they are separate objects from the rocket.
Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.
-
Ever fired a muzzle-loader, cretinous mikeman v2.0?
LOL!!!
& it's objects A, B AND C now, is it?
All somehow bouncing back & forth between each other inside the barrel until something somehow happens & therefore SPACE TRAVEL!!!
LMFAO!!!
Whatever; you have now proven you have absolutely NO idea how Newton 3 works; as a reward ypouu cann hazz spayse-shipps!
Derrr...
ROFLMFAO - at YOU, cultists!!!
-
Ever fired a muzzle-loader, cretinous mikeman v2.0?
LOL!!!
& it's objects A, B AND C now, is it?
All somehow bouncing back & forth between each other inside the barrel until something somehow happens & therefore SPACE TRAVEL!!!
LMFAO!!!
Whatever; you have now proven you have absolutely NO idea how Newton 3 works; as a reward ypouu cann hazz spayse-shipps!
Derrr...
ROFLMFAO - at YOU, cultists!!!
I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.
Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.
-
So, now imagine shooting billions of bullets out of a nozzle. These bullets going faster than a bullet normally would.
-
Once again, Rama Set, we are lucky you are not a real person; because you are incapable of taking anything in its correct context & thus would be a horrible embarrassment at any social occasion.
But enough of that; how about some more poetry, for intelligent people to appreciate, whilst you Thought-Police shit-post?
'Down the winding caverns we groped our tedious way, till a void boundless as the nether sky appeared beneath us, and we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said: if you please we will commit ourselves to this void and see whether Providence is here also.'
Do you believe in Providence in the unknown, Rama Set?
Or that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God?
Or anything of any true value?
You do not believe in the laws of physics; because you absolutely refuse to apply them correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.
So; what, exactly, do you believe in?
Apart from ruthlessly crushing any attempt at free-thought on obscure web forums, that is...
Not lol, shameful harasser Rama Set.
Not lol at all.
I never said you should not be free to think what you want. You should not however be allowed to engineer anything. Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot. If you still want to maintain that exhaust gases are part of a rocket you display nothing but a cognitive gap. Think away though! You are entitled!
-
Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.
That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.
It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.
If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.
-
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.
Good catch, Hoppy!
If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.
LOL!!!
In your face, cultists!
-
Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.
That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.
It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.
If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.
I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.
Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.
Do you have any explanations for this?
-
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.
Good catch, Hoppy!
If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.
LOL!!!
In your face, cultists!
That is not ambient pressure, that is exhaust pressure. EXHAUST PRESSURE. The pressure of the EXHAUST pushing the rocket. Meaning that the exhaust is pushing the rocket.
IN YO FACE.
-
Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.
That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.
It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.
If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.
Your terrible analogy is not how rockets work. It is a false analogy. M
Can you explain yet how force is transferred to a rocket through its exhaust plume?
-
(http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)
Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.
Good catch, Hoppy!
If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.
LOL!!!
In your face, cultists!
Further to what Master Evah posted the Rocket Equation uses the area of the exhaust port to determine thrust so it is obviously an integral place in the force balancing. The more you learn...
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
If you CAN do a push-up, that is...
Which I doubt.
LOL!!!
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
If you CAN do a push-up, that is...
Which I doubt.
LOL!!!
The arrows at the nozzle is pointing at the exhaust, not the engine, so how is that force transfered to the engine?
ALSO:
Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.
That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.
It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.
If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.
I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.
Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.
Do you have any explanations for this?
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Well that is what I said. To reiterate, the rocket equation is affected, in part, by the area of the exhaust nozzle. So I am glad we agree.
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
What a weird rhetorical device, trying to read the minds of a hypothetical audience.
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
How compressed is it? Can you cite figures? What maintains its integrity? How efficient is it at transferring force? What should the maximum achievable altitude be? Can you provide any figures to support this?
<irrelevant ad-hom>
fascinating.
-
Legba, I told you about 30 pages ago that in complex flows newtons laws apply on a molecular basis. You cant just call object A and object B things that not only are different materials going in different directions. They arent even on the same matter state. Apply Newton's laws in the integral form to the complex flow of exhaust, and you will see. I am aware that sich a flow isnt easy to solve, specially on a particulate form. You can download a FEA tool, and work it out yourself, there are many rocket nozzles with schematics out there. Of course, doing that would take you months of work, and that assuming you have any kind of education on flow physics, which is why I told you I wouldnt do it. Do it yourself. Prove NASA wrong. Win a nobel.
And you clearly havent ever shot a blank or even dropped a flowing water cleaner's hose.
I recommend you check how Newton's laws apply to flows and complex particulate bodies.
-
Funny how there's ALWAYS at least two of you spamming me at the same time, isn't it, cultist Thought-Policemen?
Funny, that...
YOU lot NEVER give any evidence or experiments whatsoever in support of your claims; yet you constantly demand them from me.
& when I DO provide them, you ignore or misrepresent them.
As you also ignore every valid point I make.
You can NOT explain how Newton 3 is applied to rocket propulsion; all you do is blindly shout 'It just DOES! BELIEVE US NOW!'
Well; NO, I will NOT believe you, brainwashing Cultists.
The FACT is, that the ONLY place your silly drawing shows a definitive action/reaction pairing being created is AT THE NOZZLE.
if you do not like this FACT, or cannot cope with its implications, it is not my fault.
& conker: why does a rocket even have a nozzle at all, genius?
It is only in MY model that a nozzle would be required, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible from the exhaust column's interaction with the external mass of the atmosphere back up to the base of the rocket.
Stop spamming math & learn to THINK.
Now; carry on.
-
If the math works, it's possible. Therefore argument destroyed. But anyway, you would never accept it, cultist. Keep following your Flat Earth fantasy.
You MUST be a bot, it's so obvious.
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
Yes, it is at the nozzle.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
Those "highly-compressed gas molecules" are traveling away from the rocket. How do they transfer a force to the rocket in the opposite direction of travel?
If you CAN do a push-up, that is...
Which I doubt.
LOL!!!
Cool?
-
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.
When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.
But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.
So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.
What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?
Answering this question with another question, as conker has just done, will not suffice.
Also, his referring to 'nuclear rockets' as if they are things that actually exist does not help his case.
But, as you are all hopelessly mired in a science-fiction fantasy world already, where words outrank reality & numbers outrank even words, it is not surprising.
Looks like you go berserk when you hear the word "nuclear." If you rip the turbine out of a nuclear power plant you will also get a type of nuclear rocket.
-
Funny how there's ALWAYS at least two of you spamming me at the same time, isn't it, cultist Thought-Policemen?
Funny, that...
Irrelevant, that...
YOU lot NEVER give any evidence or experiments whatsoever in support of your claims; yet you constantly demand them from me.
& when I DO provide them, you ignore or misrepresent them.
As you also ignore every valid point I make.
So all the video graphic evidence and mathematical proofs are what then? You seem to suffer from the same predilection all FEers do to creating a clear standard of evidence which can be met within the context of an Internet debate. Why don't you do that and see what happens?
Listen, obviously all the people debating you think, rightfully, that you are misinterpreting physical laws and theories, so this perception you have is not universally accurate and counter-productive.
You can NOT explain how Newton 3 is applied to rocket propulsion; all you do is blindly shout 'It just DOES! BELIEVE US NOW!'
Now who is ignoring and/or misrepresenting? You have been told quite clearly that the balancing force to exhaust gasses being expelled through the nozzle of a rocket is the propulsion of the rocket in the opposite direction.
Well; NO, I will NOT believe you, brainwashing Cultists.
Obviously not. That does not make your position any more substantial.
The FACT is, that the ONLY place your silly drawing shows a definitive action/reaction pairing being created is AT THE NOZZLE.
if you do not like this FACT, or cannot cope with its implications, it is not my fault.
It is not our fault you cannot read the drawing either. Go back and have another look; here is an accompanying exercise: count the pairs of arrows in the drawing and determine if it is a number >1 v
& conker: why does a rocket even have a nozzle at all, genius?
You are regressing... The exhaust is what creates the unbalanced force. Maybe you should review the thread?
It is only in MY model that a nozzle would be required, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible from the exhaust column's interaction with the external mass of the atmosphere back up to the base of the rocket.
Stop spamming math & learn to THINK.
Now; carry on.
Once again, I express my gratitude that you are not employed as an engineer. Not because you are not smart, but because I fear you would misapply well known, useful laws in favor of your misguided notions.
-
Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.
Liar. You're ignoring me because you're afraid to answer a simple question: is a balloon the same object as the air that inflates that balloon?
-
This is how it is, Cultists; listen & learn.
You can tell me that rockets work in a vacuum, even though all the laws of physics say otherwise...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me we were sending 3,000-tonne rockets to the moon & back using 1960s technology...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me that there are people spinning round the Earth in a tube, playing guitars & flutes & doing no science, ever...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me & tell me & tell me & tell me, forever & ever & ever & ever, that all these things - & more - Exist...
And I will laugh at you; because they Do Not.
Because they Can Not.
Because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Now; carry on with your Thought-Policing duties, cultists...
-
This is how it is, Cultists; listen & learn.
You can tell me that rockets work in a vacuum, even though all the laws of physics say otherwise...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me we were sending 3,000-tonne rockets to the moon & back using 1960s technology...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me that there are people spinning round the Earth in a tube, playing guitars & flutes & doing no science, ever...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me & tell me & tell me & tell me, forever & ever & ever & ever, that all these things - & more - Exist...
And I will laugh at you; because they Do Not.
Because they Can Not.
Because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Now; carry on with your Thought-Policing duties, cultists...
You've gotten pretty intimate with the NASA emperor I see ;)
-
Whatever, sock-puppet Thought-Policeman.
It's always difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it, ain't it?
Still; 3.000-tonne moon-&-back rockets using 50-year-old technology?
I laugh at that; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Still; keep trying your tricks...
-
Also, this:
Funny how there's ALWAYS at least two of you spamming me at the same time, isn't it, cultist Thought-Policemen?
Funny, that...
YOU lot NEVER give any evidence or experiments whatsoever in support of your claims; yet you constantly demand them from me.
& when I DO provide them, you ignore or misrepresent them.
As you also ignore every valid point I make.
You can NOT explain clearly how Newton 3 is applied to rocket propulsion; all you do is blindly shout 'It just DOES! BELIEVE US NOW!'
Well; NO, I will NOT believe you, brainwashing Cultists.
The FACT is, that the ONLY place your silly drawing shows a definitive action/reaction pairing being created is AT THE NOZZLE.
if you do not like this FACT, or cannot cope with its implications, it is not my fault.
& conker: why does a rocket even have a nozzle at all, genius?
It is only in MY model that a nozzle would be required, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible from the exhaust column's interaction with the external mass of the atmosphere back up to the base of the rocket.
Stop spamming math & learn to THINK.
Now; carry on.
-
Also, this:
Funny how there's ALWAYS at least two of you spamming me at the same time, isn't it, cultist Thought-Policemen?
Funny, that...
YOU lot NEVER give any evidence or experiments whatsoever in support of your claims; yet you constantly demand them from me.
& when I DO provide them, you ignore or misrepresent them.
As you also ignore every valid point I make.
You can NOT explain clearly how Newton 3 is applied to rocket propulsion; all you do is blindly shout 'It just DOES! BELIEVE US NOW!'
Well; NO, I will NOT believe you, brainwashing Cultists.
The FACT is, that the ONLY place your silly drawing shows a definitive action/reaction pairing being created is AT THE NOZZLE.
if you do not like this FACT, or cannot cope with its implications, it is not my fault.
& conker: why does a rocket even have a nozzle at all, genius?
It is only in MY model that a nozzle would be required, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible from the exhaust column's interaction with the external mass of the atmosphere back up to the base of the rocket.
Stop spamming math & learn to THINK.
Now; carry on.
You can buy a trip to space for a few million dollars. How'd they fake that?
-
This is how it is, Cultists; listen & learn.
You can tell me that rockets work in a vacuum, even though all the laws of physics say otherwise...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me we were sending 3,000-tonne rockets to the moon & back using 1960s technology...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me that there are people spinning round the Earth in a tube, playing guitars & flutes & doing no science, ever...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me & tell me & tell me & tell me, forever & ever & ever & ever, that all these things - & more - Exist...
And I will laugh at you; because they Do Not.
Because they Can Not.
Because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Now; carry on with your Thought-Policing duties, cultists...
All you are really saying is that you have no argument and you have no intention of making one. Being in a conversation in bad faith basically makes you a troll. So if there is your genuine position, I expect you will not post in this thread anymore, because you have just admitted that you will repeat the same answer ad nauseam and not address any specific comments. Please be decent enough to do this.
-
This is how it is, Cultists; listen & learn.
You can tell me that rockets work in a vacuum, even though all the laws of physics say otherwise...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me we were sending 3,000-tonne rockets to the moon & back using 1960s technology...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me that there are people spinning round the Earth in a tube, playing guitars & flutes & doing no science, ever...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me & tell me & tell me & tell me, forever & ever & ever & ever, that all these things - & more - Exist...
And I will laugh at you; because they Do Not.
Because they Can Not.
Because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Now; carry on with your Thought-Policing duties, cultists...
All you are really saying is that you have no argument and you have no intention of making one. Being in a conversation in bad faith basically makes you a troll. So if there is your genuine position, I expect you will not post in this thread anymore, because you have just admitted that you will repeat the same answer ad nauseam and not address any specific comments. Please be decent enough to do this.
Legba has clearly beaten you guys. You are just too brainwashed or paid too much to see reality.
-
This is how it is, Cultists; listen & learn.
You can tell me that rockets work in a vacuum, even though all the laws of physics say otherwise...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me we were sending 3,000-tonne rockets to the moon & back using 1960s technology...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me that there are people spinning round the Earth in a tube, playing guitars & flutes & doing no science, ever...
And I will laugh; because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
You can tell me & tell me & tell me & tell me, forever & ever & ever & ever, that all these things - & more - Exist...
And I will laugh at you; because they Do Not.
Because they Can Not.
Because your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes.
Now; carry on with your Thought-Policing duties, cultists...
All you are really saying is that you have no argument and you have no intention of making one. Being in a conversation in bad faith basically makes you a troll. So if there is your genuine position, I expect you will not post in this thread anymore, because you have just admitted that you will repeat the same answer ad nauseam and not address any specific comments. Please be decent enough to do this.
PL has made numerous arguments. You should read the thread before wading in with such stupid comments. The thread was started by a known flat earther. It is you and your ilk who are trolling this thread, and the forum. I doubt very much that PL gives a monkeys what you want. You're just another troll.
-
Rama Set: LOL!!!
You wish...
You are a laughably obvious sock-puppet Troll-entity, Rama Set; how is THAT not 'bad faith'?
Really; what a joke this place is!
But still; I will not leave.
Why?
Because you WANT me to leave.
Therefore, I will stay.
Why?
Because Energy is the only life, and is from the Body.
And Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
And the farther Reason's chains extend, the tighter they will bind...
There is NO 'space travel', Troll; & you can not prove otherwise.
Because you can not prove a thing that Does Not Exist.
YOU invoked me, Troll; & you can not now wish me away.
So live with it.
Or jump on one of your Imaginary 1960's 3,000-tonne flying machines & ascend to The Moon...
Fool.
Hoppy: hello again.
Legion: ditto.
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
Yes, it is at the nozzle.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
Those "highly-compressed gas molecules" are traveling away from the rocket. How do they transfer a force to the rocket in the opposite direction of travel?
Still waiting.
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
Yes, it is at the nozzle.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
Those "highly-compressed gas molecules" are traveling away from the rocket. How do they transfer a force to the rocket in the opposite direction of travel?
Still waiting.
sockpuppet: a few questions:
1. Can the atmosphere impart a force on a body?
2. How does the atmosphere react to the low pressure gas hitting it (coming out out of the exhaust)?
3. Does Bernoulli's principle apply to a rocket/turbine and atmosphere system?
-
Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...
Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.
Yes, it is at the nozzle.
I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?
Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...
Just like I am now, in fact.
& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.
A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.
Those "highly-compressed gas molecules" are traveling away from the rocket. How do they transfer a force to the rocket in the opposite direction of travel?
Still waiting.
sockpuppet: a few questions:
1. Can the atmosphere impart a force on a body?
2. How does the atmosphere react to the low pressure gas hitting it (coming out out of the exhaust)?
3. Does Bernoulli's principle apply to a rocket/turbine and atmosphere system?
1.Yes
2. I don't know if I would call it low pressure gas, but it reacts lie a fluid. The exhaust is moving much faster and pushes the air out of the way.
3. I suppose it could as the exhaust would be flowing, but it's not contained and eventually disperses.
-
Legba has clearly beaten you guys. You are just too brainwashed or paid too much to see reality.
PL has made numerous arguments. You should read the thread before wading in with such stupid comments. The thread was started by a known flat earther. It is you and your ilk who are trolling this thread, and the forum. I doubt very much that PL gives a monkeys what you want. You're just another troll.
I have read the thread and I am left utterly confused about how PL's version of rocketry works. So a column of gas is projected out, acting as a solid object is then braced against... something and since the rocket pushing the column has nowhere to go it instead gets a velocity imparted to it in the opposite direction. Honestly, if this seems to be a viable idea to you, then please elaborate on it.
What does the column brace itself against? As the rocket gains altitude does it not require marginally more energy for every unit distance it ascends? Or does the bracing platform also rise in the form of compressed gas? If this is the case why is it not evident die to atmospheric refraction?
-
Can't you guys understand that the rocket exhaust exiting the nozzle creates high pressure under the rocket. If the rocket was in space the exhaust gas would just expand in the nothingness off space and not push the rocket. However when the rocket is in an atmosphere the exhaust gas pushes against the standing atmosphere at the end of the nozzle, which creates high pressure in the area of the nozzle . The high pressure then pushes against the nozzle and rocket , creating movement.
There you go, Rama Sock - hoppy's not 'utterly confused'; guess it's just you.
& it's not just MY model of rocketry; sceptimatic & legion are also in agreement & have made many valuable contributions.
So stop trying to single me out, Troll.
Also, please explain how Atmospheric Refraction has anything to do with rocketry?
No, actually; DON'T.
As it is a clear attempt to derail the debate...
Troll.
To sum up: Dismissed.
& LOL!!!
-
Just thought I'd deal with this mess 'MiserO' (lol!) pooped out earlier before we move on...
If the math works, it's possible.
'Possible' is Not 'probable' is Not 'proven'.
'Possible' is how your kind promulgate your sci-fi fantasy world.
Therefore argument destroyed.
Therefore nothing.
But anyway, you would never accept it, cultist.
NO U!!!
Keep following your Flat Earth fantasy.
I am not a 'flat-earther'; everyone knows this.
Except you; because you cannot read.
You MUST be a bot, it's so obvious.
LOL!!!
That done, let us proceed; Trolls permitting, of course...
-
1. Atmospheric pressure is in the way of the free expansion for the exhaust, which means that less kinetic energy is released and that the rocket works worse in an atmosphere than in a vacuum.
2. I have fired unloaded soft-air guns and they have recoil. Care to explain why?
-
Well, so far we have proved rockets work just fine in vacuum, and shown experimental evidence, as well as the supporting arguments from every single physicist on the planet. What next, listen to more of Papa Legba's ever more strident denials of the facts, and desperate insults. No..
Time for Papa Legba to explain how all those TV satellites, GPS satellites and Weather satellites got into orbit. Whoops, he can't. LOL!
We can easily prove they are there in orbit exactly where they are supposed to be, So Papa Legba et al, are hereby dismissed from the proceedings.
Case Closed.
-
Can't you guys understand that the rocket exhaust exiting the nozzle creates high pressure under the rocket. If the rocket was in space the exhaust gas would just expand in the nothingness off space and not push the rocket. However when the rocket is in an atmosphere the exhaust gas pushes against the standing atmosphere at the end of the nozzle, which creates high pressure in the area of the nozzle . The high pressure then pushes against the nozzle and rocket , creating movement.
There you go, Rama Sock - hoppy's not 'utterly confused'; guess it's just you.
& it's not just MY model of rocketry; sceptimatic & legion are also in agreement & have made many valuable contributions.
So stop trying to single me out, Troll.
Also, please explain how Atmospheric Refraction has anything to do with rocketry?
No, actually; DON'T.
As it is a clear attempt to derail the debate...
Troll.
To sum up: Dismissed.
& LOL!!!
Well as the density of the gas increases, the refractive index of the gas changes, so this compressed area should be visible as distortion. Also, how does the compressed volume of gas itself resist the acceleration of the rocket? Shouldn't the rocket exhaust continue pushing the compression in to the lower density area? If not, why? Can you show any calculations of the properties of this compression? Can you explain the success of the Rocket equation in predicting the amount of mass that needs to be ejected in order to achieve a specific velocity? It would see awfully convenient that an equation that does not consider atmospheric compression at all can accurately calculate its effect on propulsion.
-
Mikeman v2.0: that your air-gun produces recoil when unloaded only proves MY theory.
Because without the bullet another extrinsic mass is necessary in order to produce recoil, as explicitly demanded by Newton 3.
And the ONLY possibility for that other extrinsic mass is the atmosphere.
So; thanks for that, boy-genius!
Rayzor/ausGeoff/Evil Edna: You, of all people, do NOT get to tell ME what to do.
Once again you confuse Words with Reality; you can 'prove' NOTHING about a single damn one of your space-fantasies.
And the ONLY 'experiment' you Cultists have provided is your stupid bloody 'man on skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY.
Liar.
Deceiver.
Schill, Schmuck & laughable Herbert.
Rama Set: You do not get to spam the supposed complexities of rocketry until you have sufficiently accounted for the basics.
'more fuel + more fast = more go' is the best I have got out of you Cultists thus far; not good enough.
Your derail-fail is detected & deflected, Mr. Troll-hard.
Lastly: LMFAO!!!
At every single one of you.
Because your NASA Emperor has No Clothes.
-
Your retardedness does not constitute as evidence for your argument.
-
Mikeman v2.0: that your air-gun produces recoil when unloaded only proves MY theory.
Because without the bullet another extrinsic mass is necessary in order to produce recoil, as explicitly demanded by Newton 3.
And the ONLY possibility for that other extrinsic mass is the atmosphere.
So; thanks for that, boy-genius!
Rayzor/ausGeoff/Evil Edna: You, of all people, do NOT get to tell ME what to do.
Once again you confuse Words with Reality; you can 'prove' NOTHING about a single damn one of your space-fantasies.
And the ONLY 'experiment' you Cultists have provided is your stupid bloody 'man on skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY.
Liar.
Deceiver.
Schill, Schmuck & laughable Herbert.
Rama Set: You do not get to spam the supposed complexities of rocketry until you have sufficiently accounted for the basics.
'more fuel + more fast = more go' is the best I have got out of you Cultists thus far; not good enough.
Your derail-fail is detected & deflected, Mr. Troll-hard.
Lastly: LMFAO!!!
At every single one of you.
Because your NASA Emperor has No Clothes.
You also don't get to tell others what to do so that is nothing but empty grandstanding. So are you unwilling or unable to answer my simple questions?
-
Master_Evar*: that your air-gun produces recoil when unloaded only proves MY theory.
Because without the bullet another extrinsic mass is necessary in order to produce recoil, as explicitly demanded by Newton 3.
And the ONLY possibility for that other extrinsic mass is the atmosphere.
So you agree that the exhaust/propellant propells the object, which means that rockets work in space. Great!
*Fixed that for you.
Because your NASA Emperor has No Clothes.
You two having fun together? ;)
-
Mikeman v2.0: that your air-gun produces recoil when unloaded only proves MY theory.
Because without the bullet another extrinsic mass is necessary in order to produce recoil, as explicitly demanded by Newton 3.
And the ONLY possibility for that other extrinsic mass is the atmosphere.
So; thanks for that, boy-genius!
Rayzor/ausGeoff/Evil Edna: You, of all people, do NOT get to tell ME what to do.
Once again you confuse Words with Reality; you can 'prove' NOTHING about a single damn one of your space-fantasies.
And the ONLY 'experiment' you Cultists have provided is your stupid bloody 'man on skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY.
Liar.
Deceiver.
Schill, Schmuck & laughable Herbert.
Rama Set: You do not get to spam the supposed complexities of rocketry until you have sufficiently accounted for the basics.
'more fuel + more fast = more go' is the best I have got out of you Cultists thus far; not good enough.
Your derail-fail is detected & deflected, Mr. Troll-hard.
Lastly: LMFAO!!!
At every single one of you.
Because your NASA Emperor has No Clothes.
Jeez, but you can talk a lot of nonsense...
-
LOL!!!
Pavasocky: 'more fuel + more fast = more go'; now THAT'S nonsense!
It's also about as clear as your model of rocketry gets.
Mikesock v2.0: I agree that you are too stupid to see how your air-gun example proves that recoil cannot be created without an extrinsic mass for the gas to interact with, thus supporting my model of rocket propulsion; that you have no conception of how to correctly apply Newton 3 & that - no matter how repugnant the sight - your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes..
Not that anyone cares what you think, Troll...
Rama Sock: your questions are not 'simple'; you are, though, if you think I'll fall for your derailing bullshit.
Troll.
Sock-arul: Call the WAAAAmbulance, loser; they may have ointment for your terminal butt-hurt...
Troll.
Anyone else?
If not - LOL!!!
-
Mikesock v2.0: I agree that you are too stupid to see how your air-gun example proves that recoil cannot be created without an extrinsic mass for the gas to interact with, thus supporting my model of rocket propulsion; that you have no conception of how to correctly apply Newton 3 & that - no matter how repugnant the sight - your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes..
So you say I am right and then you say you are right in the same sentence. Care to clear up your mind?
The unloaded soft-airgun proves my point. The pressurized air (the propellant/exhaust) creates recoil, and the same principle applies to rockets. You agreed on that, dumbo.
-
No, Troll; I am saying that I am right & you do not understand why I am right.
Whether this is deliberate, or due to massive cognitive dysfunction, I neither know nor care.
But carry on shitposting & trolling; it's not like anyone will notice...
(LOL yes they will!!!)
-
No, Troll; I am saying that I am right & you do not understand why I am right.
Whether this is deliberate, or due to massive cognitive dysfunction, I neither know nor care.
But carry on shitposting & trolling; it's not like anyone will notice...
(LOL yes they will!!!)
So you agreed all along that rockets work in space, and was mostly trolling I guess? Well then.
-
What_evar, Mr. fail-troll-is-failed...
Now; rayzor claimed that satellites are in orbit & you cultists can easily prove it.
Easily!
So; off you go...
First person to say 'there are lights in the sky!' gets an especially emphatic LOL!!!
This should be good...
-
What_evar, Mr. fail-troll-is-failed...
Now; rayzor claimed that satellites are in orbit & you cultists can easily prove it.
Easily!
So; off you go...
First person to say 'there are lights in the sky!' gets an especially emphatic LOL!!!
This should be good...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0)
You're welcome
-
LOL!!!
Pavasocky: 'more fuel + more fast = more go'; now THAT'S nonsense!
It's also about as clear as your model of rocketry gets.
Mikesock v2.0: I agree that you are too stupid to see how your air-gun example proves that recoil cannot be created without an extrinsic mass for the gas to interact with, thus supporting my model of rocket propulsion; that you have no conception of how to correctly apply Newton 3 & that - no matter how repugnant the sight - your NASA Emperor Has No Clothes..
Not that anyone cares what you think, Troll...
Rama Sock: your questions are not 'simple'; you are, though, if you think I'll fall for your derailing bullshit.
Troll.
Sock-arul: Call the WAAAAmbulance, loser; they may have ointment for your terminal butt-hurt...
Troll.
Anyone else?
If not - LOL!!!
So you don't think explaining how your version of rocketry is material to the conversation? Well that tells us everything we need to know. I will tune back in once you are serious about your claims.
-
Papa Legba has spend a good while explaining things to you people, about why rockets won't work in space.
There's been a few other's who have also waded in to tell you why rockets do not work in space.
We all understand that most of you will argue till the cows come home, against what we've been saying.
However, we also know that there are many people looking in who are curious enough to want to know more and also many people looking in who need no more convincing as to how bogus all this space rocketry is.
So for those who aren't quite there with the thinking, I'll once again add a little bit to the proceeding's just to reiterate, because there's nothing like repeating stuff just to make that clock eventually tick.
3000 tonne saturn V rockets going into space. Come on; seriously?...yes, 3000 tonne. not 30, not 300, but 3000.
Try and work that out. Go and look at a 3000 tonne ship and imagine tipping it up and putting some engines under it and blasting it off into space.
Now try and think of the power that the so called saturn V engines gave out to blast this rocket into so called space. Simply imagine the fuel apparently COMBUSTING INSIDE the rocket in a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and having to lift 3000 tonnes without shaking itself to bits on the launch pad. ::)
Even allowing for the absurdity of all this, we still have the issue of a near vacuum and the argument of how supposed Newton's 3rd law is used.
You see, as we've been subjected to many times, we get told of the action/reaction force of fuel inside the rocket pushing on the rocket itself with no outside influence at all except to merely eject the exhaust gases into space with those exhaust gases doing nothing at all.
Now here's the key. When you see the smoke coming from a car exhaust, it's rightly called exhaust gas, because it's fuel that has been spent, or to put it simpler, it's burned fuel that has no further energy to offer in the propulsion of the vehicle and so, it's ejected as (to us) waste.
Fair enough, right?...it is fair enough because that's how a vehicle powered by fuel and air to pistons, works, which is great on a floor of friction against wheels of motion on that floor.
Let's tip that car up and rev it as hard as you can. It's going nowhere, right?
So what about a rocket exhaust.
When is an exhaust not an exhaust on a rocket?....answer: when it's burning. What do we see being ejected from a rocket?...we see a burning flame at speed. Is this exhaust?....no it's not. It's thrust. It's the reason a rocket works.
Now take a look at any rocket at the nozzle. Take a real good look and you'll notice one very clear thing. You will notice that the fuel and air mixture is ignited and burning like crazy coming from it. This means it is not exhaust, it is thrust. It is the propellant against the atmosphere.
Now once that burning flame is thrust into that atmosphere it has created a super expansion of air which has pushed the colder atmosphere out of the way.
It's literally like the human on the trampoline. The more force placed on that trampoline by the jump/thrust, the more the person pushes down on that trampoline and the more it warps around that jump, meaning the more it will push back upon resistance to that thrust, meaning you go the opposite way. Newton's (?) law of action/reaction.
That's all a rocket is doing. It's throwing burning fuel into the atmosphere and creating a squeeze back from that atmosphere due to the push of expansion it's place into it.
The only time that fuel gets called EXHAUST is when it's finished being pushed back against by the atmosphere, which you will see as a cloud of white or dirty white.
That's the springboard spent and also the fuel into making it but the rocket carries on doing the very same thing for as long as it keeps throwing out burning fuel from the nozzle.
What it does not do is burn fuel inside and expand that fuel against the inside of the rocket to push the rocket. This is shudderingly ludicrous and should be dismissed for the pathetic con that it is.
If that rocket spews out immediate white cloudy smoke or dirty white from that nozzle end, then you have a case for your space rocket because that would mean the rocket fuel is doing the work inside, like a car would.
Naturally we do not see this for obvious reasons. It's because a vertical rocket has no use for this crap idea.
A rocket is simple. The words "rocket science" should be changed from being complicated to meaning simple.
So when a person messes up a simple thing, you should say, " it's rocket science, you clown."...meaning it's so simple.
Now when free expansion is mentioned, it means exactly what is says. It's something that is allowed to expand without being resisted.
When you blow up a balloon, you are expanding it but you are not freely expanding it, because the atmosphere creates an immediate barrier to it and squeezes back.
If you allow air to escape from the balloon nozzle, you do so because the atmosphere is pushing and squeezing that balloon and forcing the air out once you allow it to be breached.
Now think about what I've just said. You blow up a balloon against the atmospheric pressure that is pushing and squeezing back against it.
Once you open the nozzle, the air that is ejected from that nozzle happens because it is being squeezed out by the atmosphere, so how can the balloon move in the opposite direction?
Easy, because that nozzle and the fact that the balloon is elastic has enabled it to be filled with air that COMPRESSES the external atmosphere, meaning it exerts more pressure against it, meaning that once that nozzle is opened, the air is pushed at SPEED into the atmosphere, creating a push against the resistance of the external atmosphere meaning that atmosphere immediately starts to SQUEEZE back against it, which forces the balloon away.
This is why the balloon goes all wobbly as it flies away, because it's being pushed only by the ejection of compressed air from the nozzle against the external air resisting it and it's a narrow line which is unbalanced and causes the balloon to wobble away.
It has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with any push on the inside of the balloon itself. None whatsoever.
The only thing the air inside is doing is resisting being crushed, which is futile if there is an opening.
Now a rocket skin is not elastic like a balloon, so we can't just inflate a rocket and expect it to lift off. It has to have something that can massively expand the atmosphere, which it manages by mixing fuel with oxygen and bingo you have flight.
All well and good except in so called space we hit free expansion, or as close to it as humanly possible if we go by the science world explanation.
So let's be simple think sensibly about this. If a rocket is in space and it supposedly works from inside by expansion of gases, then what can it expand to move it. I mean, it's fine igniting gases to expand; but what are we expanding into or against?
You see, what is the actual point of igniting fuel in space anyway? it's pathetic, right? just like squirting compressed air to shift a shuttle into park mode is pathetic.
Let's imagine that same balloon in space. Imagine....< notice I said IMAGINE. I'll say this because you can bet your bottom dollar some stupid bastard will jump in and not grasp it.
Ok so you blow up your balloon in space. Now unlike in atmosphere which is pushing down/squeezing on the balloon, we do not have that in your space. We have what is known as a balloon that is free to expand. The matter inside the balloon will expand because it has no resistance.
Now imagine opening the nozzle?
All you do is allow the air out into space with no resistance to the air coming out, so it cannot go anywhere other than to stay put.
Naturally this is a thought process in fantasy space.
The reality would be a balloon or rocket material acting like the liquid metal terminator after he falls into the liquid nitrogen kind of thing. Basically the structure of anything would disintegrate...but that's another argument that people can't grasp.
So anyway, bang goes your space rockets. You can enjoy your missiles and fire works, etc. As for space rockets and planetary landing's - I say: treat them for what they are - fantasy. Try and focus on reality and see the duping for what it is; in your face and so deliberate, it's actually funny in one way and infuriating in another, only because bozo's are being paid silly money to sit there shagging hookers and drinking champagne, plus smoking the best cigars, not to mention the cars and other material items - all on the back of stories that many of you are buying into with gusto.
Seriously start using your frigging rational parts of your brains before you expire penniless through funding these fiction writers and talkers, plus some third rate acting.
-
tl;dr
I don't think he can even explain how they work in an atmosphere nevermind space.
-
What_evar: Oh! A link!
The cultists favourite form of 'evidence'..!
But that is NOT proof, what_evar; you said you could EASILY prove satellites exist; I define that as being that I should be able to physically see, inspect & verify their existence, in situ, personally & empirically.
Now; either provide that definitive evidence - EASILY, mind - or admit that you are lying.
YOUR claim; YOUR onus...
Rama Sock: That you have the attention-span of a gnat is no surprise...
But meh; you missed the boat, troll; cos we're on to another source of LOLs now... Satellites!
It's gonna be SO great!
Anyway; do keep up, eh, slow-poke?
Or, like sock-arul, call the WAAAAmbulance & get your broken butt splinted...
LOL!!!
P.s. sceptimatic; great post.
-
What's it like getting destroyed so hard? Is it everything you hoped and dreamed?
-
Papa Legba has spend a good while explaining things to you people, about why rockets won't work in space.
There's been a few other's who have also waded in to tell you why rockets do not work in space.
We all understand that most of you will argue till the cows come home, against what we've been saying.
He's been trolling.
3000 tonne saturn V rockets going into space. Come on; seriously?...yes, 3000 tonne. not 30, not 300, but 3000.
Try and work that out. Go and look at a 3000 tonne ship and imagine tipping it up and putting some engines under it and blasting it off into space.
Now try and think of the power that the so called saturn V engines gave out to blast this rocket into so called space. Simply imagine the fuel apparently COMBUSTING INSIDE the rocket in a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and having to lift 3000 tonnes without shaking itself to bits on the launch pad. ::)
The engines(first stage) has a thrust of 34,020kN. 34,020,000N/3,000,000kg=11.34m/s^2. 9.82m/s^2(down, due to gravity)-11.34m/s^2=-1.52m/s^2, or 1.52m/s^2 up. And the engines aren't really made of paper.
Even allowing for the absurdity of all this, we still have the issue of a near vacuum and the argument of how supposed Newton's 3rd law is used.
You see, as we've been subjected to many times, we get told of the action/reaction force of fuel inside the rocket pushing on the rocket itself with no outside influence at all except to merely eject the exhaust gases into space with those exhaust gases doing nothing at all.
The gases being flung out is the action, which creates the reaction of the rocket going forwards. Ever opened a full carbon dioxide cartridge?
Now here's the key. When you see the smoke coming from a car exhaust, it's rightly called exhaust gas, because it's fuel that has been spent, or to put it simpler, it's burned fuel that has no further energy to offer in the propulsion of the vehicle and so, it's ejected as (to us) waste.
Fair enough, right?...it is fair enough because that's how a vehicle powered by fuel and air to pistons, works, which is great on a floor of friction against wheels of motion on that floor.
Let's tip that car up and rev it as hard as you can. It's going nowhere, right?
No, because it's not strong enough. Car engine =/= rocket engine.
So what about a rocket exhaust.
When is an exhaust not an exhaust on a rocket?....answer: when it's burning. What do we see being ejected from a rocket?...we see a burning flame at speed. Is this exhaust?....no it's not. It's thrust. It's the reason a rocket works.
Now take a look at any rocket at the nozzle. Take a real good look and you'll notice one very clear thing. You will notice that the fuel and air mixture is ignited and burning like crazy coming from it. This means it is not exhaust, it is thrust. It is the propellant against the atmosphere.
What we see ejecting from a nozzle is hot burnt out gases. They glow because they are hot. And thrust is not an object, so your point is invalid.
Now once that burning flame is thrust into that atmosphere it has created a super expansion of air which has pushed the colder atmosphere out of the way.
It's literally like the human on the trampoline. The more force placed on that trampoline by the jump/thrust, the more the person pushes down on that trampoline and the more it warps around that jump, meaning the more it will push back upon resistance to that thrust, meaning you go the opposite way. Newton's (?) law of action/reaction.
Once the exhaust is in the atmosphere it never touches or interferes with the rocket again. Yes, the atmospheric pressure does slightly (SLIGHTLY) increase the pressure inside the combustion chamber, but the exact same amount of pressure is applied on the top of the rocket resulting in a net force of 0. In fact, the atmosphere is in the way since it compresses the exhasut gases, which means that we cannot gain the full potential kinetic energy out of it, so rockets are less effiecent and have less thrust in the atmosphere. They work better in space were the exhaust can expand freely releasing the full potential of kinetic energy.
That's all a rocket is doing. It's throwing burning fuel into the atmosphere and creating a squeeze back from that atmosphere due to the push of expansion it's place into it.
The only time that fuel gets called EXHAUST is when it's finished being pushed back against by the atmosphere, which you will see as a cloud of white or dirty white.
That's the springboard spent and also the fuel into making it but the rocket carries on doing the very same thing for as long as it keeps throwing out burning fuel from the nozzle.
No, the fuel is burnt immediately in the combustion chamber. It only takes a (insert ridiculously low number) seconds. That is why it's thrown out so violently and that is why it's so hot in the combustion chamber and the nozzle.
What it does not do is burn fuel inside and expand that fuel against the inside of the rocket to push the rocket. This is shudderingly ludicrous and should be dismissed for the pathetic con that it is.
Cut a firework in half(From top to bottom) and attach it very well to a strong heat-resistant glass pane. Then ignite it. before the glass is blackened you should be able to see the fuel burning INSIDE the firework.
If that rocket spews out immediate white cloudy smoke or dirty white from that nozzle end, then you have a case for your space rocket because that would mean the rocket fuel is doing the work inside, like a car would.
A car is not nearly as hot as a rocket engine. It would be strange if the rocket only spewed out white smoke-that means that no combustion could have occured.
Naturally we do not see this for obvious reasons. It's because a vertical rocket has no use for this crap idea.
A rocket is simple. The words "rocket science" should be changed from being complicated to meaning simple.
So when a person messes up a simple thing, you should say, " it's rocket science, you clown."...meaning it's so simple.
Yet you fail so hard. It's only rocket science dude.
Now when free expansion is mentioned, it means exactly what is says. It's something that is allowed to expand without being resisted.
When you blow up a balloon, you are expanding it but you are not freely expanding it, because the atmosphere creates an immediate barrier to it and squeezes back.
If you allow air to escape from the balloon nozzle, you do so because the atmosphere is pushing and squeezing that balloon and forcing the air out once you allow it to be breached.
And that is why the atmosphere is in the way. The atmosphere stops the free expansion, so that the potential kinetic energy cannot be harvested as efficiently.
Now think about what I've just said. You blow up a balloon against the atmospheric pressure that is pushing and squeezing back against it.
Once you open the nozzle, the air that is ejected from that nozzle happens because it is being squeezed out by the atmosphere, so how can the balloon move in the opposite direction?
Easy, because that nozzle and the fact that the balloon is elastic has enabled it to be filled with air that COMPRESSES the external atmosphere, meaning it exerts more pressure against it, meaning that once that nozzle is opened, the air is pushed at SPEED into the atmosphere, creating a push against the resistance of the external atmosphere meaning that atmosphere immediately starts to SQUEEZE back against it, which forces the balloon away.
The compressed air inside the ballon expands out through the nozzle which creates kinetic energy. Like a rocket engine does.
This is why the balloon goes all wobbly as it flies away, because it's being pushed only by the ejection of compressed air from the nozzle against the external air resisting it and it's a narrow line which is unbalanced and causes the balloon to wobble away.
Nope, that's because of aerodynamics and geometry.
It has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with any push on the inside of the balloon itself. None whatsoever.
The only thing the air inside is doing is resisting being crushed, which is futile if there is an opening.
Now a rocket skin is not elastic like a balloon, so we can't just inflate a rocket and expect it to lift off. It has to have something that can massively expand the atmosphere, which it manages by mixing fuel with oxygen and bingo you have flight.
If nothing pushed the balloon it wouldn't go anywhere, so you're contradicting yourself.
All well and good except in so called space we hit free expansion, or as close to it as humanly possible if we go by the science world explanation.
So let's be simple think sensibly about this. If a rocket is in space and it supposedly works from inside by expansion of gases, then what can it expand to move it. I mean, it's fine igniting gases to expand; but what are we expanding into or against?
Expanding inside/against the nozzle which creates kinetic energy due to pressure differences.
You see, what is the actual point of igniting fuel in space anyway? it's pathetic, right? just like squirting compressed air to shift a shuttle into park mode is pathetic.
Without the energy there would be no expansion and therefore no pressure and therefore no thrust. Simple enough?
Let's imagine that same balloon in space. Imagine....< notice I said IMAGINE. I'll say this because you can bet your bottom dollar some stupid bastard will jump in and not grasp it.
Ok so you blow up your balloon in space. Now unlike in atmosphere which is pushing down/squeezing on the balloon, we do not have that in your space. We have what is known as a balloon that is free to expand. The matter inside the balloon will expand because it has no resistance.
Now imagine opening the nozzle?
All you do is allow the air out into space with no resistance to the air coming out, so it cannot go anywhere other than to stay put.
The ballon would probably exced the speed record on earth for a ballon letting out it's air.
Naturally this is a thought process in fantasy space.
The reality would be a balloon or rocket material acting like the liquid metal terminator after he falls into the liquid nitrogen kind of thing. Basically the structure of anything would disintegrate...but that's another argument that people can't grasp.
So rocket's would disintegrate when in space because of... reasons? Terminator?
So anyway, bang goes your space rockets. You can enjoy your missiles and fire works, etc. As for space rockets and planetary landing's - I say: treat them for what they are - fantasy. Try and focus on reality and see the duping for what it is; in your face and so deliberate, it's actually funny in one way and infuriating in another, only because bozo's are being paid silly money to sit there shagging hookers and drinking champagne, plus smoking the best cigars, not to mention the cars and other material items - all on the back of stories that many of you are buying into with gusto.
So still no evidence? Awww.
-
3000 tonne saturn V rockets going into space. Come on; seriously?...yes, 3000 tonne. not 30, not 300, but 3000.
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Now here's the key. When you see the smoke coming from a car exhaust, it's rightly called exhaust gas, because it's fuel that has been spent, or to put it simpler, it's burned fuel that has no further energy to offer in the propulsion of the vehicle and so, it's ejected as (to us) waste.
Fair enough, right?...it is fair enough because that's how a vehicle powered by fuel and air to pistons, works, which is great on a floor of friction against wheels of motion on that floor.
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force. Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine? If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
-
LOL!!!
Sockarul: PLEASE keep posting that kinda woo; its value in undermining your cause is beyond price!
What_evar: total shitpost.
Anyhow; I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
This is gonna be SO good; rayzor, you are just ACE!
P.s. markjo: Car motion & Newton 3 for dummies: wheels + road; object A + object B; action + reaction...
You shitposting sock-using idiot troll.
LOL, cultists!!!
-
LOL!!!
Sockarul: PLEASE keep posting that kinda woo; its value in undermining your cause is beyond price!
What_evar: total shitpost.
Anyhow; I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
This is gonna be SO good; rayzor, you are just ACE!
P.s. markjo: Car motion & Newton 3 for dummies: wheels + road; object A + object B; action + reaction...
You shitposting sock-using idiot troll.
LOL, cultists!!!
Wow, you completely ignored the proof of satellites.
I will post the link again, which leads to ONE OF THIS FORUMS POSTS.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0)
-
Wow! You completely ignored the point I'm making!
Obvious Idiot Troll is Idiotically Obvious!
LOL!!!
-
Wow! You completely ignored the point I'm making!
Obvious Idiot Troll is Idiotically Obvious!
LOL!!!
Your point was that you wanted easy proof of satellites, and I gave you it. You can ignore it, but it will only make you look more like an troller.
-
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Read this, then either put up or carry on trolling, what_evar...
-
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Read this, then either put up or carry on trolling, what_evar...
Just buy a telescope and look for yourself. If you make the effort you can use your own eyes. Sometime you don't even need a telescope... it will give you more detail than just your eyes
-
Also, this:
Papa Legba has spend a good while explaining things to you people, about why rockets won't work in space.
There's been a few other's who have also waded in to tell you why rockets do not work in space.
We all understand that most of you will argue till the cows come home, against what we've been saying.
However, we also know that there are many people looking in who are curious enough to want to know more and also many people looking in who need no more convincing as to how bogus all this space rocketry is.
So for those who aren't quite there with the thinking, I'll once again add a little bit to the proceeding's just to reiterate, because there's nothing like repeating stuff just to make that clock eventually tick.
3000 tonne saturn V rockets going into space. Come on; seriously?...yes, 3000 tonne. not 30, not 300, but 3000.
Try and work that out. Go and look at a 3000 tonne ship and imagine tipping it up and putting some engines under it and blasting it off into space.
Now try and think of the power that the so called saturn V engines gave out to blast this rocket into so called space. Simply imagine the fuel apparently COMBUSTING INSIDE the rocket in a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and having to lift 3000 tonnes without shaking itself to bits on the launch pad. ::)
Even allowing for the absurdity of all this, we still have the issue of a near vacuum and the argument of how supposed Newton's 3rd law is used.
You see, as we've been subjected to many times, we get told of the action/reaction force of fuel inside the rocket pushing on the rocket itself with no outside influence at all except to merely eject the exhaust gases into space with those exhaust gases doing nothing at all.
Now here's the key. When you see the smoke coming from a car exhaust, it's rightly called exhaust gas, because it's fuel that has been spent, or to put it simpler, it's burned fuel that has no further energy to offer in the propulsion of the vehicle and so, it's ejected as (to us) waste.
Fair enough, right?...it is fair enough because that's how a vehicle powered by fuel and air to pistons, works, which is great on a floor of friction against wheels of motion on that floor.
Let's tip that car up and rev it as hard as you can. It's going nowhere, right?
So what about a rocket exhaust.
When is an exhaust not an exhaust on a rocket?....answer: when it's burning. What do we see being ejected from a rocket?...we see a burning flame at speed. Is this exhaust?....no it's not. It's thrust. It's the reason a rocket works.
Now take a look at any rocket at the nozzle. Take a real good look and you'll notice one very clear thing. You will notice that the fuel and air mixture is ignited and burning like crazy coming from it. This means it is not exhaust, it is thrust. It is the propellant against the atmosphere.
Now once that burning flame is thrust into that atmosphere it has created a super expansion of air which has pushed the colder atmosphere out of the way.
It's literally like the human on the trampoline. The more force placed on that trampoline by the jump/thrust, the more the person pushes down on that trampoline and the more it warps around that jump, meaning the more it will push back upon resistance to that thrust, meaning you go the opposite way. Newton's (?) law of action/reaction.
That's all a rocket is doing. It's throwing burning fuel into the atmosphere and creating a squeeze back from that atmosphere due to the push of expansion it's place into it.
The only time that fuel gets called EXHAUST is when it's finished being pushed back against by the atmosphere, which you will see as a cloud of white or dirty white.
That's the springboard spent and also the fuel into making it but the rocket carries on doing the very same thing for as long as it keeps throwing out burning fuel from the nozzle.
What it does not do is burn fuel inside and expand that fuel against the inside of the rocket to push the rocket. This is shudderingly ludicrous and should be dismissed for the pathetic con that it is.
If that rocket spews out immediate white cloudy smoke or dirty white from that nozzle end, then you have a case for your space rocket because that would mean the rocket fuel is doing the work inside, like a car would.
Naturally we do not see this for obvious reasons. It's because a vertical rocket has no use for this crap idea.
A rocket is simple. The words "rocket science" should be changed from being complicated to meaning simple.
So when a person messes up a simple thing, you should say, " it's rocket science, you clown."...meaning it's so simple.
Now when free expansion is mentioned, it means exactly what is says. It's something that is allowed to expand without being resisted.
When you blow up a balloon, you are expanding it but you are not freely expanding it, because the atmosphere creates an immediate barrier to it and squeezes back.
If you allow air to escape from the balloon nozzle, you do so because the atmosphere is pushing and squeezing that balloon and forcing the air out once you allow it to be breached.
Now think about what I've just said. You blow up a balloon against the atmospheric pressure that is pushing and squeezing back against it.
Once you open the nozzle, the air that is ejected from that nozzle happens because it is being squeezed out by the atmosphere, so how can the balloon move in the opposite direction?
Easy, because that nozzle and the fact that the balloon is elastic has enabled it to be filled with air that COMPRESSES the external atmosphere, meaning it exerts more pressure against it, meaning that once that nozzle is opened, the air is pushed at SPEED into the atmosphere, creating a push against the resistance of the external atmosphere meaning that atmosphere immediately starts to SQUEEZE back against it, which forces the balloon away.
This is why the balloon goes all wobbly as it flies away, because it's being pushed only by the ejection of compressed air from the nozzle against the external air resisting it and it's a narrow line which is unbalanced and causes the balloon to wobble away.
It has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with any push on the inside of the balloon itself. None whatsoever.
The only thing the air inside is doing is resisting being crushed, which is futile if there is an opening.
Now a rocket skin is not elastic like a balloon, so we can't just inflate a rocket and expect it to lift off. It has to have something that can massively expand the atmosphere, which it manages by mixing fuel with oxygen and bingo you have flight.
All well and good except in so called space we hit free expansion, or as close to it as humanly possible if we go by the science world explanation.
So let's be simple think sensibly about this. If a rocket is in space and it supposedly works from inside by expansion of gases, then what can it expand to move it. I mean, it's fine igniting gases to expand; but what are we expanding into or against?
You see, what is the actual point of igniting fuel in space anyway? it's pathetic, right? just like squirting compressed air to shift a shuttle into park mode is pathetic.
Let's imagine that same balloon in space. Imagine....< notice I said IMAGINE. I'll say this because you can bet your bottom dollar some stupid bastard will jump in and not grasp it.
Ok so you blow up your balloon in space. Now unlike in atmosphere which is pushing down/squeezing on the balloon, we do not have that in your space. We have what is known as a balloon that is free to expand. The matter inside the balloon will expand because it has no resistance.
Now imagine opening the nozzle?
All you do is allow the air out into space with no resistance to the air coming out, so it cannot go anywhere other than to stay put.
Naturally this is a thought process in fantasy space.
The reality would be a balloon or rocket material acting like the liquid metal terminator after he falls into the liquid nitrogen kind of thing. Basically the structure of anything would disintegrate...but that's another argument that people can't grasp.
So anyway, bang goes your space rockets. You can enjoy your missiles and fire works, etc. As for space rockets and planetary landing's - I say: treat them for what they are - fantasy. Try and focus on reality and see the duping for what it is; in your face and so deliberate, it's actually funny in one way and infuriating in another, only because bozo's are being paid silly money to sit there shagging hookers and drinking champagne, plus smoking the best cigars, not to mention the cars and other material items - all on the back of stories that many of you are buying into with gusto.
Seriously start using your frigging rational parts of your brains before you expire penniless through funding these fiction writers and talkers, plus some third rate acting.
That's what you get for shitposting, trolling & derailing, sock-puppet cultists.
Now EASILY prove to me that satellites exist...
Directly, empirically, unambiguously, & most importantly, EASILY.
AS YOU PROMISED.
-
We can easily prove they are there in orbit exactly where they are supposed to be...
YOUR claim, cultists; YOUR onus.
Give me a way to EASILY gather definitive, unambiguous first-hand evidence of satellites, or admit you have lied.
It is black & white; either put up or shut up.
-
Also, this:
Papa Legba has spend a good while explaining things to you people, about why rockets won't work in space.
There's been a few other's who have also waded in to tell you why rockets do not work in space.
We all understand that most of you will argue till the cows come home, against what we've been saying.
However, we also know that there are many people looking in who are curious enough to want to know more and also many people looking in who need no more convincing as to how bogus all this space rocketry is.
So for those who aren't quite there with the thinking, I'll once again add a little bit to the proceeding's just to reiterate, because there's nothing like repeating stuff just to make that clock eventually tick.
3000 tonne saturn V rockets going into space. Come on; seriously?...yes, 3000 tonne. not 30, not 300, but 3000.
Try and work that out. Go and look at a 3000 tonne ship and imagine tipping it up and putting some engines under it and blasting it off into space.
Now try and think of the power that the so called saturn V engines gave out to blast this rocket into so called space. Simply imagine the fuel apparently COMBUSTING INSIDE the rocket in a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and having to lift 3000 tonnes without shaking itself to bits on the launch pad. ::)
Even allowing for the absurdity of all this, we still have the issue of a near vacuum and the argument of how supposed Newton's 3rd law is used.
You see, as we've been subjected to many times, we get told of the action/reaction force of fuel inside the rocket pushing on the rocket itself with no outside influence at all except to merely eject the exhaust gases into space with those exhaust gases doing nothing at all.
Now here's the key. When you see the smoke coming from a car exhaust, it's rightly called exhaust gas, because it's fuel that has been spent, or to put it simpler, it's burned fuel that has no further energy to offer in the propulsion of the vehicle and so, it's ejected as (to us) waste.
Fair enough, right?...it is fair enough because that's how a vehicle powered by fuel and air to pistons, works, which is great on a floor of friction against wheels of motion on that floor.
Let's tip that car up and rev it as hard as you can. It's going nowhere, right?
So what about a rocket exhaust.
When is an exhaust not an exhaust on a rocket?....answer: when it's burning. What do we see being ejected from a rocket?...we see a burning flame at speed. Is this exhaust?....no it's not. It's thrust. It's the reason a rocket works.
Now take a look at any rocket at the nozzle. Take a real good look and you'll notice one very clear thing. You will notice that the fuel and air mixture is ignited and burning like crazy coming from it. This means it is not exhaust, it is thrust. It is the propellant against the atmosphere.
Now once that burning flame is thrust into that atmosphere it has created a super expansion of air which has pushed the colder atmosphere out of the way.
It's literally like the human on the trampoline. The more force placed on that trampoline by the jump/thrust, the more the person pushes down on that trampoline and the more it warps around that jump, meaning the more it will push back upon resistance to that thrust, meaning you go the opposite way. Newton's (?) law of action/reaction.
That's all a rocket is doing. It's throwing burning fuel into the atmosphere and creating a squeeze back from that atmosphere due to the push of expansion it's place into it.
The only time that fuel gets called EXHAUST is when it's finished being pushed back against by the atmosphere, which you will see as a cloud of white or dirty white.
That's the springboard spent and also the fuel into making it but the rocket carries on doing the very same thing for as long as it keeps throwing out burning fuel from the nozzle.
What it does not do is burn fuel inside and expand that fuel against the inside of the rocket to push the rocket. This is shudderingly ludicrous and should be dismissed for the pathetic con that it is.
If that rocket spews out immediate white cloudy smoke or dirty white from that nozzle end, then you have a case for your space rocket because that would mean the rocket fuel is doing the work inside, like a car would.
Naturally we do not see this for obvious reasons. It's because a vertical rocket has no use for this crap idea.
A rocket is simple. The words "rocket science" should be changed from being complicated to meaning simple.
So when a person messes up a simple thing, you should say, " it's rocket science, you clown."...meaning it's so simple.
Now when free expansion is mentioned, it means exactly what is says. It's something that is allowed to expand without being resisted.
When you blow up a balloon, you are expanding it but you are not freely expanding it, because the atmosphere creates an immediate barrier to it and squeezes back.
If you allow air to escape from the balloon nozzle, you do so because the atmosphere is pushing and squeezing that balloon and forcing the air out once you allow it to be breached.
Now think about what I've just said. You blow up a balloon against the atmospheric pressure that is pushing and squeezing back against it.
Once you open the nozzle, the air that is ejected from that nozzle happens because it is being squeezed out by the atmosphere, so how can the balloon move in the opposite direction?
Easy, because that nozzle and the fact that the balloon is elastic has enabled it to be filled with air that COMPRESSES the external atmosphere, meaning it exerts more pressure against it, meaning that once that nozzle is opened, the air is pushed at SPEED into the atmosphere, creating a push against the resistance of the external atmosphere meaning that atmosphere immediately starts to SQUEEZE back against it, which forces the balloon away.
This is why the balloon goes all wobbly as it flies away, because it's being pushed only by the ejection of compressed air from the nozzle against the external air resisting it and it's a narrow line which is unbalanced and causes the balloon to wobble away.
It has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with any push on the inside of the balloon itself. None whatsoever.
The only thing the air inside is doing is resisting being crushed, which is futile if there is an opening.
Now a rocket skin is not elastic like a balloon, so we can't just inflate a rocket and expect it to lift off. It has to have something that can massively expand the atmosphere, which it manages by mixing fuel with oxygen and bingo you have flight.
All well and good except in so called space we hit free expansion, or as close to it as humanly possible if we go by the science world explanation.
So let's be simple think sensibly about this. If a rocket is in space and it supposedly works from inside by expansion of gases, then what can it expand to move it. I mean, it's fine igniting gases to expand; but what are we expanding into or against?
You see, what is the actual point of igniting fuel in space anyway? it's pathetic, right? just like squirting compressed air to shift a shuttle into park mode is pathetic.
Let's imagine that same balloon in space. Imagine....< notice I said IMAGINE. I'll say this because you can bet your bottom dollar some stupid bastard will jump in and not grasp it.
Ok so you blow up your balloon in space. Now unlike in atmosphere which is pushing down/squeezing on the balloon, we do not have that in your space. We have what is known as a balloon that is free to expand. The matter inside the balloon will expand because it has no resistance.
Now imagine opening the nozzle?
All you do is allow the air out into space with no resistance to the air coming out, so it cannot go anywhere other than to stay put.
Naturally this is a thought process in fantasy space.
The reality would be a balloon or rocket material acting like the liquid metal terminator after he falls into the liquid nitrogen kind of thing. Basically the structure of anything would disintegrate...but that's another argument that people can't grasp.
So anyway, bang goes your space rockets. You can enjoy your missiles and fire works, etc. As for space rockets and planetary landing's - I say: treat them for what they are - fantasy. Try and focus on reality and see the duping for what it is; in your face and so deliberate, it's actually funny in one way and infuriating in another, only because bozo's are being paid silly money to sit there shagging hookers and drinking champagne, plus smoking the best cigars, not to mention the cars and other material items - all on the back of stories that many of you are buying into with gusto.
Seriously start using your frigging rational parts of your brains before you expire penniless through funding these fiction writers and talkers, plus some third rate acting.
That's what you get for shitposting, trolling & derailing, sock-puppet cultists.
Now EASILY prove to me that satellites exist...
Directly, empirically, unambiguously, & most importantly, EASILY.
AS YOU PROMISED.
I debunked that one.
-
Sock-puppet Liar.
Also, this:
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Yawn!
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
Answer to my post then. I debunked everything you said.
-
Sock-puppet Liar.
Also, this:
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Yawn!
The link I posted two times that you ignore leads to a post by Rayzor where he tells how you can use a GPS device to get the exact position of the satellites.
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
Answer to my post then. I debunked everything you said.
You debunked nothing. I smiled at your post and moved on.
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
Answer to my post then. I debunked everything you said.
You debunked nothing. I smiled at your post and moved on.
Because you can't debunk me. If you could, you would have just gone at it.
-
What_evar: learn to read:
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Now, what_evar; either respond intelligently to the above or get reported for trolling every single time you post.
-
What_evar: learn to read:
I was promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Now, what_evar; either respond intelligently to the above or get reported for trolling every single time you post.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0)
Or is childs play too hard for your one braincell as well?
-
Would a web-link be considered as unambiguous, irrefutable empirical PROOF in any court in the world?
No.
But that's what I was promised.
& you know it.
Ergo: reported for trolling.
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
Answer to my post then. I debunked everything you said.
You debunked nothing. I smiled at your post and moved on.
Because you can't debunk me. If you could, you would have just gone at it.
There's nothing for me to debunk with what you've said. What you said was basically nothing. I mean, if yoou think you've gained something then sit back and smile; just like I am. ;D
You won't get very far playing games with me. You'll just get frustrated and that will turn you nasty and then you'll start calling names, which will then make you look silly, which will then make me smile more. ;D
-
Did you know that 2500 of those 3000 tons never made it past about 40 miles high?
Of course I know this. ;D I know that 3000 of those fictional tonnes weren't even on a launch pad, never mind moving anywhere. ;D
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
It's a starting springboard, which is why you see rockets lift off like a bat out of hell.
Any rocket that doesn't do this will be rendered useless and in a heap. Any TV rocket seen to slowly lift off is a hoax;. a con job; a fantasy.
Answer to my post then. I debunked everything you said.
You debunked nothing. I smiled at your post and moved on.
Because you can't debunk me. If you could, you would have just gone at it.
There's nothing for me to debunk with what you've said. What you said was basically nothing. I mean, if yoou think you've gained something then sit back and smile; just like I am. ;D
You won't get very far playing games with me. You'll just get frustrated and that will turn you nasty and then you'll start calling names, which will then make you look silly, which will then make me smile more. ;D
So you can't even defend yourself or your claims? Well, that wasn't a surprise.
-
Would a web-link be considered as unambiguous, irrefutable empirical PROOF in any court in the world?
No.
But that's what I was promised.
& you know it.
Ergo: reported for trolling.
The "web link" is a discussion in this forum. Guess your last braincell died just now.
-
So you can't even defend yourself or your claims? Well, that wasn't a surprise.
Nothing to defend. You've been explained to off Papa and myself, as well as legion, hoppy, tappet, iwitness and a few other's.#
What you should be doing is taking it on-board and realising just how far back you've been duped with this kind of stuff.
Merely crying and whining like a child trying to tell me you've debunked stuff and that you're a champ, is only going to make me laugh. ;D
-
So you can't even defend yourself or your claims? Well, that wasn't a surprise.
Nothing to defend. You've been explained to off Papa and myself, as well as legion, hoppy, tappet, iwitness and a few other's.#
What you should be doing is taking it on-board and realising just how far back you've been duped with this kind of stuff.
Merely crying and whining like a child trying to tell me you've debunked stuff and that you're a champ, is only going to make me laugh. ;D
None of you have linked to a single outside source that proves your point, I have done that much. Also I proposed an experiment that helps to prove my point.
-
Master_baiter: nobody cares about your lies.
Go away.
Markjo: you said that only 500 tonnes of the Saturn V made it to orbit.
Like that makes any difference to the absurdity of it all.
Because even a 500 tonne rocket is 10 times as big as is physically possible.
50 tonnes is as big as you'll ever get when it comes to liquid-fuelled rockets, & still have any kind of useful range/payload capacity.
& even that won't be going to space.
Because rockets require atmospheric pressure in order to function.
Large rockets are useless, dumb, barrage projectiles; nothing more.
But enjoy conjuring up mathe-magical sci-fi fantasies about going to 'space' in them.
Cultist idiots.
-
Master_baiter: nobody cares about your lies.
Go away.
Markjo: you said that only 500 tonnes of the Saturn V made it to orbit.
Like that makes any difference to the absurdity of it all.
Because even a 500 tonne rocket is 10 times as big as is physically possible.
50 tonnes is as big as you'll ever get when it comes to liquid-fuelled rockets, & still have any kind of useful range/payload capacity.
& even that won't be going to space.
Because rockets require atmospheric pressure in order to function.
Large rockets are useless, dumb, barrage projectiles; nothing more.
But enjoy conjuring up mathe-magical sci-fi fantasies about going to 'space' in them.
Cultist idiots.
Provide one mathematical equation that proves your point and I will shut it. But until then you are only grabbing opinions out of thin air.
-
The thing is, Papa Legba keeps saying that Newton's third law requires an extrinsic (outside) force.
He's right, it's called atmospheric resistance (reaction) to an action (burning rocket fuel).
Where is the extrinsic force in the car engine?
The friction of the wheels on the friction of the road by the force of a push on pistons. The exhaust from that is spent fuel, which is why you don't see a normal car exhaust spewing out fire.
But what makes those wheels turn? The engine, right? Well, the pistons need an extrinsic force to get them to move, don't they? Well, it can't be burning gas, because gas is part of the car, isn't it?
If rocket fuel is part of a rocket and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to the rocket, then it stands to reason that gasoline is part of a car and therefore can't impart any extrinsic force to a car's engine.
The force of rocket fuel is against the atmosphere only, not the rocket. It's a push on push of burning fuel against atmospheric resistance to that.
Where does the rocket fuel burn? What exactly happens as the fuel/oxidizer burns? Does it stay liquid or does it turn into gasses? Does the mass of the fuel/oxidizer change when it's burned? Do the gasses expand rapidly and forcefully or just dribble out the back? If the gasses still have mass, then how much atmospheric mass do those gasses have to interact with in order to have an equal and opposite reaction?
Markjo: you said that only 500 tonnes of the Saturn V made it to orbit.
No, that isn't what I said. I suggest that you seek help for your reading/comprehension disability.
-
What_evar: Math is the language of autists.
& no-one respects the opinion of meat-robots.
Now shut up, sock-puppet shitposter.
Cos nobody cares what you say.
I was being generous with 50 tonnes btw; 25-35 tonnes is more likely.
& with solid fuel rockets you can divide that by at least 3.
Problems of scale, burnt-out/burst casings. etc...
Fact is, rockets are good for very little; that's why everyone gave up on them for any kind of high-altitude research at all by the mid-60s.
The failure of the X-15 project completely killed it off.
But if you want to think you can ride one up the stairway to space-heaven, knock yourselves out...
Everyone with a brain knows all they're good for is mass area barrages, personal anti-tank weapons, unreliable-but-better-than-nothing anti-aircraft missiles...
& fireworks.
So; enjoy, cultists.
Savour the lies.
LOL!!!
P.s. markjo: You can shut up too.
Cos nobody cares what you say either.
If we wanted wikipedia's opinion we'd go look at it.
But we don't; so just shut up.
Mr. Sock-puppeteer.
lol.
-
Also, this; lest we forget..
Rayzor promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Anyone care to answer me?
-
Also, this; lest we forget..
Rayzor promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
Anyone care to answer me?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64162.0)
-
What_evar: Math is the language of autists.
& no-one respects the opinion of meat-robots.
Now shut up, sock-puppet shitposter.
Cos nobody cares what you say.
I was being generous with 50 tonnes btw; 25-35 tonnes is more likely.
& with solid fuel rockets you can divide that by at least 3.
Problems of scale, burnt-out/burst casings. etc...
Fact is, rockets are good for very little; that's why everyone gave up on them for any kind of high-altitude research at all by the mid-60s.
The failure of the X-15 project completely killed it off.
But if you want to think you can ride one up the stairway to space-heaven, knock yourselves out...
Everyone with a brain knows all they're good for is mass area barrages, personal anti-tank weapons, unreliable-but-better-than-nothing anti-aircraft missiles...
& fireworks.
So; enjoy, cultists.
Savour the lies.
LOL!!!
P.s. markjo: You can shut up too.
Cos nobody cares what you say either.
If we wanted wikipedia's opinion we'd go look at it.
But we don't; so just shut up.
Mr. Sock-puppeteer.
lol.
Even a braindead zombie like you should understand that math is required for you to prove yourself.
-
So, let me sum this up. Argument from conspiracy.
Here's some evidence:
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
-
Fact is, rockets are good for very little; that's why everyone gave up on them for any kind of high-altitude research at all by the mid-60s.
The failure of the X-15 project completely killed it off.
Who said that the X-15 project was a failure? ???
-
Rayzor promised that you could EASILY prove to me the existence of satellites.
Thus, I expect to be shown them, in situ in 'space', & also be able to investigate their workings in order to ascertain their functions, personally & empirically, with zero room for ambiguity.
Now; either tell me how I can do that - EASILY, AS PROMISED - or admit that you have lied.
I'm pleased to see you are in fact interested in real evidence you can verify for yourself. Let's do three easy ones.
1. 24 or so GPS Satellites are in orbits around 12,550 miles high, they transmit their actual location in real time together with a time sequence that allows the distance to the satellite to be measured.
To see where they are you just need to eavedrop on the incoming data, so to verify for yourself, get a gps receiver that allows you to see the raw data stream. And see for yourself where they are.
2. Geostationary Satellite Television, if you have satellite TV point the dish away from it's current location and watch the picture disappear. Move it back the picture re-appears. Note the azimuth and elevation. Now find a friend some distance away and repeat the experiment, then you can triangulate the satellite position. If you are too lazy to do this, then I can provide you with dish aiming data from a satellite tv installer.
3. Weather satellites. Don't trust the weather bureau, get your own direct from the satellite. http://www.g4ilo.com/wxsats.html (http://www.g4ilo.com/wxsats.html) build your own receiver, there are two types of weather satellite, the geostationary ones that can take pictures of the whole globe, and lower orbiting ones that can take higher resolution. Once you have your own pictures, compare with what you can see outside your window for verification.
All of these things can be done by anyone interested enough with a minimum amount of time and effort.
-
Or you could... oh, ya know... go outside and look at the sky after dusk and see the satellites. I've gone out for 5 nights in a row at 9:16-9:17 and 10:07-10:08 PM and can see a satellite zipping by at north/northwest. It's pretty cool and conclusive proof they're there - and they had to get there somehow.
-
LOL!!!
'There are lights in the sky!'
'My phone works!'
'My television works!'
'It says so on the internet!'
LMAO!!!
None of the above prove that there are gewgaws spinning round in space, any more than the presence of gifts under an Xmas tree prove the existence of Santa Claus.
Now; tell me how I can - EASILY - view these things, in situ, to verify their existence empirically & unambiguously.
Because THAT is what PROOF consists of, cultists; & it is the only kind I will accept.
So either provide it.
Or admit that you have lied.
You won't, of course; just like you could not admit that you have no empirical evidence for space-travel earlier in the thread.
But you will bang on for ever & ever to the contrary, like good little cult-drones...
Won't you?
Here's a good idea - ask me if I've been to Australia for a gazillion posts!
LOL!!!
Oh, & markjo: funny how you got in a snit when I said the X-15 programme was a failure, ain't it?
But, of course, you do not work for NASA, do you?
It must be true; because you told us yourself... on the Internet!
LMAO!!!
'If Santa doesn't exist, then where do all the presents come from?'
ROFLMAO - at YOU!!!
-
Now; tell me how I can - EASILY - view these things, in situ, to verify their existence empirically & unambiguously.
I thought you would be either too dumb, or too lazy to do any of the EASY things. So let's take it step by step.
STEP 1. Do you know what GPS is?
-
I know what the acronym GPS stands for.
I also know what the acronym GCHQ stands for.
But I did not ask to play word-games, electronic engineer rayzor/evil edna.
Instead, I asked to be shown satellites, in situ in 'space', so that I can personally verify their existence.
Because that is the ONLY proof I will accept.
& you claimed you could EASILY provide that proof.
Now do so.
YOUR claim; YOUR onus.
You may wish to start by telling me how I can EASILY get to 'space'...
Then we'll take it from there.
LOL!!!
-
Now; tell me how I can - EASILY - view these things, in situ, to verify their existence empirically & unambiguously.
Buy a telescope and look for yourself
-
I know what the acronym GPS stands for.
Good.
Step 2. Do you own a GPS device.
-
I know what the acronym GPS stands for.
Instead, I asked to be shown satellites, in situ in 'space', so that I can personally verify their existence.
Ehhmm buy a telescope...
-
I only wanted to step into this cesspit for a moment to express my respect for everybody that manages to stay calm and composed in the face of the preschool level playground taunts and brain farts by a certain poster ... you are much better men than I will ever be.
-
Stop talking to yourself, Evil Edna.
& start telling me how I can EASILY get to 'space', in order to personally examine one of your magical floating, bleeping gizmos for myself.
Because that is the ONLY thing that I will accept as proof that they exist.
& as you claimed you could EASILY provide that proof, you better get cracking.
YOUR claim, rayzor; YOUR onus.
Now: EASILY getting into space; HOW, please?
& obvious-sock-with-a-suspiciously-familiar-vocabulary Trollblood: LOL!!!
Pavasocky: ditto.
Go polish your 'telescope', troll...
-
Stop talking to yourself, Evil Edna.
& start telling me how I can EASILY get to 'space', in order to personally examine one of your magical floating, bleeping gizmos for myself.
Because that is the ONLY thing that I will accept as proof that they exist.
& as you claimed you could EASILY provide that proof, you better get cracking.
YOUR claim, rayzor; YOUR onus.
Now: EASILY getting into space; HOW, please?
& obvious-sock-with-a-suspiciously-familiar-vocabulary Trollblood: LOL!!!
Pavasocky: ditto.
Go polish your 'telescope', troll...
Rayzor never said it was easy to get to space, he said it was easy to prove the existence of satellites in space.
And it is easy to get to space. Just pay NASA a few million dollars and you should get a ticket for the next manned launch to the ISS.
-
And it is easy to get to space.
LOL!!!
Liar.
Now, rayzor; how do I EASILY get to space?
Tell me or admit you too are a liar.
-
And it is easy to get to space.
LOL!!!
Liar.
Now, rayzor; how do I EASILY get to space?
Tell me or admit you too are a liar.
Just pay NASA a few million dollars and they will send you to space. Do you really think that is hard? Can you even feed yourself or is that too hard as well?
-
LOL!!!
'Just a few million dollars'
'Do you really think that is hard?'
LMFAO!!!
Priceless...
You brainwashed Thought-Police just crack me up.
Now, again; tell me how I can EASILY get to 'space', rayzor...
Or admit you are a LIAR.
-
LOL!!!
'Just a few million dollars'
'Do you really think that is hard?'
LMFAO!!!
Priceless...
You brainwashed Thought-Police just crack me up.
Now, again; tell me how I can EASILY get to 'space', rayzor...
Or admit you are a LIAR.
What, so you admit it is HARD to pay someone money? How do you pay your bills and food etc.? You should reevaluate your life until now if you believe handing over some money is hard.
-
And it is easy to get to space.
LOL!!!
Liar.
Now, rayzor; how do I EASILY get to space?
Tell me or admit you too are a liar.
You will never get to space, I don't think you are rich enough or smart enough. (prove me wrong)
But you can prove to yourself that satellites are already in space, if you are willing. You just need a GPS unit that gives access to NMEA sequences, and if you look at the $GPSRV data, that will give you a list of all the satellites that the receiver can see, together with the azimuth and elevation plus signal quality to all the satellites the receiver can see.
The ranging information is also accessable on receivers that have raw binary data capabilities, the ranging information tells the distance from the transmitter to the receiver, typically the transmitter is more than 10,000 miles away. Which rules out the possibility of ground stations. For example a typical satellite might have ranging data of say, 23095489.677 meters, that means the satellite is 23,095 km from the receiver. 14,4434 miles.
I predict that you aren't in fact willing to put your ideas to the test and instead will respond with childish squawks and wing flapping... Or you could call me a liar if it makes you feel better.
When you are ready to move on, we can discuss geostationary tv satellites.
-
What_evar: LOL!!!
Yeah, master_baiter; going to space is as EASY as getting a bus & being a multi-millionaire is EASY too; how daft of me not to know that!
LMAO!!!
Still; your derailing & diversion is getting boring now...
So I'll just wait until you go off-duty & carry on then.
Cos rayzor owes me an answer, or he is a proven liar.
& if he refuses to answer then he is a liar by omission.
So, rayzor: tell me how I EASILY get to space, please?
Oh - look!
Here he is now, as we speak!
What a surprise...
& as he could NOT answer, & I therefore CAN NOT go EASILY to space in order to ascertain the existence of satellites IN PERSON, then he is a PROVEN liar.
& he even got his excuses in already; 'if calling me a liar makes you feel better...'
LMAO!!!
No, rayzor; calling you a liar makes you A LIAR.
You just PROVED it; by LYING.
What an utter fool you've made of yourself...
ROFLMFAO - at YOU!!!
Now carry on spamming your telecoms pseudo-expertise as if it 'proves' anything, psyopticon.
After all; if Santa doesn't exist, then where do all the presents come from?
Eh?
Idiot...
-
What_evar: LOL!!!
Yeah, master_baiter; going to space is as EASY as getting a bus & being a multi-millionaire is EASY too; how daft of me not to know that!
LMAO!!!
Still; your derailing & diversion is getting boring now...
So I'll just wait until you go off-duty & carry on then.
Cos rayzor owes me an answer, or he is a proven liar.
& if he refuses to answer then he is a liar by omission.
So, rayzor: tell me how I EASILY get to space, please?
Oh - look!
Here he is now, as we speak!
What a surprise...
& as he could NOT answer, & I therefore CAN NOT go EASILY to space in order to ascertain the existence of satellites IN PERSON, then he is a PROVEN liar.
& he even got his excuses in already; 'if calling me a liar makes you feel better...'
LMAO!!!
No, rayzor; calling you a liar makes you A LIAR.
You just PROVED it; by LYING.
What an utter fool you've made of yourself...
ROFLMFAO - at YOU!!!
Now carry on spamming your telecoms pseudo-expertise as if it 'proves' anything, psyopticon.
After all; if Santa doesn't exist, then where do all the presents come from?
Eh?
Idiot...
Rayzor never said that it is easy to get into space.
Also please give us the mathematical equations that proves us wrong.
-
When you are ready to move on, we can discuss geostationary tv satellites.
Do you really think that I will waste a single second of my life 'discussing' FAKE data from FAKE machinery with a FAKE persona on a FAKE flat earth forum?
LMFAO!!!
No, rayzor & all your cultist brethren; I will carry on doing what I have always done here.
& that is to laugh at you & your pompous nonsense as long, loud & often as possible.
So there.
& LOL!!!
At YOU!!!
& master_baiter: rayzor LIED when he said he could EASILY prove satellites exist.
& No; I will give you NOTHING except my total contempt.
-
When you are ready to move on, we can discuss geostationary tv satellites.
Do you really think that I will waste a single second of my life 'discussing' FAKE data from FAKE machinery with a FAKE persona on a FAKE flat earth forum?
LMFAO!!!
No, rayzor & all your cultist brethren; I will carry on doing what I have always done here.
& that is to laugh at you & your pompous nonsense as long, loud & often as possible.
So there.
& LOL!!!
At YOU!!!
& master_baiter: rayzor LIED when he said he could EASILY prove satellites exist.
& No; I will give you NOTHING except my total contempt.
If all the GPS devices are fake then why do they work? Magic?
-
Well we know satellites do not get into space from rockets. We also know that satellites cannot be launched from planes into so called space.
This has been proved very clearly.
So, what we have left is needing verifiable proof that these satellites are indeed, in space. Now we get told time and time again about the ISS and shown pictures of it that only globalists seem to be able to get.
One minute this ISS is ridiculously hard to capture and the next it is so easy that a child with a cheap set of binoculars and a throwaway camera can capture, basically.
So back to satellites.
Orbits vary from a few hundred miles to a few thousand to 23,000. Basically they put them anywhere they like and they don't have to tell us how they managed it. You know like, how they managed to get a rocket out to 23,000 miles to deliver a satellite to have in synchronise with a rotating Earth as we are told it is.
When these so called satellites slow down a tad they are re-boosted by some engine thing of whatever description fits best.
The thing is, space is apparently littered to hell with these things, apparently.
Satellites and debris and what not. Thousands and thousands of the little bastards and guess what. Not many pictures do we see of any satellite. We get the silly Hubble effigy and the ISS effigy but we never get to see these satellites. And not only that; none of them are geared to taking pictures of Earth. Why? Too boring?
The best that is up there in man made contraptions, are not very high and are also made of materials that can keep them up there in our atmosphere. Whatever anyone wants to call them, as in, blimps or whatever, is fine.
What isn't fine is calling them space satellites, because there is no argument for them - at all.
Rocketry in a vacuum or near vacuum is a no go which means that anything powered will not work, no matter what clap trap is made up to magically try to make it happen.
Go and check up on satellites in space and apart from the in our faces Hubble and ISS which are laughable in themselves, go and bring up some real looking satellites.
A total crock of crap.
-
master_b8r: Gr8 b8 m8; I r8 8/8.
Now carry on your shitpost rampage all over the forum, Troll...
LOL!!!
sceptimatic: Hello!
Rayzor's having a bad day at the office, isn't he?
LOL!!!
-
master_b8r: Gr8 b8 m8; I r8 8/8.
Now carry on your shitpost rampage all over the forum, Troll...
LOL!!!
sceptimatic: Hello!
Rayzor's having a bad day at the office, isn't he?
LOL!!!
So how do GPS work if it is fake? Magic?
-
So how do all the presents appear under the Xmas Tree if Santa Claus is fake?
Magic?
Idiot Troll...
-
master_b8r: Gr8 b8 m8; I r8 8/8.
Now carry on your shitpost rampage all over the forum, Troll...
LOL!!!
sceptimatic: Hello!
Rayzor's having a bad day at the office, isn't he?
LOL!!!
Squawk squawk, now knock over a few chess pieces and your days work is complete, then you can fly off with scepti back to the nest.
Seriously, you must have at least one ot two functioning braincells left that are screaming to you, that I'm right. You have been tricked and deceived by your own arrogance. There is no way out.
The next time you use GPS or watch satellite TV or see a weather forecast, you will know I am right. Newton was right.
While you my poor deluded friends are so fucked up and so wrong, it's sad. ROTFLMAO!!!!
Let's hear some more of your ever more desperate insults and pitiful pleas... Tell me it's magic, please....
-
Thousands and thousands of the little bastards and guess what. Not many pictures do we see of any satellite. We get the silly Hubble effigy and the ISS effigy but we never get to see these satellites. And not only that; none of them are geared to taking pictures of Earth. Why? Too boring?
Flat earthers like you repeatedly claim there are no images from space showing the whole globe. There are weather satellites in geostationary orbit which provide pictures of the full disk every 3 hours.
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/goesfull.html (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/goesfull.html)
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_meteo.html (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_meteo.html)
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/ (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/)
http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/index.html (http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/index.html)
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_ind.html (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_ind.html)
If you don't trust the official sites, then here is a list of amateur weather satellite sites.
http://www.wxtoimg.com/gallery/ (http://www.wxtoimg.com/gallery/)
Or you can build your own receiver to get real-time weather satellite images.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/Radio/WeatherSatStation/intro.html (http://www.hobbyspace.com/Radio/WeatherSatStation/intro.html)
Don't tell Papa legover, he will have a mental melt down if he hears about these, and I never even got to interrupt his BskyB porn channel.... dammn.
-
Rayzor: LOL!!!
You claimed you could EASILY prove to me that satellites exist.
When I asked you to back up that claim by showing me how I could EASILY get to space to view these improbable machines in situ, thus providing a level of proof any sane person would require, you were unable to tell me how.
Ergo; you lied about being EASILY able to prove satellites exist.
So you are the one strutting about trying to kick things over in a childish huff, evil edna; not I.
Why?
Because you were shown, in front of the whole forum, to be a Liar.
Now; carry on with your increasingly bizarre & unstable behaviour...
Cos it's pretty LOL!!!
-
Rayzor: LOL!!!
You claimed you could EASILY prove to me that satellites exist.
When I asked you to back up that claim by showing me how I could EASILY get to space to view these improbable machines in situ, thus providing a level of proof any sane person would require, you were unable to tell me how.
Ergo; you lied about being EASILY able to prove satellites exist.
So you are the one strutting about trying to kick things over in a childish huff, evil edna; not I.
Why?
Because you were shown, in front of the whole forum, to be a Liar.
Now; carry on with your increasingly bizarre & unstable behaviour...
Cos it's pretty LOL!!!
If you only had a braincell...
-
Rayzor: LOL!!
You claimed you could EASILY prove to me that satellites exist.
Yes, and it is easy, I just forgot that you have a severe mental handicap, for that oversight I apologise. You do know that you don't have to go to a TV studio to watch TV? or maybe you don't... You don't have to go into space to prove satellites are real either. But I guess logic is a foreign language to you with your conspiracy theory handicap.
Can I get the nurse to bring you some more colouring in books and some fresh crayons?
-
Rayzor: LOL!!!
You claimed you could EASILY prove to me that satellites exist.
When I asked you to back up that claim by showing me how I could EASILY get to space to view these improbable machines in situ, thus providing a level of proof any sane person would require, you were unable to tell me how.
Ergo; you lied about being EASILY able to prove satellites exist.
So you are the one strutting about trying to kick things over in a childish huff, evil edna; not I.
Why?
Because you were shown, in front of the whole forum, to be a Liar.
Now; carry on with your increasingly bizarre & unstable behaviour...
Cos it's pretty LOL!!!
Satellites have been proven easily. There are huge amounts of varied and independent evidence that shows that satellites are possible and do indeed exist without having to physically send you to space to visually show you. This is quite aside from the fact that you can buy your own telescope and actually see the ISS with your own eyes.
Any rational person with an ounce of sense and intelligence can connect all the different types of evidence and draw the conclusion that not only are satellites possible but that in fact a lot of current technology in use is not possible without them.
-
LOL!!!
Another sock-puppet double-act...
But you really need to watch your vocabulary, edna; using the same word - 'braincells' - in both persona's posts gives your game away.
Quick; go edit it!
You can; cos I don't even care enough about you to try & record your rookie mistakes.
You have TOTALLY lost it today, edna...
& that is LOL!!!
-
So, what we have left is needing verifiable proof that these satellites are indeed, in space. Now we get told time and time again about the ISS and shown pictures of it that only globalists seem to be able to get.
That's because FE'ers are lazy and/or afraid to try.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
So, what we have left is needing verifiable proof that these satellites are indeed, in space. Now we get told time and time again about the ISS and shown pictures of it that only globalists seem to be able to get.
One minute this ISS is ridiculously hard to capture and the next it is so easy that a child with a cheap set of binoculars and a throwaway camera can capture, basically.
Go and check up on satellites in space and apart from the in our faces Hubble and ISS which are laughable in themselves, go and bring up some real looking satellites.
Buy a telescope
Rayzor: LOL!!!
You claimed you could EASILY prove to me that satellites exist.
Ergo; you lied about being EASILY able to prove satellites exist.
Buy a telescope
When you are ready to move on, we can discuss geostationary tv satellites.
Do you really think that I will waste a single second of my life 'discussing' FAKE data from FAKE machinery with a FAKE persona on a FAKE flat earth forum?
Now this is rich... I really didn't know the flat earth forum is fake
& master_baiter: rayzor LIED when he said he could EASILY prove satellites exist.
No they didn't, buy a telescope and you can prove it to yourself, markjo was very helpful in assisting you with following which I will kindly repost:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
LOL!!!
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
LMAO - at YOUR transparent scummery!!!
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
-
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
LOL!!!
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
LMAO - at YOUR transparent scummery!!!
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
Always an excuse... seriously dude, what are you smoking?
-
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
Fine, then make your own telescope.
http://www.space.com/24114-how-to-build-a-telescope-science-fair-projects.html (http://www.space.com/24114-how-to-build-a-telescope-science-fair-projects.html)
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Okay, then make a binocular telescope.
http://www.binoscope.co.nz/ (http://www.binoscope.co.nz/)
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
Is it to late for these binoculars?
http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/joerg_28bino_mechanics_en.htm (http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/joerg_28bino_mechanics_en.htm)
(http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/bilder/Joerg_28/joerg_bino28_6.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
LOL!!!
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
LMAO - at YOUR transparent scummery!!!
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
So evidence proving space travel is automatically fake? So GPS is fake, telescopes are fake, photos are fake, public event launchers are fake, every company that has ever invester in satellites are faking, Newtons laws are fake etc?
Sorry, but some of these things just cannot be fake and you sound pretty nutty.
-
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
LOL!!!
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
LMAO - at YOUR transparent scummery!!!
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
So evidence proving space travel is automatically fake? So GPS is fake, telescopes are fake, photos are fake, public event launchers are fake, every company that has ever invester in satellites are faking, Newtons laws are fake etc?
Sorry, but some of these things just cannot be fake and you sound pretty nutty.
Maybe his better half is also faking
-
LOL!!!
You talk a lot.
But you explain nothing.
You simply can not see something the alleged size of the ISS from 240 miles away.
Unless it is burning white-hot, maybe?
Is your ISS burning white-hot?
Meh; I do not care.
Because it does not exist...
Because it can not exist...
No telescope required.
Unless you're a gullible idiot...
'I see lights in the sky!'
'Therefore space-travel!'
LOL!!!
Grow up.
-
LOL!!!
You talk a lot.
But you explain nothing.
You simply can not see something the alleged size of the ISS from 240 miles away.
Unless it is burning white-hot, maybe?
Is your ISS burning white-hot?
Meh; I do not care.
Because it does not exist...
Because it can not exist...
No telescope required.
Unless you're a gullible idiot...
'I see lights in the sky!'
'Therefore space-travel!'
LOL!!!
Grow up.
Your logic:
I probably can't see it because it is not burning but I don't care because space travel is fake because LOL.
Flawless
/sarcasm
-
LOL!!!
Is your ISS burning white-hot, cultist spam-troll?
Because if it is not, then no way can it be visible from two hundred and forty miles away.
No. Way.
So; Is your ISS burning white-hot?
-
Because if it is not, then no way can it be visible from two hundred and forty miles away.
No. Way.
You can, if you use a telescope
-
So; I'll take that as a 'No'.
The ISS is NOT burning white-hot.
If so, then no way can the ISS be visible with the naked eye from 240 miles away.
Wait - or did you forget that you claimed that it is?
Get your stories straight, cultists!
So; my next question, just for clarity; is the ISS visible with the naked eye?
LOL!!!
This is fun...
-
So; my next question, just for clarity; is the ISS visible with the naked eye?
This is fun...
Yes, very funny! I have seen the "ISS" several times with my naked eye passing high up over my roof terrasse overlooking the Med here at Beausoleil, S. France. It comes from London/UK in the North West heading for Rome/Italy in the South East, when the sun sets and then it can be seen for up to six minutes in the setting sunshine.
IMO it is a big, empty, silver balloon type satellite sent up by NASA. I have taken photos of it and looked at it through a telescope. It is just a big white BLOB. Diameter maybe 200 m. People publishing photos of it looking like a spider seem to be paid by NASA. Nobody can get down from this stupid BLOB contraption. Reason is that re-entry from it is not possible. http://heiwaco.co (http://heiwaco.co)ù/moontravel.htm .
-
So; my next question, just for clarity; is the ISS visible with the naked eye?
This is fun...
Yes, very funny! I have seen the "ISS" several times with my naked eye passing high up over my roof terrasse overlooking the Med here at Beausoleil, S. France. It comes from London/UK in the North West heading for Rome/Italy in the South East, when the sun sets and then it can be seen for up to six minutes in the setting sunshine.
IMO it is a big, empty, silver balloon type satellite sent up by NASA. I have taken photos of it and looked at it through a telescope. It is just a big white BLOB. Diameter maybe 200 m. People publishing photos of it looking like a spider seem to be paid by NASA. Nobody can get down from this stupid BLOB contraption. Reason is that re-entry from it is not possible. http://heiwaco.co (http://heiwaco.co)ù/moontravel.htm .
It does one rotation every 90 minutes. No ballon in the world can do it in even one hundreths of that time.
-
So; the ISS is 240 miles away.
But the ISS is NOT glowing white hot.
Yet the ISS IS visible with the naked eye...
Anybody believe the above 3 facts are reconcilable with any known science?
Or even common sense?
If so, you deserve all you get...
LOL!!!
-
So; the ISS is 240 miles away.
No, the ISS is about 249 mile high. How far away it is depends on where exactly you are when it passes by. Probably 300-400 miles or more.
But the ISS is NOT glowing white hot.
No one said that it was. However, it does have a large array of shiny solar panels.
Yet the ISS IS visible with the naked eye...
Yes, it's second in brightness only to the moon in the night sky.
Anybody believe the above 3 facts are reconcilable with any known science?
Yes, namely the science of optics.
Or even common sense?
Common sense says that the bumble bee's wings are too small for it to fly. Don't count on common sense to be right all the time.
-
Yet the ISS IS visible with the naked eye...
Yes, it's second in brightness only to the moon in the night sky.
And he can look himself
-
Objects don't have to be glowing white hot for them to be visible. The moon isn't glowing white hot, and it's visible. Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn aren't glowing white hot and they're visible.
Here's what you can do. If you have a mobile phone, download an app called SkyView (available for iOS and Android). It will tell you where in the sky various objects will be, including the sun, the moon, various planets, and yes, the ISS.
Next time the ISS is above the horizon at night, go outside and look for it using the app. It will tell you exactly where to look for it.
That goes for everyone on this forum. SkyView is a really cool app and it's fun to go out and find the planets. Right now Jupiter is quite close to Venus in the sky, so you should check that out.
-
Some of you people will stay space comatose. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or hope someone walks past you and gives you all a slap and a shake and a scream into the face to wake the eff up.
ISS having shiny solar panels ;D...what the hell for ;D
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
Common sense DOES NOT say that the bumblebee's wings are too small for it to fly...
Because we can SEE it flying, right in front of our eyes!
You are SO stupid, markjo; honestly, what is WRONG with you?
But whatever, culty-boy...
Anyhow; you claim we can see something the size of a football pitch from 249 (happy now, autist?) miles away, even though it is not white-hot, cos its solar panels reflect light DIRECTLY UPON US AT ALL TIMES DURING ITS FLIGHT.
AT ALL TIMES!!!
LMAO!!!
The depths of delusion you are willing to plumb are simply beyond comprehension, markjo...
Truly.
Plus, you got busted sock-puppeting on top of that!
You are JUST SO LOL!!!
-
So; I'll take that as a 'No'.
The ISS is NOT burning white-hot.
If so, then no way can the ISS be visible with the naked eye from 240 miles away.
Citation required. Your incredulity does not qualify your position in any way.
-
'citation required'?
LMAO!!!
Who do you think you are, Rama Sock, the Thought-Inspector General?
Just STFU.
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
Common sense DOES NOT say that the bumblebee's wings are too small for it to fly...
Because we can SEE it flying, right in front of our eyes!
You are SO stupid, markjo; honestly, what is WRONG with you?
But whatever, culty-boy...
Anyhow; you claim we can see something the size of a football pitch from 249 (happy now, autist?) miles away, even though it is not white-hot, cos its solar panels reflect light DIRECTLY UPON US AT ALL TIMES DURING ITS FLIGHT.
AT ALL TIMES!!!
LMAO!!!
The depths of delusion you are willing to plumb are simply beyond comprehension, markjo...
Truly.
Plus, you got busted sock-puppeting on top of that!
You are JUST SO LOL!!!
If comments sense says that a bumblebee can fly because we see it, the common sense must also say that the ISS can fly in space because we can see it. The station is mostly white so it reflects a alot of light. And you can't say it is impossible to see it when people can see and you just haven't tried. Like you can't say that the moon is not real because it can't possibly be seen when people do in fact see it. (Not claiming that you have stated that the moon isn't visible)
-
That goes for everyone on this forum. SkyView is a really cool app and it's fun to go out and find the planets. Right now Jupiter is quite close to Venus in the sky, so you should check that out.
Awesome, although these forums has the biggest fools I've ever seen, it also delivers some cool stuff
-
Master_b8r: I know a bumble bee can fly because I can physically inspect it doing so from any & all angles, idiot.
But I can NOT do that with the ISS.
The best I can do is watch a blob in the sky float past, then be forced to take some dingbat like you's word for it that what I see is in fact a series of tubes, full of people playing guitars & flutes, & doing no science, ever, travelling at 17,500 mph, two hundred and forty bloody nine miles above my head...
Well, excuse me; but that is juuust a wee bit rich for my blood.
So forgive me for simply concluding that your whole story is made up entirely of LOL!, Hoax & Fail...
-
Master_b8r: I know a bumble bee can fly because I can physically inspect it doing so from any & all angles, idiot.
But I can NOT do that with the ISS.
The best I can do is watch a blob in the sky float past, then be forced to take some dingbat like you's word for it that what I see is in fact a series of tubes, full of people playing guitars & flutes, & doing no science, ever, travelling at 17,500 mph, two hundred and forty bloody nine miles above my head...
Well, excuse me; but that is juuust a wee bit rich for my blood.
So forgive me for simply concluding that your whole story is made up entirely of LOL!, Hoax & Fail...
Apology not accepted.
-
'citation required'?
LMAO!!!
Who do you think you are, Rama Sock, the Thought-Inspector General?
Just STFU.
Very well. I'm not sure why you are so rude about it since all I am asking is that you back-up your claims with substance. You will have to concede your position on the visibility of the ISS though. After all, a lot of people have seen it as predicted.
-
Master_b8r: Derailing attempt not accepted either, Troll-sock.
Now; a series of incandescent tubes, floating 249 miles above my head, travelling in never-ending circles at 17,500 mph (lol!), full of children's TV presenters with fright-wig hair-styles, playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever, with unlashed wiring all over the place, minimal hygiene or emergency escape facilities, etc, etc...
THAT is your 'ISS'.
Believable?
Or Be-LOL-able?
You decide...
If your washed-clean brain is capable of such a thing any more.
LOL!!!
p.s. Rama Sock: give me a citation that you are not a Troll.
Or just STFU; I don't care which.
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
Common sense DOES NOT say that the bumblebee's wings are too small for it to fly...
Of course it does. Common sense says that as bugs get bigger, they need bigger wings to fly. Anyone can plainly see that a bumble bee's wings are just too small to work.
Because we can SEE it flying, right in front of our eyes!
Who are you going to believe, common sense or your eyes?
You are SO stupid, markjo; honestly, what is WRONG with you?
I'm just trying to show you the weakness of your "common sense says it's too big to fly" argument.
Anyhow; you claim we can see something the size of a football pitch from 249 (happy now, autist?) miles away, even though it is not white-hot, cos its solar panels reflect light DIRECTLY UPON US AT ALL TIMES DURING ITS FLIGHT.
AT ALL TIMES!!!
Who said "at all times" other than you? ???
The depths of delusion you are willing to plumb are simply beyond comprehension, markjo...
I see that you've plumbed those depths yourself.
You are JUST SO LOL!!!
Yes, because LOL is such a compelling argument. ::)
-
Do you have a valid point to make, markjo?
Because of you think I'm going to rebut that pile of manure tit-for-tat you can think again, loser.
Your brain - like your butt - is broken.
Either call a WAAAAmbulance or stop shitposting.
Ever since you were caught sock-puppeting, markjo, your credibility & '27.000-posts-of-wiki-blah' authority has evaporated.
It is GONE.
You are now merely another no-life nerdy Troll, posting endless blah & fail that nobody cares about.
Enjoy.
Plus: the X-15 programme was indeed a complete failure; do you even know why?
You genuinely don't, do you?
LOL!!!
-
Do you have a valid point to make, markjo?
Because of you think I'm going to rebut that pile of manure tit-for-tat you can think again, loser.
Yeah, I don't know why I expect you to actually contribute anything productive to the discussion.
Plus: the X-15 programme was indeed a complete failure; do you even know why?
Was it really? Last I heard, the X-15 program was quite successful in its investigation into high altitude and hypersonic flight regions.
You genuinely don't, do you?
No, I don't. Please enlighten me.
-
p.s. Rama Sock: give me a citation that you are not a Troll.
Or just STFU; I don't care which.
I never claimed to be a troll so I don't have any reason to even contemplate your comment. I will leave it to the neutral reader to decide what sort of person behaves like you.
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
Straight outta wikipedia...
You are so predictable.
But anyway; let's look at the silly space shuttle again; specifically its very tall & narrow Vertical Stabiliser, or Tail Fin.
Notice anything unusual about it?
Cos if you've done the research on aerodynamics I suggested then you really should...
If not, then do a google-image search of 'hypersonic tail-fins'; or even 'supersonic tail-fins'.
What the hell; google pics of ANY aircraft that can easily exceed the speed of sound...
Concorde, say, or the SR-71.
Now; LOOK at their tail-fins; are any of them remotely the same size & shape as the shuttle's?
No; they are not.
Look at the tail-fins on SUBSONIC designs, though, & bingo!
Even the decidedly subsonic jumbo jet that allegedly transported the farcical space-scuttle on its back (lol!) has a more streamlined & swept-back tail-fin than its useless, faked-up cargo does...
It's staring you in the face, folks; cos aerodynamics Do Not Lie.
Oh; & you may also want to look into what the tail's made of & how it's supposedly attached to the fuselage...
Aluminium? & a handful of bolts?!?
For a structure of that size which has to resist such extreme hypersonic drag & heat-friction!?!?
LMAO!!!
What a lash-up!
Now; off you go, cultists - NASA is under attack!
Minions Assemble - To the Rescue!
LOL!!!
P.s. Rama Sock; good.
But as no neutral reader will ever read your insipid, time-wasting sock-posts, then who cares?
Which leaves you with Option B - STFU.
LOL!!!
-
markjo: Humans have little rocks in their mouths called teeth.
Papa: LOL! tiny rocks in your mouths, that's a good one. Keep up your cultist lies!
markjo: Well, teeth are clearly visible, all you have to do it look.
Papa: How can I look in my own mouth, idiot? You people are so deluded that you think you can look inside your own mouths!
markjo: You can have somebody else look in your mouth an confirm that your teeth are there.
Papa: anybody who says they have seen another person's teeth are just deluded. They have been brainwashed since birth that teeth exist, so they lie to themselves. Teeth are a conspiracy by Big Dental to sell toothbrushes.
markjo: You can see your own teeth if you open your mouth and look in a mirror.
Papa: Mirrors reflect images, dumbass! No image from a mirror will ever be trustworthy because the image will be flipped! You idiots are so deluded that you think we have rocks in our mouths! If we had rocks in our mouths, why aren't we shitting out rocks all the time?
markjo: *headdesk*
-
lul wut?
Dumbass butt-kisser.
Also, this:
But anyway; let's look at the silly space shuttle again; specifically its very tall & narrow Vertical Stabiliser, or Tail Fin.
Notice anything unusual about it?
Cos if you've done the research on aerodynamics I suggested then you really should...
If not, then do a google-image search of 'hypersonic tail-fins'; or even 'supersonic tail-fins'.
What the hell; google pics of ANY aircraft that can easily exceed the speed of sound...
Concorde, say, or the SR-71.
Now; LOOK at their tail-fins; are any of them remotely the same size & shape as the shuttle's?
No; they are not.
Look at the tail-fins on SUBSONIC designs, though, & bingo!
Even the decidedly subsonic jumbo jet that allegedly transported the farcical space-scuttle on its back (lol!) has a more streamlined & swept-back tail-fin than its useless, faked-up cargo does...
It's staring you in the face, folks; cos aerodynamics Do Not Lie.
Oh; & you may also want to look into what the tail's made of & how it's supposedly attached to the fuselage...
Aluminium? & a handful of bolts?!?
For a structure of that size which has to resist such extreme hypersonic drag & heat-friction!?!?
LMAO!!!
What a lash-up!
Now; off you go, cultists - NASA is under attack!
Minions Assemble - To the Rescue!
LOL!!
-
It's so cute that you think the aerodynamics of a space shuttle designed for atmospheric re entry should be similar to an atmospheric SST. Once again, the world breathes a sigh of relief that you cannot do enough math to undertake engineering.
-
Now; a series of incandescent tubes, floating 249 miles above my head, travelling in never-ending circles at 17,500 mph (lol!), full of children's TV presenters with fright-wig hair-styles, playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever, with unlashed wiring all over the place, minimal hygiene or emergency escape facilities, etc, etc...
You'd think that with all the money and power the conspiracy has access to, they would do a better job, I mean, ok, it fooled most of us, but not the fearless troll-hunting Papa Legoland.
Let's see it I have this right, NASA and all the other space programs are fakes to hide the fact that the world is flat. Right? And why do they want to hide the fact that the world is flat? Because that way they can get to have a fake space program and keep all the money.
Ummm, something is not adding up here, this conspiracy theory needs some extra motivation, just trying to hide the true shape of the world, doesn't seem to make sense... Maybe it's the aliens?
So, Is Papa Legba a Reptillian Shapeshifter trying to outwit us by pretending to be a moronic troll? That's the question that MUST be addressed! LOL!!
-
Markjo: LOL!!!
Straight outta wikipedia...
You are so predictable.
You not telling me just why the X-15 program was a failure is quite predictable too.
But anyway; let's look at the silly space shuttle again; specifically its very tall & narrow Vertical Stabiliser, or Tail Fin.
Notice anything unusual about it?
Cos if you've done the research on aerodynamics I suggested then you really should...
If not, then do a google-image search of 'hypersonic tail-fins'; or even 'supersonic tail-fins'.
What the hell; google pics of ANY aircraft that can easily exceed the speed of sound...
Concorde, say, or the SR-71.
Now; LOOK at their tail-fins; are any of them remotely the same size & shape as the shuttle's?
No; they are not.
Were the Concorde or SR-71 designed to fly in space and reenter the atmosphere?
No; they were not.
-
When you are ready to move on, we can discuss geostationary tv satellites.
Do you really think that I will waste a single second of my life 'discussing' FAKE data from FAKE machinery with a FAKE persona on a FAKE flat earth forum?
LMFAO!!!
No, rayzor & all your cultist brethren; I will carry on doing what I have always done here.
& that is to laugh at you & your pompous nonsense as long, loud & often as possible.
So there.
& LOL!!!
At YOU!!!
& master_baiter: rayzor LIED when he said he could EASILY prove satellites exist.
& No; I will give you NOTHING except my total contempt.
So you pretty much don't believe any of this flat earth stuff, eh? That little slip-aroo let the cat out of the bag. Whoopsie!
-
LOL!!!
Idiots.
Aerodynamics are aerodynamics; the shuttle allegedly spent a considerable portion of its flight envelope in-atmosphere & at hypersonic & supersonic velocities.
Whether it was strapped to a rocket at the time or on re-entry makes no difference; aerodynamic forces would still apply.
Therefore it would need a tail fin of suitable design for such velocities.
But it does not.
It has a tail fin of suitable design for subsonic velocities only.
This is a Fact, cultists.
Now; carry on Lying...
-
LOL!!!
Idiots.
Aerodynamics are aerodynamics; the shuttle allegedly spent a considerable portion of its flight envelope in-atmosphere & at hypersonic & supersonic velocities.
Whether it was strapped to a rocket at the time or on re-entry makes no difference; aerodynamic forces would still apply.
Therefore it would need a tail fin of suitable design for such velocities.
But it does not.
It has a tail fin of suitable design for subsonic velocities only.
This is a Fact, cultists.
Now; carry on Lying...
The tail fins of supersonic planes are designed to give as much control as possible with as little air resistance as possible. Commercial jet tail fins are designed to have as much control as possible whilst keeping as much stability as possible. The shuttle wasn't designed for high speed flights but for stability: it WANTED high air resistance so that it could slow down enough during reentry to not burn up, and it needed the stability to keep it from flipping over to it's sides during reentry which could have melted the sides of it. It also needed stability from the fin since the main wings was small and couldn't stabilise the plane much at all themselves (they were small so they wouldn't break from the great forces endured during reentry).
-
The shuttle wasn't designed for high speed flights but for stability
LOL!!!
You said it...
-
The shuttle wasn't designed for high speed flights but for stability
LOL!!!
You said it...
Yes I did and that is true. It's not built to reach atmospheric hypersonic flight but to slow down from hypersonic flight without breaking.
-
Funny that; cos in wikipedia's 'Flight Airspeed Records' page, the 'Fastest manually controlled flight in atmosphere' record is held by Space shuttle Colombia, at 17,500 mph.
17,500 mph is 17,500 mph; whether the shuttle is under power or not at this velocity is irrelevant, as the aerodynamic forces it is subject to are the same in both instances.
So; do you still stick to your claim that it WASN'T designed for high speed flights?
-
Funny that; cos in wikipedia's 'Flight Airspeed Records' page, the 'Fastest manually controlled flight in atmosphere' record is held by Space shuttle Colombia, at 17,500 mph.
17,500 mph is 17,500 mph; whether the shuttle is under power or not at this velocity is irrelevant, as the aerodynamic forces it is subject to are the same in both instances.
So; do you still stick to your claim that it WASN'T designed for high speed flights?
I stick to my claim that it is not built to REACH AND MAINTAIN hypersonic speeds on it's own but to succesfully SLOW DOWN from the hypersonic speeds it GOT from the orbit and gravity without LOSING CONTROL. IF it had hypersonic flight stabilisers it might have tumbled OUT OF CONTROL and BURNED UP. It would have also burned up if it didn't SLOW DOWN in time.
-
You clearly stated that the shuttle was not designed for high speed flight.
Yet it is allegedly one of the fastest flying machines ever created.
Is 17,500 mph NOT a 'high speed' in your world?
& do you think the shuttle not 'designed' with this speed in mind?
Really?
Is it time for a lol yet?
I believe it is...
Ergo: LOL!!!
-
Papa - you are missing the point being made here and trying pick on semantics.
The design of the shuttle is to slow down from hypersonic velocity whilst maintaining stability. Aircraft that fly at hypersonic speeds are designed to accelerate upto and maintain that speed and therefore will need a very different design for wings and tails.
-
Nonsense, mainframes; any aircraft travelling at hypersonic velocities will require control surfaces designed to work at said velocities.
Subsonic designs will not work at even transonic velocities, let alone super- or hypersonic velocities.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
Ergo the shuttle cannot be controlled above transonic velocities.
Thus, the question you should all be asking is: 'WHY is the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle of subsonic design?'.
But, as the implications of that are too much for you to cope with, carry on with your circle-jerk spamming.
Toodle-pip, cultists!
-
Nonsense, mainframes; any aircraft travelling at hypersonic velocities will require control surfaces designed to work at said velocities.
Subsonic designs will not work at even transonic velocities, let alone super- or hypersonic velocities.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
Ergo the shuttle cannot be controlled above transonic velocities.
Thus, the question you should all be asking is: 'WHY is the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle of subsonic design?'.
But, as the implications of that are too much for you to cope with, carry on with your circle-jerk spamming.
Toodle-pip, cultists!
A controlsurface will work at pretty much any speed, as long as it is not too slow.
-
Nonsense, mainframes; any aircraft travelling at hypersonic velocities will require control surfaces designed to work at said velocities.
Subsonic designs will not work at even transonic velocities, let alone super- or hypersonic velocities.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
Ergo the shuttle cannot be controlled above transonic velocities.
Thus, the question you should all be asking is: 'WHY is the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle of subsonic design?'.
But, as the implications of that are too much for you to cope with, carry on with your circle-jerk spamming.
Toodle-pip, cultists!
A controlsurface will work at pretty much any speed, as long as it is not too slow.
Also the shuttle+fueltank+boosters are too heavy for small sleek tailfins: they would provide no stability or control during the ascent stage.
-
Wrong, master_b8r; a control surface will NOT work at pretty much any speed.
Learn how aerodynamics work, particularly in the transonic region.
& earlier you were saying the shuttle only needed it's vertical stabiliser when slowing down from 'orbit speed'.
Yet now you claim it was needed during the ascent stage too...
Your 'point', therefore, is more than a little unclear.
Really, master_b8r; are you sure you are not a troll?
What's more, I note nobody has yet refuted my claim that the tail fin of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
You should be starting with that, should you not?
DENY, DENY, DENY & DERIDE being your usual tactics...
So; off you go, cultists!
LOL!!!
-
Nonsense, mainframes; any aircraft travelling at hypersonic velocities will require control surfaces designed to work at said velocities.
Subsonic designs will not work at even transonic velocities, let alone super- or hypersonic velocities.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
Ergo the shuttle cannot be controlled above transonic velocities.
Thus, the question you should all be asking is: 'WHY is the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle of subsonic design?'.
But, as the implications of that are too much for you to cope with, carry on with your circle-jerk spamming.
Toodle-pip, cultists!
Papa, as you so eloquently point out, the shuttle was designed to work at a variety of speeds and altitudes and those different conditions have very different design considerations. This means that the shuttle design needed to be a compromise that would work adequately under all of those wildly different conditions.
-
Wrong, master_b8r; a control surface will NOT work at pretty much any speed.
Learn how aerodynamics work, particularly in the transonic region.
& earlier you were saying the shuttle only needed it's vertical stabiliser when slowing down from 'orbit speed'.
Yet now you claim it was needed during the ascent stage too...
Your 'point', therefore, is more than a little unclear.
Really, master_b8r; are you sure you are not a troll?
What's more, I note nobody has yet refuted my claim that the tail fin of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
You should be starting with that, should you not?
Why should we refute an unsupported assertion?
DENY, DENY, DENY & DERIDE being your usual tactics...
Oh the irony...
So; off you go, cultists!
LOL!!!
Thanks!
-
Well, markjo, there's the crux of the problem: Compromise.
Because what works best for Subsonic velocities will not work at all for Hypersonic velocities.
& the biggest difference is between Subsonic & Supersonic aerodynamics, i.e. in the Transonic region.
Many experimental craft crashed & test-pilots died in the process of discovering this Fact during the race to break the sound-barrier.
So; if the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly designed to work best at Subsonic velocities, i.e. below Mach 1, what conclusion must we draw from that Fact?
-
Wrong, master_b8r; a control surface will NOT work at pretty much any speed.
Learn how aerodynamics work, particularly in the transonic region.
& earlier you were saying the shuttle only needed it's vertical stabiliser when slowing down from 'orbit speed'.
Yet now you claim it was needed during the ascent stage too...
Your 'point', therefore, is more than a little unclear.
Really, master_b8r; are you sure you are not a troll?
What's more, I note nobody has yet refuted my claim that the tail fin of the shuttle is clearly a subsonic design.
You should be starting with that, should you not?
DENY, DENY, DENY & DERIDE being your usual tactics...
So; off you go, cultists!
LOL!!!
The tail fin of the shuttle is designed to give it as much stability and control as possible, which means increased air resistance which is something jets trying to reach hypersonic flight don't want, because too much air resistance slows down those planes so they can't reach as high speeds. And a controlsurface will work as long as there is sufficient speed and it doesn't break off.
As I've said before stability and control was prefered over speediness when it comes to the space shuttles, as they didn't want these to spin out of control or yaw over to it's side too much.
-
You do not understand aerodynamics.
Designs optimised for Subsonic velocities WILL NOT WORK either in, or above, the Transonic region.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly optimised for Subsonic velocities.
WHY?
Answer the above honestly & be done with your sci-fi Fantasies...
Or Lie & keep the pseudo-scientific Insanity alive.
Your choice, Cultists...
Plus, a well-deserved LOL!!!
-
You do not understand aerodynamics.
Designs optimised for Subsonic velocities WILL NOT WORK either in, or above, the Transonic region.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly optimised for Subsonic velocities.
WHY?
Answer the above honestly & be done with your sci-fi Fantasies...
Or Lie & keep the pseudo-scientific Insanity alive.
Your choice, Cultists...
Plus, a well-deserved LOL!!!
There is nothing such as supersonic or subsonic designs, supersonic planes just usually have smaller and thinner tailfins. Sometimes these tailfins are so thin that they'll break if they are too long, which means that some planes needs two fins.
The shuttle is designed to slow down whilst falling through the atmosphere at melting speeds. The bottom of the shuttle is well protected, but not the rest of it as it would weigh too much. So in order to survive the reentry the shuttle needs to always keep it's bottom down. The big fin will keep the shuttle from yawing or rolling over to it's side by the strong turbulence caused by the extreme supersonic flight.
The fin also works as a stabiliser during the ascent stage. Because of the great mass from the fuel tank and boosters a large and sturdy fin is required to keep it stable; without it the shuttle could start rolling or yawing over to it's sides due to the turbulence, which would screw up the launch and cause the shuttle to crash.
I clearly know more about aerodynamics than you do and I can assure you that the fin designed for the shuttle is the most sensible and logical one, that works during both ascent and descent and keeps the shuttle and it's crew alive in the safest way.
-
'There is nothing such as supersonic or subsonic designs...'
LOL!!!
How can I respond to such a blatant Falsehood?
Except: LMFAO!!!
-
Also, as nobody addressed the original post with any intelligence, this:
But anyway; let's look at the silly space shuttle again; specifically its very tall & narrow Vertical Stabiliser, or Tail Fin.
Notice anything unusual about it?
Cos if you've done the research on aerodynamics I suggested then you really should...
If not, then do a google-image search of 'hypersonic tail-fins'; or even 'supersonic tail-fins'.
What the hell; google pics of ANY aircraft that can easily exceed the speed of sound...
Concorde, say, or the SR-71.
Now; LOOK at their tail-fins; are any of them remotely the same size & shape as the shuttle's?
No; they are not.
Look at the tail-fins on SUBSONIC designs, though, & bingo!
Even the decidedly subsonic jumbo jet that allegedly transported the farcical space-scuttle on its back (lol!) has a more streamlined & swept-back tail-fin than its useless, faked-up cargo does...
It's staring you in the face, folks; cos aerodynamics Do Not Lie.
Oh; & you may also want to look into what the tail's made of & how it's supposedly attached to the fuselage...
Aluminium? & a handful of bolts?!?
For a structure of that size which has to resist such extreme hypersonic drag & heat-friction!?!?
LMAO!!!
What a lash-up!
-
You do not understand aerodynamics.
Designs optimised for Subsonic velocities WILL NOT WORK either in, or above, the Transonic region.
Please clarify what you mean by "will not work". Clearly, supersonic aircraft must also work at transonic and subsonic velocities, so there must be vertical stabilizer designs that work in a variety of speed ranges.
Yet the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle is clearly optimised for Subsonic velocities.
Much like the vertical stabilizer of the F-15 is clearly optimized for subsonic velocities?
(http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter4/mdd_f15/f-15-3.jpg)
(http://www.silentthundermodels.com/images/lithographs/ShuttleColumbiaLithoTouchDown_IM10397.jpg)
-
Also, as nobody addressed the original post with any intelligence, this:
But anyway; let's look at the silly space shuttle again; specifically its very tall & narrow Vertical Stabiliser, or Tail Fin.
Notice anything unusual about it?
Cos if you've done the research on aerodynamics I suggested then you really should...
If not, then do a google-image search of 'hypersonic tail-fins'; or even 'supersonic tail-fins'.
What the hell; google pics of ANY aircraft that can easily exceed the speed of sound...
Concorde, say, or the SR-71.
Now; LOOK at their tail-fins; are any of them remotely the same size & shape as the shuttle's?
No; they are not.
Look at the tail-fins on SUBSONIC designs, though, & bingo!
Even the decidedly subsonic jumbo jet that allegedly transported the farcical space-scuttle on its back (lol!) has a more streamlined & swept-back tail-fin than its useless, faked-up cargo does...
It's staring you in the face, folks; cos aerodynamics Do Not Lie.
Oh; & you may also want to look into what the tail's made of & how it's supposedly attached to the fuselage...
Aluminium? & a handful of bolts?!?
For a structure of that size which has to resist such extreme hypersonic drag & heat-friction!?!?
LMAO!!!
What a lash-up!
I responded properly to your post, but you are too stupid and stubborn to understand that you lost that one. The fin is tall and of mediocre thickness (it is not narrow compared to normal fins) and is of mediocre length to provide the stability and control required to survive ascent and descent. The shuttle reentries with the bottom mostly first, not the nose first, so the fin is mostly shielded from thermal air friction, enough to not burn up. The shuttle is a marvel of aerospace engineering, not a sloppy make-do.
-
Markjo: that the photo of the shuttle you show is tilted back to increase the apparent sweep-angle of the tail-fin says all we need to know about your Bad Faith & dishonesty.
Also, the F-15 needs to be able to perform high-g subsonic manoeuvres for air combat; a thing the shuttle does not.
Plus, it has TWO tail-fins to aid it in this & is far wider relatively than the shuttle; another fact you did not show, & more testament to your Bad Faith.
What's more, unlike the shuttle, its tail-fins (PLURAL!) have titanium spars & are not attached by only a handful of bolts.
Oh; & its top speed is barely 1/10th of the shuttle's; so it will by unaffected by truly hypersonic drag/air-friction etc.
So, to sum up; DISMISSED for deliberate deception.
Master_b8r: LOL!!!
Nothing you post is ever worth reading; DISMISSED for terminal cognitive dissonance.
The fact is that the tail-fin of the shuttle would not work at the extreme hypersonic velocities it is claimed to do so, & would simply disintegrate from heat-friction, drag, etc.
It is obvious.
But keep arguing otherwise
-
Markjo: that the photo of the shuttle you show is tilted back to increase the apparent sweep-angle of the tail-fin says all we need to know about your Bad Faith & dishonesty.
Also, the F-15 needs to be able to perform high-g subsonic manoeuvres for air combat; a thing the shuttle does not.
Plus, it has TWO tail-fins to aid it in this & is far wider than the shuttle; another fact you did not show, & more testament to your Bad Faith.
What's more, unlike the shuttle, its tail-fins (PLURAL!) have titanium spars & are not attached by only a handful of bolts.
Oh; & its top speed is barely 1/10th of the shuttle's; so it will by unaffected by truly hypersonic drag/air-friction etc.
The F-15 is also much smaller than the shuttle, has 2 rather powerful jet engines and never leaves the atmosphere. So, why do you expect a large, space going cargo glider to have similar design requirements as air breathing jet planes?
The fact is that the tail-fin of the shuttle would not work at the extreme hypersonic velocities it is claimed to do so, & would simply disintegrate from heat-friction, drag, etc.
At what altitude range is the shuttle when traveling at hypersonic velocities? What is the angle of attack of the shuttle at those altitudes? How do you know that the shuttle is in dense enough atmosphere for the vertical stabilizer to even do much good at hypersonic speeds? How can you claim what will or will not work if you don't even know what the atmospheric conditions are at given parts of the flight?
-
It is worth noting, for the neutral observer, that Papa Legba has not provided a shred of evidence to support his position on a the space shuttle tail fin; something that his supporters claim he regularly does and hold up as a strength.
Now for the inevitable Ad Homs and lulz.
-
It is worth noting that Rama Sock is a liar, as I indeed have provided evidence; moreover of the simplest kind: Observational.
You will NOT find ANY highly supersonic - let alone hypersonic - vehicle that looks even remotely like the shuttle.
It has NO suitable streamlining whatsoever; its wing leading edges, nose-cone & vertical stabiliser are utterly unsuited to high-speed flight.
Catastrophic shock-waves would build up in front of them, rendering the craft uncontrollable & eventually destroying it.
It is a joke.
Don't believe me?
Then look at ANY Frontal image of ANY large supersonic plane & compare it to the Frontal image of the shuttle.
Lulz will indeed ensue, Rama Sock.
Markjo: why are you here after your last deceitful post?
Oh! To deceive some more... Of course.
Why not get Poko to write another 'markjo fan-fic' post; that was lulz too.
Oh; & as for the shuttle being able to glide; LMAO!!!
You gonna tell me it's a 'lifting body' next? Cos it's got a flat belly? Like that'd create lift?
ROFLMAO!!!
NASA is for kids, cultists; no intelligent adult believes their b.s. any more...
-
It is worth noting that Rama Sock is a liar,
When I'm right I am right.
as I indeed have provided evidence; moreover of the simplest kind: Observational.
Fascinating. As I've never lied to you this would be a spectacular feat.
You will NOT find ANY highly supersonic - let alone hypersonic - vehicle that looks even remotely like the shuttle.
Which is not surprising considering the unique use case of the space shuttle. Just to nit-pick, almost all planes look somewhat alike. Pectoral wings, tail fins both horizontal and vertical and a cylindrical fuselage.
It has NO suitable streamlining whatsoever; its wing leading edges, nose-cone & vertical stabiliser are utterly unsuited to high-speed flight.
Citation still required. There is no good reason to take your word for it.
Catastrophic shock-waves would build up in front of them, rendering the craft uncontrollable & eventually destroying it.
Citation required.
It is a joke
So are your assertions.
Don't believe me?
Then look at ANY Frontal image of ANY large supersonic plane & compare it to the Frontal image of the shuttle.
Lulz will indeed ensue, Rama Sock.
Markjo: why are you here after your last deceitful post?
Oh! To deceive some more... Of course.
Why not get Poko to write another 'markjo fan-fic' post; that was lulz too.
Oh; & as for the shuttle being able to glide; LMAO!!!
You gonna tell me it's a 'lifting body' next? Cos it's got a flat belly? Like that'd create lift?
ROFLMAO!!!
NASA is for kids, cultists; no intelligent adult believes their b.s. any more...
[/quote]
-
Rama Sock: You lied when you said I provided no evidence.
Duh!
But if you Cultists want to believe that the shuttle is a hypersonic craft that can also somehow glide to earth from orbit, shedding 17,500 mph of velocity in the process (lol!), even though it shares absolutely NO common characteristics whatsoever with any other hypersonic, or even fully supersonic, craft - or glider for that matter - then knock yourselves out.
After all; you've probably all piloted the shuttle in a video game flight-sim ain't you, geeks?
So it must be real, mustn't it?
Meanwhile, everyone else has by now researched hypersonic aerodynamics/wing profiles, transonic buffeting/shockwaves, mach effects, etc...
& the ones with any brains have come to the correct conclusion that the shuttle, like so many of NASA's shonky Imagineering efforts, is made entirely of Hoax, Fail & LOL.
Anyhow; now that's out of the way, can we have more 'markjo fanfic' from poko please?
It was awe-tistic!
-
It is worth noting that Rama Sock is a liar, as I indeed have provided evidence; moreover of the simplest kind: Observational.
Oh? When did you observe the "handful of bolts" that attach the shuttle's vertical stabilizer?
You will NOT find ANY highly supersonic - let alone hypersonic - vehicle that looks even remotely like the shuttle.
It has NO suitable streamlining whatsoever; its wing leading edges, nose-cone & vertical stabiliser are utterly unsuited to high-speed flight.
The shuttle was not designed for sustained high speed flight like other high speed air craft. It was designed to go up while attached to a very large fuel tank, so raw power trumped aerodynamics. On the way down, it was designed to survive reentry (where blunt shapes work better) and then glide to a landing.
Catastrophic shock-waves would build up in front of them, rendering the craft uncontrollable & eventually destroying it.
Does the term max-q (maximum dynamic pressure) mean anything to you? It's when speed and air pressure cause the maximum amount of stress on the airframe. On the way up, it occurs about 1 minute into the flight just after the shuttle passes Mach 1. By the time it goes hypersonic, the air pressure is low enough where the stresses are not as great, despite the higher speed.
Then look at ANY Frontal image of ANY large supersonic plane & compare it to the Frontal image of the shuttle.
Again, those planes were designed for sustained flight at speed. The shuttle was not.
Oh; & as for the shuttle being able to glide; LMAO!!!
You gonna tell me it's a 'lifting body' next? Cos it's got a flat belly? Like that'd create lift?
What else would you call unpowered flight if not gliding? And no, the shuttle is not a lifting body. In fact, it's been said that the the shuttle has the flight dynamics of a brick.
-
LOL!!!
Who's been busy on wikipedia then?
I make you work for your corn, eh!
Again, I'll not waste my time picking through your dung-pile of a post; I'll just point out one phrase: 'raw power trumped aerodynamics'.
That, alone, sums up the stupidity & laziness of your thinking.
Because raw power can NEVER 'trump' aerodynamics; thinking it could is how so many aircraft crashed & test pilots died in the early days of supersonic flight...
But you won't know that, will you?
Because you are completely uninterested in any form of truth.
So; 'sucks to be you' is, yet again, my conclusion...
& also, as ever: LOL!!!
-
Rama Sock: You lied when you said I provided no evidence.
Duh!
I recommend you reduce your insult slinging by 50% and use your extra time to learn the difference between asserting a position and supporting a position with evidence.
-
Again, I'll not waste my time picking through your dung-pile of a post;
Won't or can't? I'm leaning towards can't. After all, that would require you to actually contribute something constructive to the discussion.
I'll just point out one phrase: 'raw power trumped aerodynamics'.
That, alone, sums up the stupidity & laziness of your thinking.
Because raw power can NEVER 'trump' aerodynamics; thinking it could is how so many aircraft crashed & test pilots died in the early days of supersonic flight...
Were any of those supersonic aircraft headed towards earth orbit?
No, they weren't.
-
LOL!!!
Laurel & Hardy strike again...
Do you think we're having a 'discussion' here, markjo?
Cos I don't.
No; what's happening is that you're saying lots of ignorant, illogical & dishonest things in defence of a Fraud so obvious that a 10-year old child equipped with a copy of 'aerodynamics for dummies' could see through it.
& I'm pointing out those ignorant, illogical & dishonest things & Laughing at them.
If you don't like that, markjo, then STOP DEFENDING AN OBVIOUS FRAUD.
But you won't, will you?
Ergo, my mockery will continue...
Simple, eh?
Plus: LMAO - at YOU!!!
-
I've seen some trolling in my time, but this takes the cake, Papa Legba has successfully got a discussion going on the aerodynamics of a SPACE craft. Listen up, folks, the only way a shuttle would fly is with two giant solid rocket boosters strapped to it. Once in it's home habitat, who gives a flying kazoo about aerodynamics. It's in SPACE, it's a SPACE shuttle for god sake. Look at the ISS, just how aerodynamic is that machine?
The only time the shuttle enters the atmosphere is on re-entry and even then it glides like a lead brick, the high nose up attitude requires a high vertical stabilizer to get above the the turbulence.
My only real question, is probably now answered, Papa Legba is most definitely a troll for the alien reptiles who are behind the conspiracy for their own inscrutable purposes.
-
The shuttle enters the atmosphere BOTTOM FIRST, and in order to to this the shuttle requires a blunt shape or else the aerodynamic forces would force it into a nose-first dive, which would decrease the air resistance, which would keep the shuttle in the high speeds for too long and make it burn up. Because of the bluntness a tall tail fin is required to keep it aerodynamically stable, larger fins mean larger lifting surface and more space for larger control surface. The shuttle doesn't glide well, but it glides mostly thanks to the wings it has. If it had small long fins they wouldn't generate enoug aerodynamic forces to keep the shuttle stable, and because it's direction of travel is many degrees below the nose those type of fins would get completely obstructed by the shuttle and therefore be completely useless.
Aerodynamics are against you, admit it so we can move on.
-
LOL!!!
Another double-act!
Rayzor: Drunk again, evil edna?
The shuttle takes off at sea level, & there's 60 miles of atmosphere between it & the Karman Line; so it damn well better conform to known aerodynamic principles if it wants to travel through all that Mass of Air at hypersonic velocities without being destroyed in the process.
& the same goes double for when it returns, all 70 tonnes of it gliding impossibly along on its practically non-existent wings...
Everyone with a brain knows this, super-troll; it is a preposterous contraption that only a fool would believe exists.
So stop wasting our time & start telling me how I can EASILY get to space, in order to PROVE the existence of your crackpot 'satellites'.
Oh; you can't, can you?
Because you're a LIAR.
LMAO - at YOU!!!
Master_b8r: how the hell does the vertical stabiliser provide LIFT?!?!
& you say I don't understand aerodynamics??!!??
You Dunce...
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
Another double-act!
Rayzor: Drunk again, evil edna?
The shuttle takes off at sea level, & there's 60 miles of atmosphere between it & the Karman Line; so it damn well better conform to known aerodynamic principles if it wants to travel through all that Mass of Air at hypersonic velocities without being destroyed in the process.
& the same goes double for when it returns, all 70 tonnes of it gliding impossibly along on its practically non-existent wings...
Everyone with a brain knows this, super-troll; it is a preposterous contraption that only a fool would believe exists.
So stop wasting our time & start telling me how I can EASILY get to space, in order to PROVE the existence of your crackpot 'satellites'.
Oh; you can't, can you?
Because you're a LIAR.
LMAO - at YOU!!!
Master_b8r: how the hell does the vertical stabiliser provide LIFT?!?!
& you say I don't understand aerodynamics??!!??
You Dunce...
ROFLMFAO!!!
Yes, a tail fin generates lift. If you would rotate a fin so the front went to the left, the left side of the fin would be covered by the other side. This would create a low pressure area on the left side and a high pressure area on the right side which would generate a force we can split into 2; drag, that pulls the fin back slowing it down; and lift, which pulls the fin to the left which rotates the whole plane. All aerodynamic forces are the same, but are given different names depending on their effect: Drag is a force that works in the opposite direction of travel and slows the object down, lift is a force that works in a 90 degree relation to the direction of travel and adds acceleration towards that direction. You should really read up on aerodynamics before disputing about it.
-
LOL!!!
You should really stop lying.
The vertical stabiliser can create rotational forces on the shuttle but it can not create lift on it.
Which is what your nonsense post was implying.
& as my point is that the vertical stabiliser of the shuttle would be destroyed by hypersonic drag & heat-friction anyway, I will not enter into further trivial derailing on its functioning.
But nice try with the wiki-spam, Troll!
LOL!!!
-
I can't help laughing at the desperation by those arguing for the shuttle's aerodynamics. ;D
I can almost hear and feel the wind of the wiki pages being speedily raced through in an attempt for a posse of space fantasists trying to prove something which is impossible.
Papa has explained more than enough about it for you all to know the absurdity of it all. Surely you don;t want to waste your life believing in this crap. This is to those that are not being paid to lie.
As for the rest of you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Indeed, sceptimatic.
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
The Door is Open, cultists...
Enter; Do Not Enter; I care not which.
-
So all airplane designers lie and airplanes shouldn't work because they depend on aerodynamics that are false?
LOGICS!
-
The shuttle takes off at sea level, & there's 60 miles of atmosphere between it & the Karman Line; so it damn well better conform to known aerodynamic principles if it wants to travel through all that Mass of Air at hypersonic velocities without being destroyed in the process.
LOL! Do you think that the shuttle passes through all 60 miles of atmosphere at hypersonic velocities? ROTFLMAO!!
& the same goes double for when it returns, all 70 tonnes of it gliding impossibly along on its practically non-existent wings...
How aerodynamic is your hand? How much lift can your hand generate when you stick it out the window of a moving car?
-
The shuttle takes off at sea level, & there's 60 miles of atmosphere between it & the Karman Line; so it damn well better conform to known aerodynamic principles if it wants to travel through all that Mass of Air at hypersonic velocities without being destroyed in the process.
LOL! Do you think that the shuttle passes through all 60 miles of atmosphere at hypersonic velocities? ROTFLMAO!!
& the same goes double for when it returns, all 70 tonnes of it gliding impossibly along on its practically non-existent wings...
How aerodynamic is your hand? How much lift can your hand generate when you stick it out the window of a moving car?
Good point with the hand. Drive at at least 50mph and stick out your hand, rotated 20-40 degrees up. You'll feel that the hand wants to go back and up.
-
Nice shitposts, idiots.
So, markjo; now sticking my hand out of a car window somehow proves that a 70-tonne aircraft with minimal wing-area can glide back to earth form 240+ miles up, reducing its speed from 17,500 mph to under 250 mph in the process?
You claim the above is all True just because my hand moves up or down when jiggled round outside a car window at 50 mph?
Oookay, Mr. 'science'; definitive evidence indeed!
I won't even give you a ROFLMFAO!!! for that one, markjo; because the extent to which you are willing to mentally degrade yourself in order to uphold your cultist sc-fi fantasies is too sickening for me to contemplate...
You are Pitiful.
Now: more fan-fic please!
-
Nice shitposts, idiots.
So, markjo; now sticking my hand out of a car window somehow proves that a 70-tonne aircraft with minimal wing-area can glide back to earth form 240+ miles up, reducing its speed from 17,500 mph to under 250 mph in the process?
You claim the above is all True just because my hand moves up or down when jiggled round outside a car window at 50 mph?
Oookay, Mr. 'science'; definitive evidence indeed!
I won't even give you a ROFLMFAO!!! for that one, markjo; because the extent to which you are willing to mentally degrade yourself in order to uphold your cultist sc-fi fantasies is too sickening for me to contemplate...
You are Pitiful.
Now: more fan-fic please!
So, argument from incredulity?
-
Nice shitposts, idiots.
So, markjo; now sticking my hand out of a car window somehow proves that a 70-tonne aircraft with minimal wing-area can glide back to earth form 240+ miles up, reducing its speed from 17,500 mph to under 250 mph in the process?
You claim the above is all True just because my hand moves up or down when jiggled round outside a car window at 50 mph?
Oookay, Mr. 'science'; definitive evidence indeed!
I won't even give you a ROFLMFAO!!! for that one, markjo; because the extent to which you are willing to mentally degrade yourself in order to uphold your cultist sc-fi fantasies is too sickening for me to contemplate...
You are Pitiful.
Now: more fan-fic please!
The shuttle doesn't glide far compared to it's falling distance, so the lifting forces are enough. It really only needs it's lifting surfaces when it lands. It's touchdown speed is very high, roughly 220 mph, and with that high speeds the lifting surfaces it has is suffiecent; before it touches down it's speed is even greater. This is why the shuttle uses parachutes to slow down after touchdown.
You obviously don't know anything about aerodynamics or how the shuttle was designed to operate; obvious troll made themself more obvious.
-
Nice shitposts, idiots.
So, markjo; now sticking my hand out of a car window somehow proves that a 70-tonne aircraft with minimal wing-area can glide back to earth form 240+ miles up, reducing its speed from 17,500 mph to under 250 mph in the process?
Yes, everything that you need to know about aerodynamics and atmospheric reentry you can learn by sticking your hand out the window of a moving car. ::)
And you have the nerve to call me an idiot. *sigh*
You claim the above is all True just because my hand moves up or down when jiggled round outside a car window at 50 mph?
No, I'm claiming that you don't necessarily need a lot of lift in order to land a glider at high speed.
Oookay, Mr. 'science'; definitive evidence indeed!
It's still more evidence than you've provided.
-
Seeing as how you have all given up on science or logic & just decided to shitpost instead, let's have another giggle at poko's creepy & autistic 'markjo fan-fiction'...
markjo: Humans have little rocks in their mouths called teeth.
Papa: LOL! tiny rocks in your mouths, that's a good one. Keep up your cultist lies!
markjo: Well, teeth are clearly visible, all you have to do it look.
Papa: How can I look in my own mouth, idiot? You people are so deluded that you think you can look inside your own mouths!
markjo: You can have somebody else look in your mouth an confirm that your teeth are there.
Papa: anybody who says they have seen another person's teeth are just deluded. They have been brainwashed since birth that teeth exist, so they lie to themselves. Teeth are a conspiracy by Big Dental to sell toothbrushes.
markjo: You can see your own teeth if you open your mouth and look in a mirror.
Papa: Mirrors reflect images, dumbass! No image from a mirror will ever be trustworthy because the image will be flipped! You idiots are so deluded that you think we have rocks in our mouths! If we had rocks in our mouths, why aren't we shitting out rocks all the time?
markjo: *headdesk*
LULZ!!!
Encore please!
-
Oh, & also this...
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
Care to address any of the above, schills, trolls & cultists?
LOL!!!
-
Seeing as how you have all given up on science or logic & just decided to shitpost instead, let's have another giggle at poko's creepy & autistic 'markjo fan-fiction'...
markjo: Humans have little rocks in their mouths called teeth.
Papa: LOL! tiny rocks in your mouths, that's a good one. Keep up your cultist lies!
markjo: Well, teeth are clearly visible, all you have to do it look.
Papa: How can I look in my own mouth, idiot? You people are so deluded that you think you can look inside your own mouths!
markjo: You can have somebody else look in your mouth an confirm that your teeth are there.
Papa: anybody who says they have seen another person's teeth are just deluded. They have been brainwashed since birth that teeth exist, so they lie to themselves. Teeth are a conspiracy by Big Dental to sell toothbrushes.
markjo: You can see your own teeth if you open your mouth and look in a mirror.
Papa: Mirrors reflect images, dumbass! No image from a mirror will ever be trustworthy because the image will be flipped! You idiots are so deluded that you think we have rocks in our mouths! If we had rocks in our mouths, why aren't we shitting out rocks all the time?
markjo: *headdesk*
LULZ!!!
Encore please!
We are telling you science and mechanics used everyday by airplanes and their designers. So you believe that all that is fake? There is no such thing as a specific design for a specific speed, there is only specific designs for specific planes and tasks. And the differences are only height, length and thickness, and there is no shape that is bound to only work at above or below mach 1. If you look at both subsonic and supersonic planes you'll see that the fins have all roughly the same shape, a triangle with a cut top. Some are larger or smaller but that depends on the required performance. The tail fin of the shuttle was designed as a good stabilisator with good control.
-
Total LIES, from start to finish, master_b8r.
Are you mad?
Anyhow; anyone care to address the following?
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
You keep diverting & derailing, cultists; I'll keep re-posting.
Ho-hum...
& LOL!!!
-
Here's your 'science & mechanics' expertise, dingbat:
The shuttle doesn't glide far compared to it's falling distance,
True; which is why it should crash.
so the lifting forces are enough.
Hang on; what 'lifting forces'?
It really only needs it's lifting surfaces when it lands.
Eh? What 'lifting surfaces'?
It's touchdown speed is very high, roughly 220 mph, and with that high speeds the lifting surfaces it has is suffiecent;
WHAT BLOODY 'LIFTING SURFACES'?
before it touches down it's speed is even greater.
So what?
This is why the shuttle uses parachutes to slow down after touchdown.
Well, that explains everything - if you're a retard.
You obviously don't know anything about aerodynamics or how the shuttle was designed to operate; obvious troll made themself more obvious.
Says you? LOL!!!
If that was not the very definition of a SHITPOST, I do not know what is...
Idiot.
-
Here's your 'science & mechanics' expertise, dingbat:
The shuttle doesn't glide far compared to it's falling distance,
True; which is why it should crash.
so the lifting forces are enough.
Hang on; what 'lifting forces'?
It really only needs it's lifting surfaces when it lands.
Eh? What 'lifting surfaces'?
It's touchdown speed is very high, roughly 220 mph, and with that high speeds the lifting surfaces it has is suffiecent;
WHAT BLOODY 'LIFTING SURFACES'?
before it touches down it's speed is even greater.
So what?
This is why the shuttle uses parachutes to slow down after touchdown.
Well, that explains everything - if you're a retard.
You obviously don't know anything about aerodynamics or how the shuttle was designed to operate; obvious troll made themself more obvious.
Says you? LOL!!!
If that was not the very definition of a SHITPOST, I do not know what is...
Idiot.
These lifting surfaces:
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/549796main_iss027e032532_hires_full.jpg)
Also known as wings. Also, since the rest of the shuttle (the main fuselage) is an actual physical object it will act as a lifting surface, and generate lifting forces. Small, but because of the speed the shuttle had when falling into the atmosphere they are stronger than normally. Since it fell further than it traveled it had a lot of speed when gliding and landing, and since aerodynamic forces are directly connected to air speed the small surface of the main fuselage and the wings are suffiecent for a glide to safe touchdown. If you don't understand that by now you are an idiot.
Total LIES, from start to finish, master_b8r.
Are you mad?
Anyhow; anyone care to address the following?
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
You keep diverting & derailing, cultists; I'll keep re-posting.
Ho-hum...
& LOL!!!
This is frankenstein aerodynamics:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/20/article-2468895-18DB714100000578-378_964x752.jpg)
The shuttle is closer to brick aerodynamics.
And where would the jet engines fit?
(http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/STS-116_Shuttle_Engines.jpg&imgrefurl=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:STS-116_Shuttle_Engines.jpg&h=2010&w=3032&tbnid=IlCALvnE3r2EBM:&docid=wuOCDkWzqy6vcM&hl=sv&ei=CSC5VbHIEKG_ywOFsI2AAg&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CB8QMygDMANqFQoTCPHw1ciAgccCFaHfcgodBVgDIA)
Theres two big rocket engines in the way.
There is nothing wrong with the aerodynamic model of the space shuttle, it only needs to glide relatively small distances compared to the height it falls. I'd be more surprised and sceptic if it was a fake vehicle with hidden jet engines, as it would require more powerful jet engines than exists today to get it off the ground and fly it too a position high enough to fake a landing from space.
-
LOL!!!
Another total shitpost; the shuttle IS NOT a 'lifting body', liar.
Just turn the bloody page already so I can re-post the FACTS about the fake model shuttle that you refuse to logically address, ok?
Shall I help?
There you go...
LOL!!!
-
Oh, & also this...
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
Care to address any of the above, schills, trolls & cultists?
LOL!!!
If the aerodynamics are as bad as you say, then how much are 2 hidden jet engines going to help?
-
LOL!!!
Another total shitpost; just turn the page already so I can re-post the FACTS about the fake model shuttle that you refuse to logically address, ok?
Shall I help?
There you go...
LOL!!!
You know nothing about aerodynamics, and you don't even know how the shuttle was designed. You are just denying physics, logics and aerodynamics to be a massive troll.
Your over-usage of LOLs, LMFAOs and various terms only proves you to be a troll, as it is in no way constructive at all.
-
My guess will be that he is about 6 or 7 years old
-
Markjo: there is a big difference between a powered aircraft & an unpowered glider; do you really not know this?
Cos everyone else does.
Well; those interested in Facts & Truth, that is...
master_b8r: STFU, troll-sock.
pava-socky: LOL!!!
-
Markjo: there is a big difference between a powered aircraft & an unpowered glider; do you really not know this?
Cos everyone else does.
Well; those interested in Facts & Truth, that is...
master_b8r: STFU, troll-sock.
pava-socky: LOL!!!
What, you getting mad instead of posting links of evidence?
-
Page turned, master_b8r; now answer this...
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
Playing your game now, cultist losers...
LOL!!!
-
Markjo: there is a big difference between a powered aircraft & an unpowered glider; do you really not know this?
Yes, I do know the difference. The shuttle is a large, unpowered glider. Why do you keep comparing its design to that of powered aircraft?
-
So; 'The shuttle is a large, unpowered glider', is it markjo?
Cos I count at least FIVE engines on its arse alone, plus God knows how many thrusters elsewhere...
Do all these engines NOT provide power?
Or what?
Lie much, Troll?
This is what happens when you try to justify a LIE, markjo; you trip over your own falsehoods...
But carry on; it is LOL!!!
-
So; 'The shuttle is a large, unpowered glider', is it markjo?
Cos I count at least FIVE engines on its arse alone, plus God knows how many thrusters elsewhere...
Do all these engines NOT provide power?
They provide power from the ground up to orbit, not from reentry to landing.
-
So; 'The shuttle is a large, unpowered glider', is it markjo?
Cos I count at least FIVE engines on its arse alone, plus God knows how many thrusters elsewhere...
Do all these engines NOT provide power?
Or what?
Lie much, Troll?
This is what happens when you try to justify a LIE, markjo; you trip over your own falsehoods...
But carry on; it is LOL!!!
PL, this is too funny. An unpowered glider??? Whatever next?
-
cheers, legion.
Oh, & also this...
The True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky ISS through a MONOSCOPIC device such as a telescope is that we then give up all the advantages that our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
You avoid; I re-post, Telescope-polishers...
-
So; 'The shuttle is a large, unpowered glider', is it markjo?
Cos I count at least FIVE engines on its arse alone, plus God knows how many thrusters elsewhere...
Do all these engines NOT provide power?
Or what?
Lie much, Troll?
This is what happens when you try to justify a LIE, markjo; you trip over your own falsehoods...
But carry on; it is LOL!!!
PL, this is too funny. An unpowered glider??? Whatever next?
Well, it glides and it uses no power from re-entry to landing..... What's so funny....
-
cheers, legion.
Oh, & also this...
The True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky ISS through a MONOSCOPIC device such as a telescope is that we then give up all the advantages that our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
You avoid; I re-post, Telescope-polishers...
You make it seem like our depth perception would be of any use in that context. Angular diameter is the only useful gauge of distance when sky gazing; and clouds are the only reliable "landmark".
-
Mainframes: What's so funny is its lack of wing area...
But you wouldn't get that, would you?
So Shush! Back to sleep now...
Nothing to see here!
Rama Sock: learn to LOOK.
-
Mainframes: What's so funny is its lack of wing area...
But you wouldn't get that, would you?
So Shush! Back to sleep now...
Nothing to see here!
Rama Sock: learn to LOOK.
Wow, never had someone said so little with so much. Care to tell me what you are on about now?
-
cheers, legion.
Oh, & also this...
The True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky ISS through a MONOSCOPIC device such as a telescope is that we then give up all the advantages that our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Now why would you want that, I wonder?
You avoid; I re-post, Telescope-polishers...
You avoid; I re-post, LOLercopter.
LOL!!!
'Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope! Buy a telescope!'
Do you NASA cultists all own shares in telescope companies or what?
Fine, then make your own telescope.
http://www.space.com/24114-how-to-build-a-telescope-science-fair-projects.html (http://www.space.com/24114-how-to-build-a-telescope-science-fair-projects.html)
No; the True reason you all insist we should view your silly light in the sky through a MONOCULAR device is that we then give up all the advantages our natural STEREOSCOPIC vision gives us in terms of depth of field & JUDGING DISTANCES.
Okay, then make a binocular telescope.
http://www.binoscope.co.nz/ (http://www.binoscope.co.nz/)
P.s. & don't now say 'then use binoculars instead'; too late for that, Cultists!
Is it to late for these binoculars?
http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/joerg_28bino_mechanics_en.htm (http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/joerg_28bino_mechanics_en.htm)
(http://www.stathis-firstlight.de/atm/bilder/Joerg_28/joerg_bino28_6.jpg)
-
Rama Sock: No; I don't waste my time on sock-puppet troll-things.
Markjo: just given up now, have you?
LOL!!!
Shame; I was looking forward to more fan-fic..
Oh, & also this...
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
It just won't stop, will it, Cultists...
-
Also, yours & Rama Sock's replies appeared within 1 minute of each other; that happens a LOT with you double-acts don't it?
& it is LOL!!!
So keep shitting on your own doorsteps, cultists...
& I'll keep on LOL-ing!!!
-
Also., this...
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
I'm playing your game now, cultist losers...
LOL!!!
-
reduced to repeating yourself. Too bad that. Markjo and I will go back to the shill bullpen until you have something new to disinformation.
-
You are kidding me!! A fake space shuttle is the best solution to your inability to understand that it's a SPACE shuttle. Papa, you are losing the plot, your alien masters will not be amused by this failure.
How aerodynamic is the Soyuz? How aerodynamic was Apollo. You seriously need to get out more. LOL!!
-
Markjo: just given up now, have you?
Me give up? Two times you asked for stereoscopic telescope and two times you ignore stereoscopic telescopes presented to you. What more do you want?
-
You are kidding me!! A fake space shuttle is the best solution to your inability to understand that it's a SPACE shuttle. Papa, you are losing the plot, your alien masters will not be amused by this failure.
How aerodynamic is the Soyuz? How aerodynamic was Apollo. You seriously need to get out more. LOL!!
Rayzor's argument. Santa claus must be real. How real is the Easter Bunny. How real is the Tooth Fairy.
-
You are kidding me!! A fake space shuttle is the best solution to your inability to understand that it's a SPACE shuttle. Papa, you are losing the plot, your alien masters will not be amused by this failure.
How aerodynamic is the Soyuz? How aerodynamic was Apollo. You seriously need to get out more. LOL!!
Rayzor's argument. Santa claus must be real. How real is the Easter Bunny. How real is the Tooth Fairy.
Huh? now Hoppalong with red gumboots is losing the plot, maybe the Papa Legba syndrome is contagious.
Allow me to set the record straight.
The space shuttle is real. I've seen it as have millions of others.
The tooth fairy is not real, following the zetetic mantra of personal experience, I'm the one who had to pay when one of the kids lost a tooth.
Santa Claus is not real, again that was me.
Easter Bunny, I'm not so sure, someone must be making all those easter eggs? Have you ever been inside an easter egg factory?
The Apollo program was real.
The GPS system is real.
Satellite TV is real.
Weather satellites are real.
Minions assemble.... indeed. ;D
-
Here's your 'science & mechanics' expertise, dingbat:
The shuttle doesn't glide far compared to it's falling distance,
True; which is why it should crash.
so the lifting forces are enough.
Hang on; what 'lifting forces'?
It really only needs it's lifting surfaces when it lands.
Eh? What 'lifting surfaces'?
It's touchdown speed is very high, roughly 220 mph, and with that high speeds the lifting surfaces it has is suffiecent;
WHAT BLOODY 'LIFTING SURFACES'?
before it touches down it's speed is even greater.
So what?
This is why the shuttle uses parachutes to slow down after touchdown.
Well, that explains everything - if you're a retard.
You obviously don't know anything about aerodynamics or how the shuttle was designed to operate; obvious troll made themself more obvious.
Says you? LOL!!!
If that was not the very definition of a SHITPOST, I do not know what is...
Idiot.
These lifting surfaces:
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/549796main_iss027e032532_hires_full.jpg)
Also known as wings. Also, since the rest of the shuttle (the main fuselage) is an actual physical object it will act as a lifting surface, and generate lifting forces. Small, but because of the speed the shuttle had when falling into the atmosphere they are stronger than normally. Since it fell further than it traveled it had a lot of speed when gliding and landing, and since aerodynamic forces are directly connected to air speed the small surface of the main fuselage and the wings are suffiecent for a glide to safe touchdown. If you don't understand that by now you are an idiot.
Total LIES, from start to finish, master_b8r.
Are you mad?
Anyhow; anyone care to address the following?
As I said earlier, the reasons for the Frankenstein aerodynamics of the shuttle are because NASA wanted to have something to show the world, so it was Imagineered with a lightweight subsonic version for faking the landings in mind.
This fake landing shuttle has 2 ordinary jet engines hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail, & is likely far smaller than the 'real' shuttle allegedly is; around 2/3 scale, probably.
That is why the fake-shuttle has a noisy little 'chase plane' buzzing round it on landing; to cover the noise of the fake-shuttle's jet engines & create a fake sonic boom for the spectators.
When all the above is taken into account, as well as the ejector seat hatches, oddly lightweight landing gear, etc, the aerodynamic incongruities all make perfect sense.
The Facts are there for all to see.
You keep diverting & derailing, cultists; I'll keep re-posting.
Ho-hum...
& LOL!!!
This is frankenstein aerodynamics:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/20/article-2468895-18DB714100000578-378_964x752.jpg)
The shuttle is closer to brick aerodynamics.
And where would the jet engines fit?
(http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/STS-116_Shuttle_Engines.jpg&imgrefurl=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:STS-116_Shuttle_Engines.jpg&h=2010&w=3032&tbnid=IlCALvnE3r2EBM:&docid=wuOCDkWzqy6vcM&hl=sv&ei=CSC5VbHIEKG_ywOFsI2AAg&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CB8QMygDMANqFQoTCPHw1ciAgccCFaHfcgodBVgDIA)
Theres two big rocket engines in the way.
There is nothing wrong with the aerodynamic model of the space shuttle, it only needs to glide relatively small distances compared to the height it falls. I'd be more surprised and sceptic if it was a fake vehicle with hidden jet engines, as it would require more powerful jet engines than exists today to get it off the ground and fly it too a position high enough to fake a landing from space.
Still avoiding this papa?
If you think it is not aerodynamic enough look at skydivers. A human body is far less aerodynamic, yet they can glide many hundreds of meters by moving around their limbs, changing the airflow around them. Their mass/surface ratio is also much larger than that of the space shuttle. And where on the back of the space shuttle would hidden jet engines fit? Nowhere. And the rocket engines are not lit, which is very obvious (the lack of dense smoke clouds and fiery exhaust).
-
Sceptimatic you say that the engine is acting on the wheels, which then by way of friction to the rough surface of a street,is what makes the car move forward.
Now lets take a bicycle(its easier to visualise because we can see how a bike works).I burn my own fuel to push the pedal forward and downward.The pedal moves the chain of the disc and the chain moves the spokes together with the rubber wheel.
Now that causes constant friction of the wheel with a backwads direction.
So this backwards direction creating high presure enviroment makes the atmosphere resist to the opposite direction
and is what makes the bike go forward?
In the end its atmosphere or just the friction of the wheel?The thing is the wheel pushes backwards but we go forward.
Any comments on this?I dont get it.
In rockets atmpsphere pushes upwars by way of resistance.
In bikes and cars is it just constant pushing forward and the atmosphere resists back or does the atmosphere also helps the movement of the bike like in rockets.
-
Sceptimatic you say that the engine is acting on the wheels, which then by way of friction to the rough surface of a street,is what makes the car move forward.
Now lets take a bicycle(its easier to visualise because we can see how a bike works).I burn my own fuel to push the pedal forward and downward.The pedal moves the chain of the disc and the chain moves the spokes together with the rubber wheel.
Now that causes constant friction of the wheel with a backwads direction.
So this backwards direction creating high presure enviroment makes the atmosphere resist to the opposite direction
and is what makes the bike go forward?
In the end its atmosphere or just the friction of the wheel?The thing is the wheel pushes backwards but we go forward.
Any comments on this?I dont get it.
In rockets atmpsphere pushes upwars by way of resistance.
In bikes and cars is it just constant pushing forward and the atmosphere resists back or does the atmosphere also helps the movement of the bike like in rockets.
Have someone drive a roofless var and stand up in it. You'll notice that your clothes will be pulled backwards. This means that you are leaving a low pressure area behind you, so there is no high preasure area behind you pushing the car. You'll also notice that the part of you clothes that are towards the front will be pushed onto your body, meaning that there is a high pressure in front of the car.
And just because I feel like you'll bring it up: when a car drives past you there is some air moving with the car due to friction, the high pressure air in front of the car being pushed forwards and air behind the car trying to fill in the low pressure behind the car. This is why you feel a gust of wind in the direction of a vehicles travel when a vehicle drives past you.
-
So what pushes you forward is the CIRCLE shape of the wheel.
The circle allows minimal friction to happen.The circle doesnt allow a big surface to be in constant contact with the ground.
So its a push forward combined with a smart design that doesnt let friction to stop this push.
-
So what pushes you forward is the CIRCLE shape of the wheel.
The circle allows minimal friction to happen.The circle doesnt allow a big surface to be in constant contact with the ground.
So its a push forward combined with a smart design that doesnt let friction to stop this push.
Almost there. You actually want as much friction as possible on the wheels. The reason the wheels are circular is because that is the most energy effiecent shape for rolling. A square wheel would need to lift itself up when it comes to the edges, so it needs more energy to roll. And it would be very bumpy to drive with square wheels. The rolling creates a moving surface, and the high friction between the surface of the wheel and the road/ground/floor creates motion.
-
So what pushes you forward is the CIRCLE shape of the wheel.
The circle allows minimal friction to happen.The circle doesnt allow a big surface to be in constant contact with the ground.
So its a push forward combined with a smart design that doesnt let friction to stop this push.
No. There's no real push forward.
I know it sounds crazy but you have to view it from your mind and not your eyes.
Everything is a push UP, that creates a resistance from stacked atmosphere.
Atmosphere doesn't push down. It doesn't use energy to push down onto you. You use the energy to push UP into atmosphere.
The only way you can do this is to use a leverage. You need something to push off . It's due to this push off that a horizontal movement is achieved, as well as a vertical movement. This is why rockets cannot work in a vacuum. It has to push off something. It must push off something.
Obviously if we view what we see, we view everything as different. We see a pull up and down and a push forward or pull backward or whatever.
We can't vision something simply being a push up that caters for everything, but just like the bike shows. It's true.
It's about pushing your own DENSITY into the atmosphere by using a leverage to do so, which applies in any way you want to look at it.
-
So what pushes you forward is the CIRCLE shape of the wheel.
The circle allows minimal friction to happen.The circle doesnt allow a big surface to be in constant contact with the ground.
So its a push forward combined with a smart design that doesnt let friction to stop this push.
No. There's no real push forward.
I know it sounds crazy but you have to view it from your mind and not your eyes.
Everything is a push UP, that creates a resistance from stacked atmosphere.
Atmosphere doesn't push down. It doesn't use energy to push down onto you. You use the energy to push UP into atmosphere.
The only way you can do this is to use a leverage. You need something to push off . It's due to this push off that a horizontal movement is achieved, as well as a vertical movement. This is why rockets cannot work in a vacuum. It has to push off something. It must push off something.
Obviously if we view what we see, we view everything as different. We see a pull up and down and a push forward or pull backward or whatever.
We can't vision something simply being a push up that caters for everything, but just like the bike shows. It's true.
It's about pushing your own DENSITY into the atmosphere by using a leverage to do so, which applies in any way you want to look at it.
You didn't give an explanation to his query.
Also:
"applies in any way you want to look at it"
Very scientific and logical, right? Completely removes the need for experiments, logics, or afterthought: it behaves just the way you want or need it to!
-
So what pushes you forward is the CIRCLE shape of the wheel.
The circle allows minimal friction to happen.The circle doesnt allow a big surface to be in constant contact with the ground.
So its a push forward combined with a smart design that doesnt let friction to stop this push.
No. There's no real push forward.
I know it sounds crazy but you have to view it from your mind and not your eyes.
Everything is a push UP, that creates a resistance from stacked atmosphere.
Atmosphere doesn't push down. It doesn't use energy to push down onto you. You use the energy to push UP into atmosphere.
The only way you can do this is to use a leverage. You need something to push off . It's due to this push off that a horizontal movement is achieved, as well as a vertical movement. This is why rockets cannot work in a vacuum. It has to push off something. It must push off something.
Obviously if we view what we see, we view everything as different. We see a pull up and down and a push forward or pull backward or whatever.
We can't vision something simply being a push up that caters for everything, but just like the bike shows. It's true.
It's about pushing your own DENSITY into the atmosphere by using a leverage to do so, which applies in any way you want to look at it.
Stop changing your made up beliefs.
-
Let's look at some other big gliders:
Messerschmitt Me 321: weight 35 tonnes; wing area 300 m2.
General Aircraft Hamilcar: weight 16 tonnes; wing area 1655 m2
Ilyushin Il2: weight 16.5 tonnes; wing area 160 m2.
Thus, we see that large gliders require at least 9 m2 of wing area for each tonne of weight in order to remain aloft.
Now; let's look at the 'space shuttle'...
Weight 70 tonnes; wing area 250 m2.
Only 3.6 m2 per tonne?
Oh dear; not even HALF what every other such aircraft ever built required..!
So: 17,500 mph to 250 mph, from orbital heights, with no braking capabilities beyond using its own drag (which is a recipe for conflagration at best), nor lifting surfaces capable of even keeping it aloft during its magical descent?
Your Delusion needs to be Strong in order to make THAT thing fly...
So shut your eyes, cultists, click your heels together, & repeat; 'There's no place like Space! There's no place like Space!'
Just BELIEVE!
Please..?
LMAO - at YOU!!!
-
The shuttle isn't trying to stay aloft. It is simply trying to reach the ground in a controlled fashion.
The gliders you mentioned are trying to stay aloft as long as possible.
-
LOL!!!
The calculations that I found for the shuttle's wing area also fallaciously included the area of the fuselage between the wings, which can not possibly provide lift.
Thus, it's true wing area per tonne ratio is easily below 3.0 m2...
Only One Third of the amount every other large glider required in order to stay aloft...
But anyway, mainframes; large military gliders were designed to be released as close & low to their targets as possible.
So, if anything, they actually stayed aloft for shorter periods than the shuttle allegedly did.
And went through vastly less aerodynamic stresses in doing so...
You'd know that if you'd done any research, or - more importantly - cared about Facts & Truth.
But you ain't & you don't; so keep shitposting & diverting, idiot; it proves how Lost you are.
LOL!!!
P.s. Rayzor: I don't believe in alien lifeforms.
NASA does, though; so go pester them on the subject, weirdo.
-
Let's look at some other big gliders:
Messerschmitt Me 321: weight 35 tonnes; wing area 300 m2.
General Aircraft Hamilcar: weight 16 tonnes; wing area 1655 m2
Ilyushin Il2: weight 16.5 tonnes; wing area 160 m2.
Thus, we see that large gliders require at least 9 m2 of wing area for each tonne of weight in order to remain aloft.
Now; let's look at the 'space shuttle'...
Weight 70 tonnes; wing area 250 m2.
Only 3.6 m2 per tonne?
Oh dear; not even HALF what every other such aircraft ever built required..!
So: 17,500 mph to 250 mph, from orbital heights, with no braking capabilities beyond using its own drag (which is a recipe for conflagration at best), nor lifting surfaces capable of even keeping it aloft during its magical descent?
Your Delusion needs to be Strong in order to make THAT thing fly...
So shut your eyes, cultists, click your heels together, & repeat; 'There's no place like Space! There's no place like Space!'
Just BELIEVE!
Please..?
LMAO - at YOU!!!
Let's look at some speeds:
Me 321: 100 mph during towing, less when gliding.
General Aircraft Hamilcar: 150 mph. Stall speed: 65 mph.
Ilyushin Il2 is a ww2 powered prop plane, not a glider. Speed: 257 mph. Stall speed: 70 mph.
The shuttle: 220 mph during touchdown, up to 300 mph during glide towards the runway.
Here's a video of a shuttle landing:
(http://)
There is no "noisy chase plane" in this video, and you can see that the engines are clearly off.
So the shuttle travels more than 3x faster than a Me 321 does when gliding, and faster than any of the other gliders/powered planes. So the shuttle is more than capable of gliding. Half the liftingsurface/weight, but 3 times the speed. That's a 1.5x factor.
-
Okay; Ilyushin Il 32 glider; happy with your tiny win. Mr. 'the shuttle was not designed for high speed flight'?
LOL!!!
Whatever; the Il-32 is still a large glider & the data is still correct.
Also, from 6.40 in your video a jet engine can clearly be heard, Liar.
Or are you going to say it's wind noise?
Liar.
None of which changes the Fact that, when a certain lift-to-weight ratio is exceeded, gliding of any kind is impossible.
The shuttle cannot glide; it can only fall, then crash; this is back-of-a-napkin stuff...
But keep lying & inventing physics in order to enable it to do so, cultist; keep clicking those heels together.
'There's no place like Space! There's no place like Space!'...
LMAO!!!
-
Okay; Ilyushin Il 32 glider; happy with your tiny win. Mr. 'the shuttle was not designed for high speed flight'?
LOL!!!
Whatever; the Il-32 is still a large glider & the data is still correct.
Also, from 6.40 in your video a jet engine can clearly be heard, Liar.
Or are you going to say it's wind noise?
Liar.
None of which changes the Fact that, when a certain lift-to-weight ratio is exceeded, gliding of any kind is impossible.
The shuttle cannot glide; it can only fall, then crash; this is back-of-a-napkin stuff...
But keep lying & inventing physics in order to enable it to do so, cultist; keep clicking those heels together.
'There's no place like Space! There's no place like Space!'...
LMAO!!!
That is the sound of the shuttle gliding, something travelling at 300mph does generate quite a lot of vibrations. If you tie a rock to a long rope and spin it around you quickly you'll hear a noise from it cause by the vibrations caused by the rock and the rope travelling quickly through the air.
And the lift to weight ratio is not exceeded. Lift is area and speed. The shuttle lacks surface but has a lot of speed so it is not breaking it's lift to weight ratio.
-
LOL!!!
'wind noise'; I knew it!
Idiot.
The shuttle is unpowered, allegedly; therefore nothing is pushing it along to keep its tiny wings creating lift.
Therefore it would stall & crash.
Again; this is aerodynamics 101; every pilot knows it is true.
The ONLY way that silly thing in your video can make that landing is for it to have engines.
& it does; hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail fin.
You can even see the air-intakes if you look closely...
Not that YOU will.
It's all Simple stuff; but keep arguing, software-assisted managed troll-persona...
That's your nature!
LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
'wind noise'; I knew it!
Idiot.
The shuttle is unpowered, allegedly; therefore nothing is pushing it along to keep its tiny wings creating lift.
Therefore it would stall & crash.
Again; this is aerodynamics 101; every pilot knows it is true.
The ONLY way that silly thing in your video can make that landing is for it to have engines.
& it does; hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail fin.
You can even see the air-intakes if you look closely...
Not that YOU will.
It's all Simple stuff; but keep arguing, software-assisted managed troll-persona...
That's your nature!
LOL!!!
Have you already forgotten that it has speed from falling from orbit? That should suffice to give it lift. As you should know if you know anything about aerodynamics, every object creates an aerodynamic force regardless of it's shape when travelling through air, and the higher the speed the greater the aerodynamic force.
-
LOL!!!
'wind noise'; I knew it!
Idiot.
The shuttle is unpowered, allegedly; therefore nothing is pushing it along to keep its tiny wings creating lift.
Therefore it would stall & crash.
Again; this is aerodynamics 101; every pilot knows it is true.
The ONLY way that silly thing in your video can make that landing is for it to have engines.
& it does; hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail fin.
You can even see the air-intakes if you look closely...
Not that YOU will.
It's all Simple stuff; but keep arguing, software-assisted managed troll-persona...
That's your nature!
LOL!!!
Have you already forgotten that it has speed from falling from orbit? That should suffice to give it lift. As you should know if you know anything about aerodynamics, every object creates an aerodynamic force regardless of it's shape when travelling through air, and the higher the speed the greater the aerodynamic force.
The desperation from you people is absolutely sickening in trying to keep this bullshit alive.
Speed from falling from orbit? ;D
How do you account for the one's that were supposedly dropped from a 747? ::)
Did they sprout engines or did they have floating gel on them? ;D
Accept that those shuttles aren't what we are told. It should be obvious to those who are not hell bent on keeping it alive for whatever reason.
-
The shuttle cannot glide; it can only fall, then crash; this is back-of-a-napkin stuff...
And we all know that "back-of-a-napkin" calculations can't be wrong. ::)
The shuttle is unpowered, allegedly; therefore nothing is pushing it along to keep its tiny wings creating lift.
Therefore it would stall & crash.
Again; this is aerodynamics 101; every pilot knows it is true.
Nothing pushing it along? What about gravity? Even if we ignore the 17,500 mph it had in orbit, the shuttle is still quite a few miles high after reentry. That's a lot of potential energy for a 70 ton glider to tap into. Did you ever notice that when the shuttle is gliding, it's constantly in a dive until about 20-30 seconds before touch down?
-
The desperation from you people is absolutely sickening in trying to keep this bullshit alive.
Stating simple and fairly obvious facts is desperation? OK. ::)
Speed from falling from orbit? ;D
How do you account for the one's that were supposedly dropped from a 747? ::)
What's the airspeed of a shuttle-laden 747? That's the initial airspeed of the dropped shuttle. Simple, really.
Did they sprout engines or did they have floating gel on them? ;D
No, silly. The engines are attached to the 747 the shuttle is dropped from. Don't you know anything, or are you just playing dumb?
Accept that those shuttles aren't what we are told. It should be obvious to those who are not hell bent on keeping it alive for whatever reason.
What's obvious is that you either know little about them or pretend to know little about them. Which is it? Either way, your comments are pretty entertaining; if that's your goal, you're succeeding.
-
LOL!!!
'wind noise'; I knew it!
Idiot.
The shuttle is unpowered, allegedly; therefore nothing is pushing it along to keep its tiny wings creating lift.
Therefore it would stall & crash.
Again; this is aerodynamics 101; every pilot knows it is true.
The ONLY way that silly thing in your video can make that landing is for it to have engines.
& it does; hidden in the cowlings either side of the tail fin.
You can even see the air-intakes if you look closely...
Not that YOU will.
It's all Simple stuff; but keep arguing, software-assisted managed troll-persona...
That's your nature!
LOL!!!
Have you already forgotten that it has speed from falling from orbit? That should suffice to give it lift. As you should know if you know anything about aerodynamics, every object creates an aerodynamic force regardless of it's shape when travelling through air, and the higher the speed the greater the aerodynamic force.
The desperation from you people is absolutely sickening in trying to keep this bullshit alive.
Speed from falling from orbit? ;D
How do you account for the one's that were supposedly dropped from a 747? ::)
Did they sprout engines or did they have floating gel on them? ;D
Accept that those shuttles aren't what we are told. It should be obvious to those who are not hell bent on keeping it alive for whatever reason.
Are you so stupid you don't realize how much potential energy is released by falling from from more than 100km? Do you even realize how far up orbit is? Of course the shuttle is going to have plenty of speed.
-
LOL!!!
More piffle & bilge from the master_b8r...
Yes, I do realise how much potential energy is involved in falling from more than 100km up at over 17,500 mph; plenty enough to completely immolate your silly 'space-glider'.
Which is what I have been telling you for a while now, fraud-defending idiot Troll-thing.
Your signature claims Maths is the language of the Universe.
If so, please show us the equations we can use to determine whether a thing is a Boldly-Presented Lie or Otherwise.
You can not, can you?
Thus, the proposition 'Lying is the language of the Universe' would seem the stronger...
And, in the case of your personal Universe, it would be absolutely correct.
Ergo: LMFAO!!!
At you...
Again.
-
What you will need is Bernoulli's principle applied to the wings of the shuttle. To do this you will require a cross sectional analysis of the wings and to apply Bernoulli's equations to determine the difference in pressure above and below the wings. This will then give total lift force at a variety of speeds.
What it should show is that the lift force generated at 300 mph which is the approach speed to landing, is enough to keep the shuttle from dropping too fast. If the shuttle attempted to operated at the speeds employed by standard gliders then it would indeed drop like a lead balloon. BUT the shuttle is designed to operated at higher velocities so this is not a problem.
-
Geez Papa, enough already, I get it, we all get it, you believe in the big conspiracy, so what! Do you think that makes you special somehow? Maybe you suffer from the conspiracy syndrome of false "smarter than those sheeple" attitude.
I get it. If you don't want to admit it, fine with me, but stop the charade, and tell us what you think the CONSPIRACY has to gain from faking space flight. And don't say money, because that doesn't make sense.
If you say Alien mind control, I might, just might, swap sides.... no promises tho.
-
Here you have a full report complete with mathematical equations and tests from NASA about the aerodynamics of the space shuttle:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf)
29 pages, have a nice read papa!
-
Here you have a full report complete with mathematical equations and tests from NASA about the aerodynamics of the space shuttle:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf)
29 pages, have a nice read papa!
Thats a lot of complicated reading...
Interesting hour and half documentary about Einstein. Papa will probably say it's fake too...
Papa please simply watch this:
Documentary about Einstein (http://)
-
LOL!!!
As ever, rock'em-sock'em double-acts; got to make it look like my views are the minority, ain't you, cultists?
If you'd read that pdf & it contained relevant & accurate data then you'd easily be able to refute my claims, wouldn't you, master_b8r?
But you can't; so it doesn't.
So I won't waste my own time reading it.
& did Einstein design space-gliders, Pavasocky?
No, idiot.
So STFU about him.
Your Spam is Blocked...
Rayzor/evil edna: Aliens?
Conspiracies?
GTF back to the David Icke forum, deepconfusion dingbat.
Mainframes: been hitting the wiki hard, have we?
LOL!!!
Your post is a perfect example of the 'science-like language' employed by cultist trolls.
Lots of disconnected assumptions, no work shown, then an illogical non-sequitur conclusion.
Which I read as: 'BUT the shuttle is SPECIAL so it can do anything I say it can'.
Bravo, idiot!
The shuttle does not have enough wing area to glide at any speed or altitude: FACT.
I have taken you through the details of this nonsensical contraption from Launch (it's a BOMB!) to Landing (it'd CRASH!).
It is Fake through & through; a Fraudulent Joke on us all.
& I am bored with both it & you.
Now; tell me again how a light in the sky equates to a tube full of humans spinning round 250 miles above my head.
How bright is it compared to, say, the moon & venus?
Let's get the lulz flowing again!
Toodle-pip, cultists & fraudsters...
-
The shuttle does not have enough wing area to glide at any speed or altitude: FACT.
Then presumably you can show all the relevant calculations to show that this is the case....?
-
LOL!!!
As ever, rock'em-sock'em double-acts; got to make it look like my views are the minority, ain't you, cultists?
If you'd read that pdf & it contained relevant & accurate data then you'd easily be able to refute my claims, wouldn't you, master_b8r?
But you can't; so it doesn't.
So I won't waste my own time reading it.
& did Einstein design space-gliders, Pavasocky?
No, idiot.
So STFU about him.
Your Spam is Blocked...
Rayzor/evil edna: Aliens?
Conspiracies?
GTF back to the David Icke forum, deepconfusion dingbat.
Mainframes: been hitting the wiki hard, have we?
LOL!!!
Your post is a perfect example of the 'science-like language' employed by cultist trolls.
Lots of disconnected assumptions, no work shown, then an illogical non-sequitur conclusion.
Which I read as: 'BUT the shuttle is SPECIAL so it can do anything I say it can'.
Bravo, idiot!
The shuttle does not have enough wing area to glide at any speed or altitude: FACT.
I have taken you through the details of this nonsensical contraption from Launch (it's a BOMB!) to Landing (it'd CRASH!).
It is Fake through & through; a Fraudulent Joke on us all.
& I am bored with both it & you.
Now; tell me again how a light in the sky equates to a tube full of humans spinning round 250 miles above my head.
How bright is it compared to, say, the moon & venus?
Let's get the lulz flowing again!
Toodle-pip, cultists & fraudsters...
I provided you with a fact sheet that describes the aerodynamic flow around the shuttle. If yo believe something is incorrect with it you have to point it out and prove it. Until then it can be assumed that we are right and that you are wrong, since you have no evidence supporting you.
-
LOL!!!
As ever, rock'em-sock'em double-acts; got to make it look like my views are the minority, ain't you, cultists?
If you'd read that pdf & it contained relevant & accurate data then you'd easily be able to refute my claims, wouldn't you, master_b8r?
But you can't; so it doesn't.
So I won't waste my own time reading it.
& did Einstein design space-gliders, Pavasocky?
No, idiot.
So STFU about him.
Your Spam is Blocked...
Rayzor/evil edna: Aliens?
Conspiracies?
GTF back to the David Icke forum, deepconfusion dingbat.
Mainframes: been hitting the wiki hard, have we?
LOL!!!
Your post is a perfect example of the 'science-like language' employed by cultist trolls.
Lots of disconnected assumptions, no work shown, then an illogical non-sequitur conclusion.
Which I read as: 'BUT the shuttle is SPECIAL so it can do anything I say it can'.
Bravo, idiot!
The shuttle does not have enough wing area to glide at any speed or altitude: FACT.
I have taken you through the details of this nonsensical contraption from Launch (it's a BOMB!) to Landing (it'd CRASH!).
It is Fake through & through; a Fraudulent Joke on us all.
& I am bored with both it & you.
Now; tell me again how a light in the sky equates to a tube full of humans spinning round 250 miles above my head.
How bright is it compared to, say, the moon & venus?
Let's get the lulz flowing again!
Toodle-pip, cultists & fraudsters...
Pap have you watched this video?
Interesting hour and half documentary about Einstein. Papa will probably say it's fake too...
Papa please simply watch this:
Documentary about Einstein (http://)
-
No, his gist is he can't be arsed to read it.
He wants us to spoon feed him all the info.
-
LOL!!!
The double-acts continue...
Do you software-assisted managed troll-personae not realise how obvious you are being?
LOL!!!
& two more appear whilst I was typing this reply...
You are TOO dumb, schills...
Anyway; if your pdf contained valid evidence for your case then you, yourself, would be pointing it out.
But, as you are not, then it clearly does not & is A WASTE OF MY TIME.
I have pointed out that the shuttle weighs twice as much as any other glider created, yet has barely 1/3 the wing area.
I have pointed out that it shares no aerodynamic features with any other hypersonic design.
Not ONE.
I have pointed out many other facts & discrepancies in regard to your phantasmagorical 'space-glider'; all of which anyone is free to draw whatever conclusions they like from.
For I am not the Thought-Police; that is clearly YOUR job.
& you are not very good at it.
Which is LOL!!!
Now; how bright is this light-in-the-sky you claim is a manned space station compared to other celestial objects i.e. the moon, venus etc?
Let's have some FUN!
P.s. Einstein did NOT design 'space-gliders', pavasocky; reported for derailing/trolling.
-
Yeah, he doesn't want to read it.
Do you know what that means?
He doesn't care about his beliefs!
That obviously means he doesn't believe in it!
Reported for shitposting and trolling.
-
LOL!!!
Why should I read it when YOU have not?
If it contains evidence in support of your claims, then present it; if not then STFU about it.
Idiot schill.
Anyway; how bright is the light in the sky you claim to be the ISS compared to the moon, venus & other celestial objects?
Moving on...
-
LOL!!!
The double-acts continue...
Do you software-assisted managed troll-personae not realise how obvious you are being?
LOL!!!
& two more appear whilst I was typing this reply...
You are TOO dumb, schills...
Anyway; if your pdf contained valid evidence for your case then you, yourself, would be pointing it out.
But, as you are not, then it clearly does not & is A WASTE OF MY TIME.
I have pointed out that the shuttle weighs twice as much as any other glider created, yet has barely 1/3 the wing area.
I have pointed out that it shares no aerodynamic features with any other hypersonic design.
Not ONE.
I have pointed out many other facts & discrepancies in regard to your phantasmagorical 'space-glider'; all of which anyone is free to draw whatever conclusions they like from.
For I am not the Thought-Police; that is clearly YOUR job.
& you are not very good at it.
Which is LOL!!!
Now; how bright is this light-in-the-sky you claim is a manned space station compared to other celestial objects i.e. the moon, venus etc?
Let's have some FUN!
P.s. Einstein did NOT design 'space-gliders', pavasocky; reported for derailing/trolling.
The whole pdf is evidence, as it describes and proves that the shuttle can reenter and glide.
LOL!!!
Why should I read it when YOU have not?
If it contains evidence in support of your claims, then present it; if not then STFU about it.
Idiot schill.
Anyway; how bright is the light in the sky you claim to be the ISS compared to the moon, venus & other celestial objects?
Moving on...
Pretty bright. About double as bright as a star, I'd guess. I've seen it 2 times with my naked eyes passing over where I live during evening and morning.
-
LOL!!!
As ever, rock'em-sock'em double-acts; got to make it look like my views are the minority, ain't you, cultists?
If you'd read that pdf & it contained relevant & accurate data then you'd easily be able to refute my claims, wouldn't you, master_b8r?
But you can't; so it doesn't.
So we can apply the same logic to your claims: you have never provided sources, or calculations for your claims, because you can't, so you are wrong. Phew! This is easy!
So I won't waste my own time reading it.
Instead you will waste your time with a litany of insults.
& did Einstein design space-gliders, Pavasocky?
No, idiot.
So STFU about him.
He wasn't talking to you.
Your Spam is Blocked...
Rayzor/evil edna: Aliens?
Conspiracies?
You obviously believe in a NASA conspiracy; why the disdain?
GTF back to the David Icke forum, deepconfusion dingbat.
Mainframes: been hitting the wiki hard, have we?
LOL!!!
Your post is a perfect example of the 'science-like language' employed by cultist trolls.
Lots of disconnected assumptions, no work shown, then an illogical non-sequitur conclusion.
Add in some really bad insults and it sounds like you.
Which I read as: 'BUT the shuttle is SPECIAL so it can do anything I say it can'.
Bravo, idiot!
No one has ever said or implied that.
The shuttle does not have enough wing area to glide at any speed or altitude: FACT.
[wuote]I have taken you through the details of this nonsensical contraption from Launch (it's a BOMB!) to Landing (it'd CRASH!).[/quote]
If by details you mean generalities you'd be right. You have not even mentioned glide rates yet, and you think you are thorough. Again, glad you aren't an engineer.
It is Fake through & through; a Fraudulent Joke on us all.
& I am bored with both it & you.
Yet you post day after day, with little variation in your message...
Now; tell me again how a light in the sky equates to a tube full of humans spinning round 250 miles above my head.
How bright is it compared to, say, the moon & venus?
It only looks like a light without magnification. With magnification it has a much more complex structure. It is brighter than Venus, but not as bright as the moon.
Let's get the lulz flowing again!
Toodle-pip, cultists & fraudsters...
Ciao bello!
-
LOL!!!
The glide-rate of the shuttle is allegedly 2.5:1, though it is clearly incapable of this.
But so what, as in the fraudulent videos of the fraudulent fake landing shuttle it clearly violates even this fraudulent fact.
The early videos are especially lol; watch it float along for ages on touch-down - LMAO!!!
Draw your own conclusions, folks...
But enough of that; I am intrigued by the silica fiber component of the heat-resistant tiles on the shuttle...
Any evidence that this material functions as claimed?
-
The glide-rate of the shuttle is allegedly 2.5:1, though it is clearly incapable of this.
But so what, as in the fraudulent videos of the fraudulent fake landing shuttle it clearly violates even this fraudulent fact.
The early videos are especially lol; watch it float along for ages on touch-down - LMAO!!!
Didn't they teach you in aviation 101 that high angle of attack = more lift?
But enough of that; I am intrigued by the silica fiber component of the heat-resistant tiles on the shuttle...
Any evidence that this material functions as claimed?
Do you mean other than the videos that have already been posted of people handling samples of the tiles right out of an oven?
-
But enough of that; I am intrigued by the silica fiber component of the heat-resistant tiles on the shuttle...
Any evidence that this material functions as claimed?
Why don't you do some research and report back?
-
LOL!!!
What 'high angle of attack', proven sock-puppeteer & liar?
You haven't even watched any of the videos, have you, liar?
2.5 lengths forward for every 1 length downward, yet the mighty Shuttle Columbia lands flat as a pancake...
No parachutes either!
LMAO!!!
& why should I care what happened earlier in this thread, liar?
Because YOU don't, do you, liar?
'Raw power trumps aerodynamics'; remember THAT little nugget of disinfo, liar?
So re-post your videos of your 'silica fiber' being handled if they're such definitive 'proof', liar...
Cos I don't believes such a material exists, liar.
What you scared of, Schilling liar?
Losing your credibility, liar?
Cos I think that's already gone, kiddo...
LYING may have had something to do with it.
ROFLMFAO - at YOUR lying self!!!
P.s. software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock: why don't you just re-post your video 'proofs'?
Or STFU; either is good...
-
You asked a question, why should we answer it for you? All you do is take it as an opportunity to be rude and insult people. so go ahead, and, for once, substantiate your position with more than incredulity and blind assertions. Looking forward to it.
-
LOL!!!
What 'high angle of attack', proven sock-puppeteer & liar?
You haven't even watched any of the videos, have you, liar?
2.5 lengths forward for every 1 length downward, yet the mighty Shuttle Columbia lands flat as a pancake...
No parachutes either!
LMAO!!!
& why should I care what happened earlier in this thread, liar?
Because YOU don't, do you, liar?
'Raw power trumps aerodynamics'; remember THAT little nugget of disinfo, liar?
So re-post your videos of your 'silica fiber' being handled if they're such definitive 'proof', liar...
Cos I don't believes such a material exists, liar.
What you scared of, Schilling liar?
Losing your credibility, liar?
Cos I think that's already gone, kiddo...
LYING may have had something to do with it.
ROFLMFAO - at YOUR lying self!!!
P.s. software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock: why don't you just re-post your video 'proofs'?
Or STFU; either is good...
If you have a higher angle of attack you increase your lift, basic aerodynamics. If you watched the video you would have seen that the shuttle pitched back down only just before landing, having it's nose pitched up before that when most aircraft would be more or less planar in relation to the ground. That's why it could glide and land safely.
-
LOL!!!
A software-assisted managed troll-persona says what?
Either post your videos of silica fiber material being handled or admit that it does not function as claimed.
& therefore the shuttle has no proper heat-shielding & is Impossible.
They're the ONLY evidence you have, after all...
So Put Up or Shut Up, shills.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
P.s. master_ b8r: bullshit; look again, shill.
-
LOL!!!
A software-assisted managed troll-persona says what?
Either post your videos of silica fiber material being handled or admit that it does not function as claimed.
For the neutral reader, this is what is known as a false dilemma where someone tries to assert that the only two choices are the choices they present. Of course an obvious third choice has been presented: Papa Legba looks for the evidence himself instead of slinging insults and expressing incredulity.
-
Let qoute Rama Set
You asked a question, why should we answer it for you? All you do is take it as an opportunity to be rude and insult people. so go ahead, and, for once, substantiate your position with more than incredulity and blind assertions. Looking forward to it.
And then lets qoute Papa Legba:
LOL!!!
A software-assisted managed troll-persona says what?
Either post your videos of silica fiber material being handled or admit that it does not function as claimed.
& therefore the shuttle has no proper heat-shielding & is Impossible.
They're the ONLY evidence you have, after all...
So Put Up or Shut Up, shills.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
P.s. master_ b8r: bullshit; look again, shill.
And once again all he can do is take it as an opportunity to be rude and insult people and still not producing evidence.
-
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the one refusing to provide evidence, lying software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock, not I!
Videos of silica carbide being handled please, or be dismissed as a proven LIAR.
& the Shuttle being a proven HOAX.
Put up or shut up.
P.s. LOL!!! at Rama Sock & pavasocky's replies being within 1 minute of each other & somehow managing to swap names after I posted!
This sock-puppet trolling software is great; wish non-governmental types could afford it...
Whatever; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
-
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the one refusing to provide evidence, lying software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock, not I!
Videos of silica carbide being handled please, or be dismissed as a proven LIAR.
& the Shuttle being a proven HOAX.
Put up or shut up.
More rudeness and insults
-
More refusal to provide evidence...
LOL!!!
-
More refusal to provide evidence...
LOL!!!
Brilliant! We are making progress. That was a civilized post with no rudeness or insults. Papa if you promise to continue with the good behavior I'm pretty sure we can help with piling up even more evidence.
-
STFU, shill, & show me some evidence for your magical silica fiber heat-shield...
F**king Trekkie...
LOL!!!
-
STFU, shill, & show me some evidence for your magical silica fiber heat-shield...
Do you need to be burped and put down for a nap after you get spoon fed?
! No longer available (http://#)
-
STFU, shill, & show me some evidence for your magical silica fiber heat-shield...
F**king Trekkie...
LOL!!!
I had such high hopes for you, now you back to rudeness and insults.
Everyone already thinks that you draw one of the short straw when brains were handed out.
-
Do you stand by this video as definitive evidence, markjo?
-
Do you stand by this video as definitive evidence, markjo?
Definitive evidence does not exist. It is impossible to prove something completelly. Science, however, gives us the most accurate model possible for something. So, then, I ask you. What would be sufficient evidence for you?
-
Ok; do you, conker, as well as all the other cultists, consider markjo's video to be valid evidence of the capabilities of the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles?
-
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the one refusing to provide evidence, lying software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock, not I!
You brought it up.
Videos of silica carbide being handled please, or be dismissed as a proven LIAR.
& the Shuttle being a proven HOAX.
If only it were that easy for you.
Put up or shut up.
P.s. LOL!!! at Rama Sock & pavasocky's replies being within 1 minute of each other & somehow managing to swap names after I posted!
This sock-puppet trolling software is great; wish non-governmental types could afford it...
Whatever; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
What? You ok?
-
http://m.youtube.com/results?q=shuttle%20hoax&sm=3 (http://m.youtube.com/results?q=shuttle%20hoax&sm=3)
How about the obvious lack of support in the attaching struts? 17,000 mph ok.
-
Ok; do you, conker, as well as all the other cultists, consider markjo's video to be valid evidence of the capabilities of the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles?
This is my last warning, Legba. Do not insult me or others.
Is it valid? I think so. Sufficient? No, it is just a very small part of the evidece of the tiles working.
-
Hoppy; the shuttle is an aerodynamic joke.
The shills here REALLY don't want you to think about the unprecedented stresses & strains involved in travelling at 17,500 mph.
At the moment, though, we are discussing the video markjo posted; do you think it is a valid demonstration of the capabilities of the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles?
When we reach a consensus, we shall move on...
Oh, conker; how did I insult you then?
You ARE cultists: Hubbard, Parsons, Crowley - remember?
It is common knowledge, cultist; deal with it.
Anyhow; if that video is INVALID evidence, why did markjo post it?
It is from NASA itself; do you consider NASA an INVALID source of evidence?
-
Here you go, Papa. (http://)
-
Read again, Legba. I didn't said it was invalid.
And Im not a cultist. Im an atheist.
-
Your dead link was most helpful, cultist sock-puppet Misero.
Thanks for that derailment!
now; markjo's youtube: valid evidence or not?
This should not be an issue btw; Truth should be self-evident...
The fact that you are all dithering over even defining it only adds to my argument that you are all LIARS.
But LOL!!!
Conker: nobody cares what YOU claim to be.
This is the internet, idiot; you are what WE decide you to be....
Now tell us if markjo's video is valid evidence or f**k off.
-
I already did. And, no, I'm actually what my actions say I am. I follow no religion. Therefore, I am no cultist, since a cult is a minor religion.
-
So, you ask for it being handled, there it is, being handled. Or is the topic now just about markjo's video?
-
Conker: Nobody cares what you think.
Is markjo's video admissible as valid evidence or not, cultist?
P.s. misero: let me explain; SHUT UP.
-
Do you stand by this video as definitive evidence, markjo?
I'd say that it's about as definitive as it gets without you personally attending one of those demonstrations and grabbing one of those fresh out of the oven tile samples for yourself. After all, you're the one who needs to be convinced, so I don't see how taking anyone else's word for it will ever suffice.
Just out of curiosity, how definitive do you think the evidence is going to get in an internet chat forum?
-
THANK YOU, puppet-master...
So; if your video is proved fraudulent, then the entire bloody space-glider farce will be proven fraudulent also...
Correct?
Or are you gonna try to squirm out of this one too, super-worm?
Edit: I was getting a reply every 3 minutes or so before this, but now they've clammed right up!
Convening, probably to watch the video in depth & try to find out where they f**ked up...
If they even did f**k up; cos maybe I'm bluffing?
Or am I..?
Let's find out, cultists!
All of which is so LOL!!! I just cannot describe...
See you tomorrow, idiots!
-
here's the video, in case markjo decides to abort..
! No longer available (http://#)
Sayonara, suckers!
-
THANK YOU, puppet-master...
So; if your video is proved fraudulent, then the entire bloody space-glider farce will be proven fraudulent also...
Correct?
Or are you gonna try to squirm out of this one too, super-worm?
Edit: I was getting a reply every 3 minutes or so before this, but now they've clammed right up!
Convening, probably to watch the video in depth & try to find out where they f**ked up...
If they even did f**k up; cos maybe I'm bluffing?
Or am I..?
Let's find out, cultists!
All of which is so LOL!!! I just cannot describe...
See you tomorrow, idiots!
It's past midnight here, which is why you will have to wait for a proper answer until tomorrow. It's called time zones. But I have a document from a ablative-material producer with a thorough explanation for how it works including maths.
-
lol you have no idea wtf you are talking about. lol
lol
! No longer available (http://#)
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
-
here's the video, in case markjo decides to abort..
! No longer available (http://#)
Sayonara, suckers!
That video looks legit. No cuts, and those materials could be held after only seconds of getting out of that furnace.
-
THANK YOU, puppet-master...
So; if your video is proved fraudulent, then the entire bloody space-glider farce will be proven fraudulent also...
Correct?
Or are you gonna try to squirm out of this one too, super-worm?
Edit: I was getting a reply every 3 minutes or so before this, but now they've clammed right up!
Convening, probably to watch the video in depth & try to find out where they f**ked up...
If they even did f**k up; cos maybe I'm bluffing?
Or am I..?
Let's find out, cultists!
All of which is so LOL!!! I just cannot describe...
See you tomorrow, idiots!
Sounds like you're the one who's squirming. All of those words and none of them actually contribute anything to the discussion. If you think that they f***ed it up, then prove it.
-
Tomorrow, suckers...
Butt-hurt much?
LOL!!!
-
Tomorrow, suckers...
You're such a tease. Tomorrow just gives you a chance to change the subject without ever actually addressing anything.
Typical Papa Legba.
All LOL.
No content.
-
Hoppy; the shuttle is an aerodynamic joke.
The shills here REALLY don't want you to think about the unprecedented stresses & strains involved in travelling at 17,500 mph.
On the contrary, you have been asked to expand upon and substantiate your position more than once and all that you do is reassert your position and insult people.
At the moment, though, we are discussing the video markjo posted; do you think it is a valid demonstration of the capabilities of the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles?
When we reach a consensus, we shall move on...
Oh, conker; how did I insult you then?
You ARE cultists: Hubbard, Parsons, Crowley - remember?
Yawn.
It is common knowledge, cultist; deal with it.
Anyhow; if that video is INVALID evidence, why did markjo post it?
It is from NASA itself; do you consider NASA an INVALID source of evidence?
Do you know the difference between insufficient and invalid?
-
Conker: Nobody cares what you think.
Is markjo's video admissible as valid evidence or not, cultist?
Interesting that you ask the opinion of someone whose thoughts you don't care about.
P.s. misero: let me explain; SHUT UP.
Internet tough guy alert!
-
The video is true, I believe everything NASA tells me ::)
-
Legba, let me put it even more clearly, since you don't read my posts.
The video is valid evidence. I have no reason to doubt the source, and paralell evidence tells me it is likelly not fake.
The video is not sufficient evidence. A video on Youtube isn't the only reason I know the Shuttle works (sometimes). If it were, it would be pretty flimsy, I agree, altough still valid.
-
Legba, let me put it even more clearly, since you don't read my posts.
The video is valid evidence. I have no reason to doubt the source, and paralell evidence tells me it is likelly not fake.
The video is not sufficient evidence. A video on Youtube isn't the only reason I know the Shuttle works (sometimes). If it were, it would be pretty flimsy, I agree, altough still valid.
The evidence is solid. It was to answer this:
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the one refusing to provide evidence, lying software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock, not I!
Videos of silica carbide being handled please, or be dismissed as a proven LIAR.
& the Shuttle being a proven HOAX.
Put up or shut up.
-
Legba, let me put it even more clearly, since you don't read my posts.
The video is valid evidence. I have no reason to doubt the source, and paralell evidence tells me it is likelly not fake.
The video is not sufficient evidence. A video on Youtube isn't the only reason I know the Shuttle works (sometimes). If it were, it would be pretty flimsy, I agree, altough still valid.
The evidence is solid. It was to answer this:
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the one refusing to provide evidence, lying software-assisted managed persona Rama Sock, not I!
Videos of silica carbide being handled please, or be dismissed as a proven LIAR.
& the Shuttle being a proven HOAX.
Put up or shut up.
Yes, the video fullfills the evidence request by Legba, that was clear from the begining. But now Legba is spinning it into "then if I show this video is fake then the Shuttle is fake", which is why I try to make clear that this video is valid evidence, but not sufficient to prove the Shuttle. I wouldn't believe there is such a thing if the only evidence was videos of red glowing blocks being handled.
In other words:
The video is valid evidence for silica shielding. Considering the source and paralel evidence, the video is probably sufficient evidence of silica shielding. Even if the video was proven false, silica shielding have been bought by third parties, and the evidence is massive.
The video is valid indirect evidence for the Shuttle. The video is NOT sufficient evidence for the Shuttle, just a small part of the evidence for the Shuttle. If the video was proven false, it wouldn't affect the solidness of the proposition (the Shuttle exists and works) a bit.
-
LOL!!!
Sounds like you're getting you're excuses in already...
Because yes, the video is laughably fake; it makes no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint & is clearly a crappily-constructed conjuring trick.
& I will show you how...
Later.
But first, lets talk about Conspiracy.
Rayzor seems to think there's a conspiracy to hide the fact the World is flat...
Lol - crackpot!
No; the only 'conspiracy' I see evidence for is Conspiracy to Defraud.
This is a very real phenomenon, & also a very serious crime.
Moreover, by promoting & encouraging it - i.e. asking people to waste their time & money by buying telescopes to watch a fake space station, or going to see fake rocket launches - you cultists are actively aiding & abetting this fraud & are thus Accessories to a Crime.
Which is also a very serious offence.
Just fyi...
But at least it gives me a new epiphet to add to my usual Liars, Sock-users, Cultists, Idiots, Schills, Scmucks, Herberts, etc...
CRIMINALS!
LOL!!!
Anyway; back to your video...
We shall discuss it at length; my first question, though, is simple: How can an object be glowing white-hot yet not burn what it touches?
White-heat is white-heat, after all; so if the insulation was really such a poor heat-conductor as claimed it would not glow white-hot at all...
Yet it does!
Do you really see no contradictions here?
Well no; of course you don't - after all, you're not allowed to, are you?
But watching you try to explain it will be LOL...
Cos Criminals say the funniest things!
-
LOL!!!
Sounds like you're getting you're excuses in already...
Because yes, the video is laughably fake; it makes no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint & is clearly a crappily-constructed conjuring trick.
& I will show you how...
Later.
But first, lets talk about Conspiracy.
Rayzor seems to think there's a conspiracy to hide the fact the World is flat...
Lol - crackpot!
No; the only 'conspiracy' I see evidence for is Conspiracy to Defraud.
This is a very real phenomenon, & also a very serious crime.
Moreover, by promoting & encouraging it - i.e. asking people to waste their time & money by buying telescopes to watch a fake space station, or going to see fake rocket launches - you cultists are actively aiding & abetting this fraud & are thus Accessories to a Crime.
Which is also a very serious offence.
Just fyi...
But at least it gives me a new epiphet to add to my usual Liars, Sock-users, Cultists, Idiots, Schills, Scmucks, Herberts, etc...
CRIMINALS!
LOL!!!
Anyway; back to your video...
We shall discuss it at length; my first question, though, is simple: How can an object be glowing white-hot yet not burn what it touches?
White-heat is white-heat, after all; so if the insulation was really such a poor heat-conductor as claimed it would not glow white-hot at all...
Yet it does!
Do you really see no contradictions here?
Well no; of course you don't - after all, you're not allowed to, are you?
But watching you try to explain it will be LOL...
Cos Criminals say the funniest things!
As you said, it's a bad heat conductor. This is why the heat in the center is not conducted to the outside, which is why it glows. Also, the glowing centers on each side is too hot to touch, which is why they picked them up in the corners. Since the cube was in the furnace for hours, it had hours to conduct heat to it's center and it will take hours to conduct it back to the surface.
-
LOL!!!
Criminals really DO say the funniest things!
Magical heat-concentrating cubes...
They just SUCK IT UP inside emselves don't they?
LMAO!!!
You lot just do not care what kinda crap you come out with, do you?
But wait; doesn't the conjuror - sorry, 'scientist' - in the video say they dissipate heat quickly?
If so, then they'd be radiating all that magically sucked-up white-heat back OUTWARDS asap...
Which would DEFINITELY make em hard to hold; in fact it's kinda the opposite of what you claim, isn't it?
Was he LYING?!?
Oh, dear - what a mess!
LOL!!!
-
I see you are back from the Special Olympics. Did you win any medals?
-
LOL!!!
Criminals really DO say the funniest things!
Magical heat-concentrating cubes...
They just SUCK IT UP inside emselves don't they?
LMAO!!!
You lot just do not care what kinda crap you come out with, do you?
But wait; doesn't the conjuror - sorry, 'scientist' - in the video say they dissipate heat quickly?
If so, then they'd be radiating all that magically sucked-up white-heat back OUTWARDS asap...
Which would DEFINITELY make em hard to hold; in fact it's kinda the opposite of what you claim, isn't it?
Was he LYING?!?
Oh, dear - what a mess!
LOL!!!
Read my post this time and you'll see that you asked questions I just answered.
They do dussipate the heat quickly, but there has to be something to transfer it to to begin with. The material in the center can only dissipate it's heat to the rest of the material around it, but because of low conductivity the heat has to dissipate slowly from the center.
Cook up a meatball. You'll notice it's hot inside if you take a bite out of it as soon as it is cooked. Magical heatsucking or just laws of physics? You'll also notice that the surface cools quicker than the inside.
-
Anyway; back to your video...
We shall discuss it at length; my first question, though, is simple: How can an object be glowing white-hot yet not burn what it touches?
Very simple. If you look closely, you should notice that the edges that he was touching were not white hot. Remember that the tiles are made of about 10% silica fibers and about 90% empty space. This means that 90% of the edges are empty space which means that the 10% that are silica fibers have a lot of surface area exposed to the air and can cool very quickly compared to the rest of the block that did not have as much surface area exposed to the air.
(http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Tile-590x330.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
What a mass of self-contradictory gibberish.
Master_b8r managed to say that your magical cubes dissipate heat both quickly AND slowly in one sentence...
Lying sock-puppeteer markjo has a strange grasp of geometry...
Sock-arul demonstrates his usual reality-denial & lack of humour...
LMAO!!!
But hey, as long as it looks like my views are in the minority then Job Done, eh, cultists?
Of course, Criminals will say anything to escape the consequences of their offences; so I expect more such inanities to pile up when we return to this matter.
But some of us have real jobs to go to; so ta-ra for now, Fraudulent Liars.
-
So why aren't the tiles under the shuttle, white like these blocks are?
Are the people in that video supposed to be members of the public on a little tour of the labs?
I mean simply saying " oh, make sure you just grab the ends." ....Nahhhhhhhh.
Something's not right about this video. I mean why heat them in an oven? Shouldn't they be blasting them with a high powered flame thrower to create a sort of re-entry scenario seeing that's what we are told they are designed for.
So why stick them in some so called oven?
Does anyone know what the black stuff is that they spray the so called tiles with and also, I thought the tiles were ceramic.
Anyone who has a twitchy irritant personality, try not to answer to me.
-
LOL!!!
What a mass of self-contradictory gibberish.
Master_b8r managed to say that your magical cubes dissipate heat both quickly AND slowly in one sentence...
Lying sock-puppeteer markjo has a strange grasp of geometry...
Sock-arul demonstrates his usual reality-denial & lack of humour...
LMAO!!!
But hey, as long as it looks like my views are in the minority then Job Done, eh, cultists?
Of course, Criminals will say anything to escape the consequences of their offences; so I expect more such inanities to pile up when we return to this matter.
But some of us have real jobs to go to; so ta-ra for now, Fraudulent Liars.
It does dissipate heat quickly, but it also conducts heat horribly. The heat in the inside of the cube has to be conducted to the outside in order to dissipate from the whole material. But because of the bad conductivity it takes hours for the inside of the cube to fully conduct all it's heat to the outside where it can dissipate quickly. Easy enough to understand?
-
They do dussipate the heat quickly, but there has to be something to transfer it to to begin with. The material in the center can only dissipate it's heat to the rest of the material around it, but because of low conductivity the heat has to dissipate slowly from the center.
Do I understand absolute nonsense like the drivel you spammed out above, master_b8r?
No; I do not.
Nobody can; because it is Pseudo-scientific Double-speak gibberish.
& also very, very LOL indeed!
-
ROFL
LMAO
LOL
You clearly don't understand anything about thermodynamics Papa.
-
They do dussipate the heat quickly, but there has to be something to transfer it to to begin with. The material in the center can only dissipate it's heat to the rest of the material around it, but because of low conductivity the heat has to dissipate slowly from the center.
Do I understand absolute nonsense like the drivel you spammed out above, master_b8r?
No; I do not.
Nobody can; because it is Pseudo-scientific Double-speak gibberish.
& also very, very LOL indeed!
You don't understand basic thermodynamics? Then you shouldn't debate it.
-
LOL!!!
Here we go...
You contradicted yourself, master_b8r.
You said the cubes both DO & DON'T dissipate heat quickly...
In the same sentence, even!
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this Fact?
Criminal Liar.
I suggest that the laws of thermodynamics state that if an object is white-hot it will transfer that white-heat to any object it comes into contact with...
Such as a human hand; or a space-shuttle.
You, & NASA, will argue otherwise though; doubtless at great length...
& I will LOL.
Because it will be Untrue.
& your convoluted & dishonest testimony will never change that Fact.
What's more, when I decide to, I will move on to the further evidence of fraud contained in your pathetic parlour-trick of a video...
& you will then react to that, too.
Because, in Newtonian terms, I am the Action on this thread; you cultist rabble are merely the Reaction...
Which should tell any intelligent person exactly what is going on here.
& they, along with myself, will laugh & laugh & laugh again at your utter intellectual corruption...
Now; carry on lying.
-
lol
No matter how long your post is.
Or how many times you hit enter.
You are still dumb
lol
!!!!
-
If I am so dumb, then you would be easily able to refute my points.
Yet you cannot.
Which says it all, butt-hurt little sock-arul...
LOL!!!
-
I suggest that the laws of thermodynamics state that if an object is white-hot it will transfer that white-heat to any object it comes into contact with...
Do the edges look white-hot?
-
LOL!!!
Here we go...
You contradicted yourself, master_b8r.
You said the cubes both DO & DON'T dissipate heat quickly...
In the same sentence, even!
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this Fact?
Criminal Liar.
I suggest that the laws of thermodynamics state that if an object is white-hot it will transfer that white-heat to any object it comes into contact with...
Such as a human hand; or a space-shuttle.
You, & NASA, will argue otherwise though; doubtless at great length...
& I will LOL.
Because it will be Untrue.
& your convoluted & dishonest testimony will never change that Fact.
What's more, when I decide to, I will move on to the further evidence of fraud contained in your pathetic parlour-trick of a video...
& you will then react to that, too.
Because, in Newtonian terms, I am the Action on this thread; you cultist rabble are merely the Reaction...
Which should tell any intelligent person exactly what is going on here.
& they, along with myself, will laugh & laugh & laugh again at your utter intellectual corruption...
Now; carry on lying.
Laws of thermodynamics cover stuff like heat. Since you didn't know this and don't know anything about thermodynamics your unsupported claims are invalid.
-
Papa,
The cubes are incredibly poor conductors of heat. This means it takes a long time for heat to flow from one part of the cube to another. However, any heat that has made it to the surface of the cube will then be transferred to the surrounding air very quickly, as the heat capacity of the cube is very low.
You need to understand that these are two different processes. Conduction of heat through a highly insulating material and then the transfer of the low density heat to the air.
-
YOU need to understand that ANY object that is white-hot - ESPECIALLY one that is claimed to dissipate heat very quickly - WILL transfer that heat to ANY OTHER object touching it, idiot.
What is WRONG with you?
Your video is clearly & laughably fraudulent.
So stop lying, criminal.
& LOL!!!
-
I have a degree in Chemical Enginneering and know more about thermodynamics than you can possibly imagine.
However, let's use an example that you might understand. Put a stew in the oven in a big casserole dish. Let it heat up to over 200oC. Then take it out of the oven using oven gloves. Did you burn your hands? No. That's because oven gloves conduct heat very slowly and therefore the amount of energy transferred to your hands to heat them up is very low.
It is exactly the same process with the blocks. The inside may be white hot but that heat can't escape and therefore cannot be transferred to your hand when you pick it up.
-
You are a liar & a criminal so knock off the bullshit.
You all agree the cubes are white-hot.
You all agree the cubes dissipate heat very fast.
Yet you do not agree that the cubes would therefore transfer that white-heat to bare human skin?
(oven gloves? & stew? LOL!!!)
You are all insane & do not understand even the most basic science.
But then again, you're not paid to, are you?
LMAO - at YOU!!!
-
You are a liar & a criminal so knock off the bullshit.
You all agree the cubes are white-hot.
You all agree the cubes dissipate heat very fast.
Yet you do not agree that the cubes would therefore transfer that white-heat to bare human skin?
(oven gloves? & stew? LOL!!!)
You are all insane & do not understand even the most basic science.
But then again, you're not paid to, are you?
LMAO - at YOU!!!
Do the corners of the cube glow?
-
Do you Lie, Backtrack, Bluff, Evade, Divert, Derail & Deny in every arrogant, barely-literate post you pinch out?
Why yes; yes you do!
LOL!!!
Your best bet would've been to simply agree that the NASA conjuror in the video was wrong when he said the tiles dissipate heat very fast.
But as your are clearly programmed to never admit NASA are wrong about anything, ever, you did not...
Thus ensuring lulz for all.
Anyhow; time for me to go to work.
You lot stay here spreading criminal disinfo; we'll reconvene later for more fun.
Toodle-pip, cultists!
-
Papa,
Please could you explain your understanding of the following terms and then apply them correctly to the heated tile in question to explain what is happening:
Heat transfer by radiation
Heat transfer by conduction
Heat transfer by convection
Black body radiation
Coefficient of thermal conductivity
Heat capacity
If you can't I'll be happy to provide a lesson.
-
Mainframes: Can you explain, simply, how a cube that is heated to 1200C & is made of material that dissipates heat very quickly does not burn any human skin it contacts?
No; you can not.
Because it is impossible.
So, again, knock off the evasive bullshit...
Cos I'm neither buying nor biting.
But I am LOL-ing...
Thus: LMFAO - at criminal cultist YOU!!!
-
Papa Legba's hate for science and learning never ceases to amaze me.
-
Papa
I'll give you some basic calculations tomorrow to show exactly why you can pick up the cube with your bare hands but tomorrow morning as its late now and I'm tired.
-
LOL!!!
Mikeman's back!
& dumb as ever, too...
Is markjo's hand still solidly up your arse?
But what about the master_b8r sock-puppet?
Has he outlived his usefulness?
LMAO!!!
Mainframes: you will provide NO 'calculations' for ANYTHING, disinfo-merchant.
You will instead provide a SIMPLE explanation for how a cube, heated to 1200C, made of a material that dissipates heat very quickly WILL NOT transfer that heat to any object it contacts.
And that is ALL you will do, criminal liar.
ANY other response will be DISMISSED.
Enough of your pseudo-science, defrauding cultist crook.
Damn! You people disgust me...
But you also make me laugh.
Thus: ROFLMAO - at YOU!!!
-
Mainframes: you will provide NO 'calculations' for ANYTHING, disinfo-merchant.
You will instead provide a SIMPLE explanation for how a cube, heated to 1200C, made of a material that dissipates heat very quickly WILL NOT transfer that heat to any object it contacts.
And that is ALL you will do, criminal liar.
ANY other response will be DISMISSED.
lol. you think calculations aren't simple.
-
While we wait for the software-assisted military-managed disinfo personae to co-ordinate their criminal response, let's enjoy poko's markjo-themed fan-fiction yet again...
markjo: Humans have little rocks in their mouths called teeth.
Papa: LOL! tiny rocks in your mouths, that's a good one. Keep up your cultist lies!
markjo: Well, teeth are clearly visible, all you have to do it look.
Papa: How can I look in my own mouth, idiot? You people are so deluded that you think you can look inside your own mouths!
markjo: You can have somebody else look in your mouth an confirm that your teeth are there.
Papa: anybody who says they have seen another person's teeth are just deluded. They have been brainwashed since birth that teeth exist, so they lie to themselves. Teeth are a conspiracy by Big Dental to sell toothbrushes.
markjo: You can see your own teeth if you open your mouth and look in a mirror.
Papa: Mirrors reflect images, dumbass! No image from a mirror will ever be trustworthy because the image will be flipped! You idiots are so deluded that you think we have rocks in our mouths! If we had rocks in our mouths, why aren't we shitting out rocks all the time?
markjo: *headdesk*
LULZ!!!
P.s. nouveau sock-puppet 'MikDaTv'; No - I think YOU are simple.
-
You are a liar & a criminal so knock off the bullshit.
You all agree the cubes are white-hot.
You all agree the cubes dissipate heat very fast.
Yet you do not agree that the cubes would therefore transfer that white-heat to bare human skin?
(oven gloves? & stew? LOL!!!)
You are all insane & do not understand even the most basic science.
But then again, you're not paid to, are you?
LMAO - at YOU!!!
Do the corners of the cube glow?
-
Are the corners of the cubes 1200C?
The man in the video says they are...
& he's from NASA!
Are you calling a man who works for NASA a Liar, mikeman/markjo?
For shame!
LOL!!!
But anyway; the cubes are claimed to be heated to 1200C.
The cubes are claimed to dissipate heat very fast.
If so, how can the cubes not transfer that heat to anything they contact?
Such as human skin...
This is the crux of the biscuit, so stop avoiding it & provide a logical answer, criminal cultists.
You won't of course; because it is Impossible...
But you'll try; & it'll be LOL!!!
-
Are the corners of the cubes 1200C?
The man in the video says they are...
& he's from NASA!
Are you calling a man who works for NASA a Liar, mikeman/markjo?
For shame!
LOL!!!
Do the corners of the cube glow?
-
And you say I don't read your posts!
Try again, shill...
Are the corners of the cubes 1200C?
The man in the video says they are...
& he's from NASA!
Are you calling a man who works for NASA a Liar, mikeman/markjo?
For shame!
LOL!!!
But anyway; the cubes are claimed to be heated to 1200C.
The cubes are claimed to dissipate heat very fast.
If so, how can the cubes not transfer that heat to anything they contact?
Such as human skin...
This is the crux of the biscuit, so stop avoiding it & provide a logical answer, criminal cultists.
You won't of course; because it is Impossible...
But you'll try; & it'll be LOL!!!
LMAO!!!
-
Firstly the cubes are actually heated to 2200oC.
Right, here is the simple explanation for you Papa. Different materials take different amounts of energy to heat up to the same temperature, and therefore in reverse do not need to release much energy to cool down either, this is called heat capacity. This is why you can open an oven running at 200oC and not be burned by the hot air that pours out but a cup of water at 100oC will give you a seriously nasty burn.
The shuttle tiles are made from 10% silicon dioxide and 90% air and have a very low heat capacity and will cool down rapidly when exposed to a cooler environment.
In addition to this the tiles are very poor conductors of heat. Heat moves very slowly through the tile, with the result being that the tile loses heat to the surrounding air faster than it can flow from the centre of the tile. This means that the centre of the tile can still be white hot because it cant get rid of the heat through the tile whilst the edge are cool due to being in contact with the external environment.
-
And you say I don't read your posts!
Try again, shill...
Are the corners of the cubes 1200C?
The man in the video says they are...
& he's from NASA!
Are you calling a man who works for NASA a Liar, mikeman/markjo?
For shame!
LOL!!!
But anyway; the cubes are claimed to be heated to 1200C.
The cubes are claimed to dissipate heat very fast.
If so, how can the cubes not transfer that heat to anything they contact?
Such as human skin...
This is the crux of the biscuit, so stop avoiding it & provide a logical answer, criminal cultists.
You won't of course; because it is Impossible...
But you'll try; & it'll be LOL!!!
LMAO!!!
Just answer my question, yes or no:
Do the corners glow?
-
Let's see if this helps at all (although I doubt it will):
Papa Legba, here is a picture of the structure of a HSRI shuttle tile. Notice that the fibers are very thin and there is a lot of free space in the mesh. This means that the fibers at the edges have most of their surface area exposed to air and can therefore transfer heat much more efficiently than when they're in the middle of the block. Just think of the tile as a block of fiberglass board insulation.
(http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/364/1838/125/F7.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
Structure of currently used shuttle tiles. (a) Perspective view of cut-away section, (b) low magnification SEM of near-surface region and (c) high magnification SEM image of interior. (Photographs courtesy of Margaret Stackpoole, NASA Ames Research Center, California.)
Hmmm... Now that I think about it, I wonder if a similar type of experiment could be done at home with a chunk of fiberglass board insulation and an oven. Granted, fiberglass board insulation is generally rated to only about 450 degrees F, but I think that would be sufficient to prove the point.
-
If that tile was like you portray, markjo then the shuttle would burn up on re-entry in seconds due to absorbing the glowing friction into it and onto the shuttle under body. Naturally assuming the space malarkey was realistic, which it isn't.
If the fibres are like you portray, then they would take no heating up but granted they would cool down quite quickly from the outer at least, only we have a major problem, don't we?
You see, in that oven we see supposed shuttle tiles being heated and then put on the rack to cool all over, because air can circulate all over.
On a supposed shuttle under belly you only have the face of the tile facing the atmosphere, so how is it going to dissipate the heat?
I'd also like to know what the black colouring is on those tiles and why black?
Is the colouring some kind of extra fire proofing or what?
Things just never seem to look good for this shuttle. No wonder they shut it down. They must have realised that people were seeing too much wrong with it. Of course, they were right.
-
Are the corners of the cubes 1200C?
The man in the video says they are...
& he's from NASA!
Are you calling a man who works for NASA a Liar, mikeman/markjo?
For shame!
LOL!!!
But anyway; the cubes are claimed to be heated to 1200C.
The cubes are claimed to dissipate heat very fast.
If so, how can the cubes not transfer that heat to anything they contact?
Such as human skin...
This is the crux of the biscuit, so stop avoiding it & provide a logical answer, criminal cultists.
You won't of course; because it is Impossible...
But you'll try; & it'll be LOL!!!
The tiles dissipated their heat into the air around them and the corners quickly dissipated all of their heat and became cool enough to touch before they were touched. Note how he waited a bit after taking them out of the oven before he touched them, this is because he had to let the heat dissipate.
-
How Shuttle tiles work.
http://www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/shuttle-tiles-12580671/?no-ist (http://www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/shuttle-tiles-12580671/?no-ist)
Why the heated tiles don't burn your hand.
http://www.geek.com/science/2200f-space-shuttle-heat-tiles-wont-burn-your-bare-hands-1559855/ (http://www.geek.com/science/2200f-space-shuttle-heat-tiles-wont-burn-your-bare-hands-1559855/)
You can buy your own thermal tile and check it out for yourself.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Space-Shuttle-Thermal-Tile-/261990442619?hash=item3cffd8e67b (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Space-Shuttle-Thermal-Tile-/261990442619?hash=item3cffd8e67b)
How rockets work in space, in layman's terms.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html (http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html)
And lastly, why it's so hard to change your (or someone else's mind). Unless you TRUELY have an open mind, it's very unlikely to change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that is contradictory to your belief.
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/ (http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/)
-
If that tile was like you portray, markjo then the shuttle would burn up on re-entry in seconds due to absorbing the glowing friction into it and onto the shuttle under body. Naturally assuming the space malarkey was realistic, which it isn't.
If the fibres are like you portray, then they would take no heating up but granted they would cool down quite quickly from the outer at least, only we have a major problem, don't we?
You see, in that oven we see supposed shuttle tiles being heated and then put on the rack to cool all over, because air can circulate all over.
On a supposed shuttle under belly you only have the face of the tile facing the atmosphere, so how is it going to dissipate the heat?
The tiles are very porous, they consist of around 90% air but the tiles are also sealed so that the pockets of air are contained within the tile. The whole point of the tiles are that they are very poor conductors of heat. The heat just cannot flow through the tile very well at all. Think of using oven gloves to pick up things out of the oven. It is because they do not conduct the heat of the casserole dish to your hands. All oven gloves are is a fibrous material that contains mainly air and an outside layer to contain it, exactly like the tiles.
I'd also like to know what the black colouring is on those tiles and why black?
Is the colouring some kind of extra fire proofing or what?
It performs a couple of functions. Firstly, it is to encase the silicon dioxide mesh within, as the the mesh is rather brittle. Secondly, it is a black coating because black objects will radiate heat far more effectively than white objects. This allows an improved method of dissipating heat to the outside environment in addition to conducting straight to the air around it.
Things just never seem to look good for this shuttle. No wonder they shut it down. They must have realised that people were seeing too much wrong with it. Of course, they were right.
No-one ever said the shuttle was easy. The heat resistant tiles caused more problems to the shuttle program than anything else and actually delayed its initial launch for at least a year, but not for the reasons you think. The heat resistance was never an issue as that part of the tiles worked very well. It was actually the problem of getting the tiles attached to the shuttle, getting them to stay attached and also being able to cope with the mechanical stress of the shuttle air-frame expanding and contracting with changes in temperature.
-
LOL!!!
A well-co-ordinated response from the software-assisted managed personae horde.
As expected...
Yet I notice that NONE of you really answered my question.
Which was: How can a cube heated to 2200C... actually, thanks for that, mainframes; the NASA conjuror in the youtube didn't specify celsius or farenheit so I assumed the latter, NASA being American (2200F = 1200C).
Both are a lie, as the video is fraudulent; but the higher figure is even better - good work, Idiot!
Anyway; How can a cube, heated to 2200C, made of material that dissipates heat very quickly, NOT dissipate that heat into anything it DIRECTLY CONTACTS?
Such as human skin.
Your 'opening an oven' analogy is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING, as your skin is not IN DIRECT CONTACT with the interior surface of the oven.
If it was, you would be burned.
& besides, STOP comparing the effects of 100C-200C heat to that of 2200C heat.
Lie much, mainframes?
Sceptimatic has grasped the essential point here, which is that the shuttle tiles - by NASA's own admission - could not help but dissipate heat into their underlying structure.
&, as the glue used to hold them in place fails at 250C max, & aluminium airframes fail at 450C max, that - combined with the effects of aerodynamic drag at hypersonic velocities - would be bad news for the Shuttle.
But hey; believe what you like, criminal cultists...
Moving on; alter the settings to play the video at 0.25 speed.
Notice anything odd?
You should...
But will you?
Whatever: my next question is: how quickly does the block the cubes sit upon dissipate heat?
Such fun!
-
I never said that you had to touch the oven, just that when you open the door you will be hit a wall of air at 200C. I was demonstrating the difference in heat capacity between two different materials and how this effects how much heat is transferred to an object in contact with that material. For example, water at 100C will cause far more damage to your skin than air at 200C because water has at least four times the heat capacity.
And for the final time, the whole point of the tiles is that they do not allow heat to pass through them. They act as insulators that prevent enough heat to reach the interior of the shuttle structure.
-
You were diverting, derailing & misleading, mainframes.
& you still are; for if the tiles do not allow heat to pass through them, then how do they manage to glow white-hot in their centres?
Nothing you say makes sense, mainframes.
I warned you that such behaviour would result in your testimony being dismissed & thus it is.
Live with it, Liar.
None of you could provide a clear & logical answer to my question & it is thus considered Proven that the tiles WOULD transfer their 2200C heat to anything they came into direct contact with.
This part of the cross-examination is now over.
Again; live with it, Criminal Liar.
So; moving on: how quickly does the block the cubes sit upon dissipate heat?
Answer the question, please; simply & in your own words.
-
Actually, it's Celsius. Science is always in Metric.
It really depends on a lot of conditions. Wind speed, temperature, the material being dissipated into.
Is your argument really based on "he couldn't possibly touch those cubes, therefore fake."?
Well, OT. Why can he touch the white-hot cube? Because he's touching the area not white-hot. It must be hot, still, but after waiting in room temperature air with cubes literally designed for this, I'd give a ballpark estimate of about 200C/s.
Don't quote me on that, like I said, it's a ballpark estimate. I would have to know the air temperature, amount of air bubbles and location of them. I'd assume they're uniform in some way, but maybe not.
-
We are done here, slow learner misero; you can stop lying now.
Instead, answer this: How quickly does the block the cubes sit upon dissipate heat?
-
Okay, give me the exact stats or get nothing.
That's how you talk, Mr. I want answers spoon-fed to me.
And guess what>'
If we gave you an answer, you would find some other minor detail to pick at.
You know who does that? A criminal.
Well, I'll add that to the list.
(Taking something from your book. Like it?)
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
-
Yes, sceptimatic; it is very clearly nonsense.
Embarrassingly so...
Anyway; mainframes: so, if the block the cubes sit upon were glowing white-hot then it would take a while for that white-heat to dissipate?
Am I correct in the above observation?
If so, care to put a time-frame on that dissipation?
You are, after all, an 'expert' on thermodynamics as well as a distinguished chemist...
So you should know, correct?
Please answer the above, then we shall reconvene later to evaluate your testimony.
& probably LOL too; but that's nowt unusual...
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you? Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you? Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.
If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.
It stands to reason that, just like the thick pretend metal heat shield on the supposed re-entering Soyuz capsules, they would have needed to apply the same dense logic to the shuttle under belly.
Now obviously with what we have been bullshitted to about space and weights of spacecraft, we naturally know they can't come up with this shower of crap about a metal heat shield on a shuttle, because it would simply give the whole game away even for the severe naive/gullible people.
So what best to come up with? 10% silica and 90% air venting like a fibrous brittle yet strong ceramic tile that just happens to be able to be painted black as an outer skin and yet still act as a deflector come absorber - to a degree, super tile.
None of the heat manages to go through the super sponge like porous as hell tile to the under-body and all the glue holding them on is tickety boo.
They had trouble sticking those tiles on we are told and then all of a sudden...no problem/ All those tiles and yet just one loose one or one crack or falling off and kaput...not to mention this amazing deflector/absorber make up.
Space craft. If you can think it, it can be built for TV and flown for TV audiences all over the world.
Re-entries at 2 million mph in the future?..you bet your life we can. We now have new abrasive underbelly tile brakes, designed to slow the super hypersonical space whizzical VIP carrying craft to 120 mph in 2 minutes from space direct to the ground at some secret air field. Yeah...why not. :P
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you? Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.
If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.
So why is fiberglass insulation, and other types of insulation usually extremely porous?
-
If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.
Actually, it's the high porosity that makes the tiles such good insulation. Just look at a chunk of fiberglass insulation.
It stands to reason that, just like the thick pretend metal heat shield on the supposed re-entering Soyuz capsules, they would have needed to apply the same dense logic to the shuttle under belly.
Soyuz uses an ablative heat shield which is very different from the shuttle's ceramic tile insulation.
Now obviously with what we have been bullshitted to about space and weights of spacecraft, we naturally know they can't come up with this shower of crap about a metal heat shield on a shuttle, because it would simply give the whole game away even for the severe naive/gullible people.
Huh? Could you try that again, this time in English?
So what best to come up with? 10% silica and 90% air venting like a fibrous brittle yet strong ceramic tile that just happens to be able to be painted black as an outer skin and yet still act as a deflector come absorber - to a degree, super tile.
No, the 90% porosity is not for venting, but for insulation. Again, think fiberglass.
None of the heat manages to go through the super sponge like porous as hell tile to the under-body and all the glue holding them on is tickety boo.
Well, that's the plan.
They had trouble sticking those tiles on we are told and then all of a sudden...no problem/ All those tiles and yet just one loose one or one crack or falling off and kaput...not to mention this amazing deflector/absorber make up.
Yes, they discovered a problem with the way that the tiles were glued to the shuttle and then they fixed the process. Why would that be suspicious?
Space craft. If you can think it, it can be built for TV and flown for TV audiences all over the world.
And if you work hard enough and spend enough money, you can make one (or 6) for real.
Re-entries at 2 million mph in the future?..you bet your life we can. We now have new abrasive underbelly tile brakes, designed to slow the super hypersonical space whizzical VIP carrying craft to 120 mph in 2 minutes from space direct to the ground at some secret air field. Yeah...why not. :P
Okay, now you're just spouting nonsense. Maybe it's time for your nap.
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you? Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.
If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.
So why is fiberglass insulation, and other types of insulation usually extremely porous?
Look up insulation.
-
Virtually all types of insulation comprise a porous material that traps lots of tiny pockets of air. Air is a very poor conductor of heat, and using lots of tiny pockets prevents any convection or radiation heat transfer within the material.
The end result is a material that allows very little heat energy to pass through it. Think oven gloves, fibreglass attic insulation, foam cavity insulation, wool jumpers, the padding within every type of winter coat.
The difference with the shuttle tiles is that they need to withstand an intense level of heat and therefore the porous mesh material is made out of silicon dioxide to prevent the mesh itself degrading. Silicon dioxide has a very high melting point and is also a poor conductor of heat big it is still air the prevent most of the heat passing through.
-
Virtually all types of insulation comprise a porous material that traps lots of tiny pockets of air. Air is a very poor conductor of heat, and using lots of tiny pockets prevents any convection or radiation heat transfer within the material.
The end result is a material that allows very little heat energy to pass through it. Think oven gloves, fibreglass attic insulation, foam cavity insulation, wool jumpers, the padding within every type of winter coat.
The difference with the shuttle tiles is that they need to withstand an intense level of heat and therefore the porous mesh material is made out of silicon dioxide to prevent the mesh itself degrading. Silicon dioxide has a very high melting point and is also a poor conductor of heat big it is still air the prevent most of the heat passing through.
Why do you keep mentioning oven gloves, attic insulation, wool jumpers, etc? Seriously why are you so desperate to keep the fictional shuttle tiles alive. It should be clear to most people looking in that those tiles are bogus on that shuttle in terms of what they tell us they actually are.
Now let's see if you grasp this. All you people looking in...get your thinking caps on and absorb what I'm saying.
Do not be put off by insulation. You see, your quilt on your bed (which is basically what these people are trying to marry up with the shuttle) stops your body heat from leaving the bed in short order, because it's full of air resistance between the fibres.
Now just like those supposed shuttle tiles acting like a blanket covering the shuttle under belly, it's working back to front.
Ok, Imagine being in bed covered in shuttle tiles. Your body heat is being kept in by the shuttle tiles and slowly dissipating into the bedroom, through them, in normal calm bedroom air pressure; meaning no forceful friction pushing the body heat out.
Now imagine a person (assuming he could breathe) being under that shuttle tile blanket falling from the sky like we see in a burn up re-entry.
The friction would hit the tile and would be PUSHED into that tile, constantly for however long they say the shuttle is in free fall re-entry friction burn mode.
The air in between the tiles is a complete and utter waste of time isn't it because there is no air. It's all friction, so insulation is KAPUT.
You are tricked to hell with this oven glove bullshit insulation and it has absolutely no bearing on what they tell us is happening in their space ventures with their supposed flying machines.
A sponge will absorb water and it will act as a barrier to more water once it's packed with it in the air holes. It now acts as a barrier and slowly dissipates the water under it as more is poured on top.
Now imagine getting a super massive powerful fireman's hose and blasting that sponge with water. What happens?
Of course: it's going to act like a free flowing tap, just like the shuttle falling out of the sky on its belly against the glowing friction we get shown. It will be like the fireman's glowing friction hose blasting those tiles which will absorb it all the way through to the under belly of the shuttle, where it hits a barrier of aluminium that will reflect the blast for a second until the blast simply melts it all and blows the shuttle to smithereens.
It's just not happening and the tiles are bullshit.
-
Here is what happens when the tiles are missing.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
The duvet (quilt) on your bed is an insulator and prevents heat flowing through it. Therefore all the heat produced by your body kept trapped under the duvet keeping you nice and warm.
The shuttle tiles work in the same way. They stop heat flowing through the tiles but to prevent that heat reaching the shuttle airframe.
All an insulator does it prevent heat flow through itself. How this property is applied can be varied to prevent heat leaving an area or object eg a person in bed or a hot water tank jacket or to prevent object being heated up eg oven gloves protecting your hands or the shuttle tiles protecting the shuttle airframe. Prevent movement of heat. Simple.
-
Okay, give me the exact stats or get nothing.
That's how you talk, Mr. I want answers spoon-fed to me.
And guess what>'
If we gave you an answer, you would find some other minor detail to pick at.
You know who does that? A criminal.
Well, I'll add that to the list.
(Taking something from your book. Like it?)
LOL!!!
Attack of the Clones...
Miser/arkjO.
LMAO!!!
But anyway, let's return to your fraudulent video; if the block the cubes sit upon were glowing white-hot then it should take a while for that white-heat to dissipate?
Am I correct in the above observation?
If so, care to put a time-frame on that dissipation?
Please answer the above, then we shall reconvene later to evaluate your testimony.
-
The block the cubes are sat will have a far higher heat capacity and a higher conductivity. The block will still take a while to cool down but it's temperature throughout will be far more uniform and will therefore be too hot to touch for quite some time.
-
To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.
As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.
They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.
Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.
Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you? Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly.
The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.
That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound.
Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.
That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.
If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.
So why is fiberglass insulation, and other types of insulation usually extremely porous?
Look up insulation.
I have installed plenty of insulation. There is a reason that it is called glass wool insulation. I would hope you could figure that one out.
-
Please observe the video from the 26 second mark, where the conjuror picks up the 1st cube.
Beneath the cube is a glowing square upon the block.
Please explain this glowing square, how it was created & how long it should last.
! No longer available (http://#)
I must emphasise that it was YOU space-cultists who attested to the validity of this video, so it is YOU who must answer any questions I have on the matter, without complaint.
Either do so, or have your video dismissed as fraudulent.
-
lol
The glowing square was clearly made from the glowing cube. As you can see, it doesn't last long.
lol
-
Please observe the video from the 26 second mark, where the conjuror picks up the 1st cube.
Beneath the cube is a glowing square upon the block.
Please explain this glowing square, how it was created & how long it should last.
! No longer available (http://#)
I must emphasise that it was YOU space-cultists who attested to the validity of this video, so it is YOU who must answer any questions I have on the matter, without complaint.
Either do so, or have your video dismissed as fraudulent.
The glowing square is simply where the surface of the large block is hotter than the rest because it has been insulated by the shuttle cube sat on top of it for a few seconds after being brought out from the oven. The cube has prevented that patch from losing its heat like the rest of the block. Some heat will conduct to the rest of the block but not much as there is very little temperature gradient.
The square will last a little while as that spot will always being ever so slightly hotter than the rest. It will become far less noticeable when the block and hat patch drop below the temperature at which they glow red hot.
-
Well; that is interesting.
Because, if you go to 'watch on youtube' & slow the video down to 0.25 speed, then watch from 34 seconds, you will notice the conjuror spins the 2nd cube slightly before picking it up.
And the glowing square beneath the cube spins instantly with it.
Care to explain how this is possible?
Ought to be fun...
& there's more!
-
Well; that is interesting.
Because, if you go to 'watch on youtube' & slow the video down to 0.25 speed, then watch from 34 seconds, you will notice the conjuror spins the 2nd cube slightly before picking it up.
And the glowing square beneath the cube spins instantly with it.
Care to explain how this is possible?
Ought to be fun...
& there's more!
That's easy.
The cubes are glowing and the "glowing square" originally beneath the cubes are actually the light emitted by them (because the cubes glow). When he picks it up you can clearly see this, the bright glowing spot beneath the cube is replaced by the dimly glowing square which is made visible when the bright light is gone and it's located under the original position of the cube
-
Wrong, markjo's proven sock-puppet.
Look again.
When the conjuror spins the cube, the glowing square spins instantly with it.
How?
-
WTF are you talking about? The guy picks up the cube a for a split second it lights up the block it's sitting on. Then as it gets further away it no longer lights it up and you can see the red hot square left behind.
-
WTF are you talking about? The guy picks up the cube a for a split second it lights up the block it's sitting on. Then as it gets further away it no longer lights it up and you can see the red hot square left behind.
Well let me add to it and watch carefully.
One minute those tiles are told to us that they take hours to absorb the glowing heat. The next second when the dipshit goes to take the SECOND block off the larger block, he spins it slightly and yet the glow follows the exact turn of that block.
It's there in your face, so answer the question as to why in a reasonable manner. A manner that actually has a potential bonafide answer.
Just make anything up that suits. You usually do.
-
WTF are you talking about? The guy picks up the cube a for a split second it lights up the block it's sitting on. Then as it gets further away it no longer lights it up and you can see the red hot square left behind.
Well let me add to it and watch carefully.
One minute those tiles are told to us that they take hours to absorb the glowing heat. The next second when the dipshit goes to take the SECOND block off the larger block, he spins it slightly and yet the glow follows the exact turn of that block.
It's there in your face, so answer the question as to why in a reasonable manner. A manner that actually has a potential bonafide answer.
Just make anything up that suits. You usually do.
Anyone with half a brain can see the glowing block he picks up lights up the block it was sitting of for a split second. It's emitting light after all.
-
Look again.
When the conjuror spins the cube, the glowing square spins instantly with it.
How?
The white hot cube is glowing white. What do you suppose that means? It means that the white hot cube emits white light, correct? The white hot cube is emitting white light onto the bigger block that it's sitting on. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Did you notice that the whit hot spot went back to its original orientation when he lifted the second cube? Did you notice how quickly that spot went from white hot to red hot?
-
WTF are you talking about? The guy picks up the cube a for a split second it lights up the block it's sitting on. Then as it gets further away it no longer lights it up and you can see the red hot square left behind.
Well let me add to it and watch carefully.
One minute those tiles are told to us that they take hours to absorb the glowing heat. The next second when the dipshit goes to take the SECOND block off the larger block, he spins it slightly and yet the glow follows the exact turn of that block.
It's there in your face, so answer the question as to why in a reasonable manner. A manner that actually has a potential bonafide answer.
Just make anything up that suits. You usually do.
Anyone with half a brain can see the glowing block he picks up lights up the block it was sitting of for a split second. It's emitting light after all.
Picture me rubbing your head and then knocking on it. Hello...is there anyone in there.
Last try.
Observe the dipshit attempting to pick up the SECOND block laid on the larger block. Notice that he accidentally turns that block before he picks it up.
Now notice that as he turns that block, the glowing shape follows the turn, exactly.
Let me try and make it simpler.
If you had a square shaped torch face down on that block and you turned that torch to the right or left, you would see the glow follow the torch position which is fair enough.
The problem here is, we are talking about a glowing block on top of a glowing block that supposedly takes hours to get to this stage and both are glowing on their own, apparently.
As soon as the small block is turned, it acts like the torch I mentioned, yet this cannot be. It's impossible if these blocks are what we've been told they are.
The little backward dipshit that tried to pick up the block should be getting a huge kicking in the bollocks about now, as soon as his employers see that he's been outed for the mistake.
If I was his employer and I was duping people and he made this error, I'd have his nuts on a skewer. ;)
-
Is there anyone not retarded standing around you? Have them watch the video and explain it to you. You clearly won't listen to us explain it perfectly.
-
Observe the dipshit attempting to pick up the SECOND block laid on the larger block. Notice that he accidentally turns that block before he picks it up.
Did you not notice that the large block went from white hot to red hot by the time the man took the second block off?
Now notice that as he turns that block, the glowing shape follows the turn, exactly.
THE BLOCK IS TH*RKING WHITE HOT!!!!!! WHAT THE TH*RK DO YOU EXPECT A WHITE HOT BLOCK TO DO IF NOT GLOW WHITE?!?!?!?
-
You can buy pieces of heat shielding on EBay and the heat shields are not that remarkable if you consider that they are very similar to fire brick which is as cheap as dirt and if you have s fire place you have some in your house. The stuff can hold molten steel and yet with an inch of fire brick insulating it it feels cool to the touch. For under $5 you can buy some test this for yourself.
You flat earthers are so desperate, you even have to purposely not comprehend how light works to make a point. You never cease to amaze me.
-
Wrong, markjo's proven sock-puppet.
Look again.
When the conjuror spins the cube, the glowing square spins instantly with it.
How?
If you actually look carefully, the glowing square in the block actually smears ever so slightly from where the cube was to where the cube was slightly spun. This makes sense as the part that was covered is still glowing hot and the part that is now covered is insulated and preventing heat from escaping.
This actually would cause the surface to heat up as excess heat from the core of the block is now prevented from escaping and builds up at the suface. This is obvious from the fact that the two holes through the block used to pick it up are still glowing white from the core heat.
-
If you actually look carefully, the glowing square in the block actually smears ever so slightly from where the cube was to where the cube was slightly spun. This makes sense as the part that was covered is still glowing hot and the part that is now covered is insulated and preventing heat from escaping.
This actually would cause the surface to heat up as excess heat from the core of the block is now prevented from escaping and builds up at the suface. This is obvious from the fact that the two holes through the block used to pick it up are still glowing white from the core heat.
LOL!!!
& all that happens INSTANTLY?
Not possible, Mr. 'thermodynamics expert'.
But keep lying & desperately attempting to justify what is an obvious conjuring trick; it is HILARIOUS!
Next question; why should the holes be radiating more heat than the rest of the block?
It is all the same temperature, is it not?
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
-
No, it's not the same temperature. The surface will be hotter, but the heat will radiate more efficiently from the inside.
And before you shout "BS!" with no reason beyond incredulity, put up some refutation before yelling "BOTS CRIMS ALL OF YOU TROLLS GO AWAY! INCREDULITY!"
;D
-
If you actually look carefully, the glowing square in the block actually smears ever so slightly from where the cube was to where the cube was slightly spun. This makes sense as the part that was covered is still glowing hot and the part that is now covered is insulated and preventing heat from escaping.
This actually would cause the surface to heat up as excess heat from the core of the block is now prevented from escaping and builds up at the suface. This is obvious from the fact that the two holes through the block used to pick it up are still glowing white from the core heat.
LOL!!!
& all that happens INSTANTLY?
Not possible, Mr. 'thermodynamics expert'.
But keep lying & desperately attempting to justify what is an obvious conjuring trick; it is HILARIOUS!
Next question; why should the holes be radiating more heat than the rest of the block?
It is all the same temperature, is it not?
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Everything started out at the same temperature but the area inside the holes cool down slower and thus stay hot for longer because the heat can only escape out of the two small holes while on the rest of it it can escape in every direction. You are really desperate to prove this fake.
-
Well, 'mikeman', I've already proven YOU to be fake, so deconstructing the shoddy conjuring trick shown in your fraudulent video should't be too hard, eh?
Speaking of sock-puppetry: Misero; Mainframes; Mikeman; Master_evar; Mikdatv; Mikeytlovzballs...
& of course Markjo.
Lots of names beginning with 'M' on this thread...
Of course, that won't ring any alarm bells for you CO-INCIDENCE THEORISTS, will it?
But the rest of us will LOL!!!
Anyway; back to your box & cubes full of lights, which you WILL answer my questions about, WITHOUT complaint, or be dismissed as Obstructive Witnesses...
So; you claim the holes radiate more heat than the surface of the box; care to put a figure on that, Thermodynamics Experts?
Also; what material are the prongs the conjuror's assistant uses to move the box made from?
Answers please, M-people.
-
Well, 'mikeman', I've already proven YOU to be fake, so deconstructing the shoddy conjuring trick shown in your fraudulent video should't be too hard, eh?
Really? Show me where. This certainly isn't the first time you have been this wrong about something.
-
Everyone following this thread knows what you are, 'mikeman'/markjo/etc.
The details of your self-incrimination can be found around pages 90/91, for those interested in going over old ground.
& do try to stay in character, 17 year old autistic super-genius; you're slipping...
Now STFU with your derailing & tell me what material the prongs the conjuror's female assistant uses to move the light-box are made from?
Also; would a thermometer held 4 inches from the holes in the side of the box register a different temperature to one held 4 inches from the top of the box?
If so, by how much?
Answer the questions.
-
Everyone following this thread knows what you are, 'mikeman'/markjo/etc.
The details of your self-incrimination can be found around pages 90/91, for those interested in going over old ground.
& do try to stay in character, 17 year old autistic super-genius; you're slipping...
Now STFU with your derailing & tell me what material the prongs the conjuror's female assistant uses to move the light-box are made from?
Also; would a thermometer held 4 inches from the holes in the side of the box register a different temperature to one held 4 inches from the top of the box?
If so, by how much?
Answer the questions.
I would take a guess of either one of the refractory metals such as tungsten, or an alloy of one of these metals.
The thermometers would be very similar. The radiant heat is very slightly less on the side as the surface area incident to the block edge is lower due to the holes, however within these holes the air will be far hotter and this may convect out enough hot air to heat the thermometer. There are a few factors that would determine the final thermometer temperatures and would need modelling before a definitive answer could be given.
-
So; a thermometer placed equidistant to both the top of the light-box & its holes would register a similar temperature...
Good; Duly Noted..
But TUNGSTEN for the prongs?!?
Really?
Cos Tungsten is VERY heavy; perhaps the conjuror's assistant is also a weightlifter?
but whatever, Mr. Thermodynamics Expert; at what temperature does Tungsten become red-hot?
& how long does it take to do so?
Give me the lowest figures you can find if you wish...
The results will still be LOL!!!
-
& do try to stay in character, 17 year old autistic super-genius; you're slipping...
First of all, i have aspergers, not autism. Also, I am not a one dimensional character like you seem to think.
-
Nobody cares, derailing sock-puppet entity 'mikeman', so STFU.
Now, answer this, Cultists:
At what temperature does Tungsten become red-hot?
& how long does it take to do so?
Give me the lowest figures you can find if you wish...
The results will still be LOL!!!
-
Nobody cares, derailing sock-puppet entity 'mikeman', so STFU.
Now, answer this, Cultists:
At what temperature does Tungsten become red-hot?
& how long does it take to do so?
Give me the lowest figures you can find if you wish...
The results will still be LOL!!!
Everything glows red hot at the same temperature, and the coldest something can be while emitting a visible red light is about 800 degrees Celsius.
-
So; 800C = Red Hot.
Thank you, faux-aspie sock-puppet disinfo thing.
Next question: what temperature/type of radiant heat, from a source 4 inches away, would make Tungsten heat up to 800C within 1 second?
& would human skin, if exposed to a similar radiant heat source, be unharmed?
It's slow going; but we'll get there...
& the LOLS will flow!
-
So; 800C = Red Hot.
Thank you, faux-aspie sock-puppet disinfo thing.
Next question: what temperature/type of radiant heat, from a source 4 inches away, would make Tungsten heat up to 800C within 1 second?
& would human skin, if exposed to a similar radiant heat source, be unharmed?
It's slow going; but we'll get there...
& the LOLS will flow!
Yes, human skin would be harmed if exposed to such heat. Unfortunately for you it's not being exposed to such heat in that video, the tiles have low conductivity and radiate heat away fast, so when they are first taken out of the oven they quickly radiate their heat away (heating up the tungsten) and by the time the guy picked it up it was cool again.
I again remind you that with 5 dollars and a fire pit you could buy fire brick and test this out for yourself. Unless the government can control the laws of physics that would either uncover the conspiracy or prove us round earthers right. What are you waiting for?
-
So; 800C = Red Hot.
Thank you, faux-aspie sock-puppet disinfo thing.
Next question: what temperature/type of radiant heat, from a source 4 inches away, would make Tungsten heat up to 800C within 1 second?
& would human skin, if exposed to a similar radiant heat source, be unharmed?
It's slow going; but we'll get there...
& the LOLS will flow!
Yes, human skin would be harmed if exposed to such heat. Unfortunately for you it's not being exposed to such heat in that video, the tiles have low conductivity and radiate heat away fast, so when they are first taken out of the oven they quickly radiate their heat away (heating up the tungsten) and by the time the guy picked it up it was cool again.
I again remind you that with 5 dollars and a fire pit you could buy fire brick and test this out for yourself. Unless the government can control the laws of physics that would either uncover the conspiracy or prove us round earthers right. What are you waiting for?
I again remind you that you are a proven sock-puppet of markjo so should STFU.
I also remind you that I AM NOT A FLAT EARTHER, IDIOT.
I further remind you that the only 'conspiracy' I see is CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, to which you are an accessory & thus A CRIMINAL.
Anyway; to return to your Fraudulent video...
So; human skin, if exposed to the kind of radiant temperatures that would render Tungsten red-hot within one second if within 4 inches of it, would be harmed.
Are you sure of that?
Last chance, Schills...
-
So, Papa Legba, your belief is that thre is no conspiracy and the earth is round.
Without a conspiracy, space travel must be real.
So, you don't believe it, but you argue for it.
So you're a troll.
Well, he's been exposed.
But, since he'll cover up the mistake, let's keep going.
Tell me:
Why are you using the temperature of a red hot object from an object that is not red-hot?
He holds the corners.
-
LOL!!!
STFU, misero/markjo/mikeman/master_evar/mainframes/mikdatv/etc & just answer the question.
Funny how YOU all posited this video as definitive evidence for the tile's functioning just a few pages back, yet now you seem to want to see the back of it ASAP.
Yeah; funny, that...
LMFAO!!!
-
Oh, in case you missed it, idiots:
I remind you that the only 'conspiracy' I see is CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, to which you are all accessories & thus CRIMINALS.
So; human skin, if exposed to the kind of radiant temperatures that would render Tungsten red-hot within one second if within 4 inches of it, would be harmed.
Are you sure of that?
Just answer the damn question, cultists...
-
So; human skin, if exposed to the kind of radiant temperatures that would render Tungsten red-hot within one second if within 4 inches of it, would be harmed.
Are you sure of that?[/b]
Just answer the damn question, cultists...
If human skin was exposed to the same radiant heat that could render tungsten red hot within one second from a distance of four inches, then it would probably combust.
I'm sure you think you're trying to make some clever point to trap us BUT at no point in that video is the metal (maybe tungsten, but don't know) fork glowing red hot due to radiant heat exposure. There is a point where the tips are glowing after the fork was used to put a new block in the ultra hot oven but that is it.
-
LOL!!!
You are made entirely of Fail & Blindness, criminal cultist mainframes...
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
If this is the case, why does the conjuror's hand not combust from the same level of radiant heat when he picks up the cube, as YOU say it should?
! No longer available (http://#)
Is that a clever enough point for you, Mr. Thermodynamics Expert?
LMFAO!!!
Oh; & I see you've flip-flopped to 'maybe it's tungsten but don't know' now.
Yeah; thought you'd do that, idiot...
ROFLMFAO - at incompetent, fraud-defending rat-in-a-trap YOU!!!
-
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Um no, the end face of the tongs is merely reflecting the red light from within the tile.
Freeze frame at 48 sec.
-
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
I see you still don't understand how lighting works. There is a difference between something being red hot and something being illuminated by red light from a nearby red hot object. Why do you refuse to understand this?
Take a red light and shone it on any surface. It becomes red, so does that mean it's red hot? No it doesn't. Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp?
-
Yep concur. Notice how the holes are glowing bright, that's called light and it is reflecting off the tips of the fork. If you look very carefully, you'll notice it is only the surface of the tips of the fork directly facing the brick that is glowing. If the fork was glowing from a heating effect then a length of the tip would glow not just a single surface.
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
-
Those tiles are so light they couldn't possibly be applied to any moving object as expected to reflect heat whilst also being super absorbent. It's a classic case of "let's see how backward the public are."
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
No, I'm referring to the red glow that looks red.
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
No, I'm referring to the red glow that looks red.
There is no red glow that looks red, marky.
Take a close look at the silly big bock with the two holes through it that are GLOWING white/yellowy hot....not red .
Now notice the ends of the supposed tungsten or whatever prongs on the fork that light up and glow red. What do they call them? ET's finger tip lights? ;D
Here's a question for you. How much do those smaller blocks weigh?
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
No, I'm referring to the red glow that looks red.
There is no red glow that looks red, marky.
Take a close look at the silly big bock with the two holes through it that are GLOWING white/yellowy hot....not red .
Incorrect. The block itself is still glowing red.
Here's a question for you. How much do those smaller blocks weigh?
Since they're less dense than Styrofoam, I'd hazard a guess and say not much.
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
No, I'm referring to the red glow that looks red.
There is no red glow that looks red, marky.
Take a close look at the silly big bock with the two holes through it that are GLOWING white/yellowy hot....not red .
Incorrect. The block itself is still glowing red.
No it's not, marky. Not when the woman goes to put the fork in it.
Here's a question for you. How much do those smaller blocks weigh?
Since they're less dense than Styrofoam, I'd hazard a guess and say not much.
And you seriously think they would stick that crap all over the underbelly of a shuttle in between landing gear doors as well, etc, not to mention around supposed strut anchors?
Seriously you believe this?
Your answer will be " sure scepti, what's wrong with that." ;D
Something as light as styrofoam and yet it's lifting off against super friction of compressed atmosphere, absorbing water as it flies into the air and the tiles just smile way.
Then they re-enter in a massive furnace like glow and smile away back to Earth where they cool down as they hit atmosphere then land, whilst still smiling at the battering.
These very same tiles that are no heavier than styrofoam.
All you people out there. You've saw what Papa has said. I've added a little bit to it. Now seriously, do you still believe this shuttle and cladding did what you believed at the time or have you finally woken up.
Join in and answer if you will, because it would be shame to think these people on here who promote this crap, continue to aid in selling you fantasies as realism.
-
Why would the tiles absorb water?
-
Watch the video from 46 seconds, as the conjuror's assistant puts the prongs back into the holes.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
Papa Legba, why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that glowing objects emit light? The tips of the prongs are merely reflecting the red glow from the red hot block. It's almost as if you've never seen an incandescent light bulb.
You mean that red glow that looks white/yellow?
No, I'm referring to the red glow that looks red.
There is no red glow that looks red, marky.
Take a close look at the silly big bock with the two holes through it that are GLOWING white/yellowy hot....not red .
Incorrect. The block itself is still glowing red.
No it's not, marky. Not when the woman goes to put the fork in it.
Look again. The block is indeed still glowing red, just not as brightly as before.
-
Why would the tiles absorb water?
More to the point; why wouldn't they?
-
Why would the tiles absorb water?
More to the point; why wouldn't they?
Presumably you think because they are porous that they would absorb water? This is totally ignoring the fact that the silica foam is just the inner part of a complete tile. There are further layers covering the tiles that seal the tile completely, adding strength and improving the black body radiance.
-
Why would the tiles absorb water?
More to the point; why wouldn't they?
Presumably you think because they are porous that they would absorb water? This is totally ignoring the fact that the silica foam is just the inner part of a complete tile. There are further layers covering the tiles that seal the tile completely, adding strength and improving the black body radiance.
It's not making any sense. Can you come out with anything better?
-
Objects like the heat tiles wouldn't "absorb" water until they start to cool and are under 100 degree C
-
Why would the tiles absorb water?
More to the point; why wouldn't they?
Presumably you think because they are porous that they would absorb water? This is totally ignoring the fact that the silica foam is just the inner part of a complete tile. There are further layers covering the tiles that seal the tile completely, adding strength and improving the black body radiance.
It's not making any sense. Can you come out with anything better?
What doesn't make sense? Porous layer covered by a non-porous layer to seal the tile? Pretty simple really.
-
Are you REALLY saying that the reason the tips of the prongs glow red-hot BEFORE being re-inserted into the block at 46 seconds is because they are REFLECTING LIGHT?!
REALLY??!!??
Are you all f**king MENTAL??!!??
Are the prongs mirrored?
NO
Does the nature of the glowing tips change once inserted THROUGH the box & out the other side?
NO.
What is WRONG with you all??!!??
Well: at least I now know for absolute certain that you are all disinfo entities; because you implacably deny any & all TRUTH, FACTS & LOGIC that are staring you in the face.
I have proven beyond doubt that your video is FRAUDULENT; a cheap conjuring trick.
Yet you simply will not admit I have one single valid point...
You disgust me.
Here: look again at what kind of childish, cringe-worthy mummery we are paying NASA to inflict upon us; enjoy having your intelligence insulted, reason mocked & tax money FRAUDULENTLY STOLEN...
! No longer available (http://#)
LMFAO!!!
-
Papa legba, IF YOU SHINE ARED LIGHT ON SOMETHING IT LOOKS RED... Why is this so hard to understand? Of course it's reflecting light, if it didn't reflect any light then it would be solid black. It may not be focusing the light uniformly like a mirror but it's clearly diffusing it. I have a red flashlight at home, do I have to make a video of how something spears red when I shine that light on it?
-
Yes, proven sock-puppet mikeman/markjo - you DO have to make a video to prove your convoluted, illogical & just plain insane point about the OBVIOUSLY GLOWING prong-tips somehow reflecting light like goddamn MIRRORS.
Do so immediately.
Because until then, your NASA video will be considered PROVEN FRAUDULENT.
So step to it, Shill...
LOL!!!
-
Yet you simply will not admit I have one single valid point...
That would be because you're either a halfwit or a troll.
Of course the fork glows brightly when placed against the brightly glowing source of light.
-
Why?
-
Yes, proven sock-puppet mikeman/markjo - you DO have to make a video to prove your convoluted, illogical & just plain insane point about the prong-tips reflecting light like goddamn MIRRORS.
Do so immediately.
Because until then, your NASA video will be considered PROVEN FRAUDULENT.
So step to it, Shill...
LOL!!!
I just found this image on Google:
(http://www.astronomyforum.net/blogs/brownbrady/attachments/66528d1377465971-diy-red-flashlight-amateur-astronomy-red-flashlight-4.jpg)
Do you think the material in front of the flashlight is red hot or is it just being illuminated by red light?
Why?
Because it's being illuminated by red light! Seriously, I am at a loss for words. How do you not understand this? Are you blind or something?
-
LOL!!!
You said you'd make a video; you LIED.
Tell you what, geeks; why don't you just make a slow-motion gif of the 45-49 second portion of your NASA video & let us all decide for ourselves, eh?
After all, if your video is genuine then the truth should be self-evident, should it not?
Step to it, shills...
-
LOL!!!
You said you'd make a video; you LIED.
Tell you what, geeks; why don't you just make a slow-motion gif of the 45-49 second portion of your NASA video & let us all decide for ourselves, eh?
After all, if your video is genuine then the truth should be self-evident, should it not?
Step to it, shills...
At the time I fully intended to make a video but then I realized that it won't be necessary to prove my point. I posted a image from Google because it proved my point and I can't take such an image until I get home later where my flashlight is. Do you want me to make such a video in case every image of a flashlight ever taken is fake?
-
I want you to make a slow-motion gif of the 45-49 second portion of the NASA video in question so we can all examine it for ourselves & decide what is actually happening.
Your misleading photo is irrelevant, as are your lies.
Do as I ask or be considered a criminal fraud & coward.
As well as a proven sock-puppet of markjo...
LOL!!!
-
How is life under the bridge Papa?
Lol
Rofl
Lmao
Abc
Xyz
-
Are you REALLY saying that the reason the tips of the prongs glow red-hot BEFORE being re-inserted into the block at 46 seconds is because they are REFLECTING LIGHT?!
Yes.
REALLY??!!??
Yes, really.
Are you all f**king MENTAL??!!??
Quite possibly, but that's irrelevant.
Are the prongs mirrored?
I don't know, I haven't seen them up close. Then again, they don't need to be mirrored in order to reflect light.
NO
If you say so.
Does the nature of the glowing tips change once inserted THROUGH the box & out the other side?
The tips aren't glowing "once inserted THROUGH the box & out the other side".
NO.
Correct.
What is WRONG with you all??!!??
Different members have different issues. Please be more specific.
Well: at least I now know for absolute certain that you are all disinfo entities; because you implacably deny any & all TRUTH, FACTS & LOGIC that are staring you in the face.
No, I just think that we have different opinions as to what constitutes "TRUTH, FACTS & LOGIC".
I have proven beyond doubt that your video is FRAUDULENT; a cheap conjuring trick.
You may think that you have, but you really haven't.
Yet you simply will not admit I have one single valid point...
That's because you don't, you just think that you do.
You disgust me.
Yeah, the feeling's mutual.
-
LOL!!!
Here he is; the Sock-Master General himself...
Saying absolutely NOTHING, as usual.
Providing absolutely NO EVIDENCE, as usual.
Just smug, pompous shitposting...
As usual.
Now, criminal cultist shills; YOU claim this video is genuine.
So YOU prove it to be so.
Either make the gif I request or STFU & admit defeat.
You won't, will you?
Cos it's so fraudulent a child could see it...
The prong-tips light up like Xmas decorations ffs!
But carry on huffing, puffing & bluffing if you wish...
We all need the lulz.
Honestly - just LMFAO!!!
-
Oh, & this:
The tips aren't glowing "once inserted THROUGH the box & out the other side".
LIAR.
-
Go to 'watch on youtube', go to 'settings' & change the speed to 0.25, then watch from 46 seconds to see why markjo is a proven LIAR.
! No longer available (http://#)
Also; why am I the only person to have posted this silly video for pages?
YOU are the ones claiming it is real ffs!
Just LOL!!!
-
That would be because you're either a halfwit or a troll.
My bet is on the latter. Perhaps one of the site owners out for a stroll. It's curious what humans will fap to.
-
I want you to make a slow-motion gif of the 45-49 second portion of the NASA video in question so we can all examine it for ourselves & decide what is actually happening.
OK, here you go:
(http://j.gifs.com/y7VqBZ.gif)
Your misleading photo is irrelevant, as are your lies.
It's not misleading at all because it demonstrates exactly what's going on and that you know nothing about how light works.
Here is the video I promised in .gif form:
(https://i.imgflip.com/pic5x.gif)
Oh my, there is a glowing red spot instantaneously following around the red flashlight :o
Oh wait, it's just red light.
-
LOL!!!
Your gif was NOT in slow-motion & DELIBERATELY CUT SHORT BEFORE THE STILL-GLOWING PRONGS EXITED THE BOX.
LMFAO!!!
As for your silly torch gif; are the prongs a blanket?
NO.
Are the holes in the box torches?
NO.
Dismissed for DELIBERATE DECEPTION!
& 'flounder'; LOL!!!
Hello, rayzor/ausgeoff/evil edna/deepconfusion/psyopticon.
Learnt a new word today, have we?
'fap'?
ROFLMFAO!!!
The video is Fraudulent.
It shows several phenomena that should be physically impossible.
Look again:
Go to 'watch on youtube', go to 'settings' & change the speed to 0.25, then watch on full screen from 46 seconds to see the prongs clearly begin EMITTING LIGHT before entering the box, & still be EMITTING LIGHT after they come out the other side.
! No longer available
Your tax-dollars at work, Folks!
(http://#)
-
Sorry Papa Pigeon, that video is real, I have done exactly the same thing as the guy in the video. If that's all you've got, then you've failed. ( yet again )
-
Actually Papa, if you look really closely at the ends of the prongs at 50 seconds, they appear dark as they are now facing out of the end of the block and are not lit by the block or heated to red hot.
Boom!
-
Your gif was NOT in slow-motion & DELIBERATELY CUT SHORT BEFORE THE STILL-GLOWING PRONGS EXITED THE BOX.
If you can figure out how to slow down gifts on the gifyoutube website then let me know. Also I used time stamps that you specifically gave me when asking for the gif: 0:45-0:49.
Are the holes in the box torches?
No, but they do glow brightly which is evident in the video. How is one glowing thing that different from any other as far as how the light they emit interacts with things? Light is light, it doesn't care where it came from, it always behaves like light.
This is a perfect example of how people see what they want to see when they have enough bias.
-
Sorry Papa Pigeon, that video is real, I have done exactly the same thing as the guy in the video. If that's all you've got, then you've failed. ( yet again )
Liar.
Actually Papa, if you look really closely at the ends of the prongs at 50 seconds, they appear dark as they are now facing out of the end of the block and are not lit by the block or heated to red hot.
Boom!
Liar.
Your gif was NOT in slow-motion & DELIBERATELY CUT SHORT BEFORE THE STILL-GLOWING PRONGS EXITED THE BOX.
If you can figure out how to slow down gifts on the gifyoutube website then let me know. Also I used time stamps that you specifically gave me when asking for the gif: 0:45-0:49.
Are the holes in the box torches?
No, but they do glow brightly which is evident in the video. How is one glowing thing that different from any other as far as how the light they emit interacts with things? Light is light, it doesn't care where it came from, it always behaves like light.
This is a perfect example of how people see what they want to see when they have enough bias.
LOL!!!
The prongs are THROUGH the box at the 49 second point...
Liar.
But enough of that...
Now; tell me, Liars: how do I get to join one of the tours where this conjuring trick is demonstrated?
Is it a special tour or open to everyone?
Do you need to sign any waivers before participating?
How much does it cost?
Rayzor's been on it, so he should be able to answer all the above easily.
But will he?
It'll be fun finding out!
-
Papa legba, you just need to spend about 3 dollars on fire bricks, put them in a fire, and take them out when they are nice and hot. Then you just pick them up by the corners a minute or so later when they have rapidly radiated away their heat. It's so easy to do, what are you waiting for?
-
You f**cking idiot; have you ever felt the weight of a f**cking firebrick?!?
No, you clearly have not.
Cos they weigh a f**king ton!!!
F**king idiot.
How the f**k would the shuttle fly or glide or any f**king thing if it was covered in f**king firebricks, you f**king moron?!?
The entire point of the stupid fake f**king tiles is that they are LIGHTWEIGHT, you total f**king c**t...
What the f**k is WRONG with you?!?
-
Oh, & also this:
Sorry Papa Pigeon, that video is real, I have done exactly the same thing as the guy in the video. If that's all you've got, then you've failed. ( yet again )
Okay; tell me, Liars: how do I get to join one of the tours where this conjuring trick is demonstrated?
Is it a special tour or open to everyone?
Do you need to sign any waivers before participating?
How much does it cost?
Rayzor's been on it, so he should be able to answer all the above easily.
But will he?
It'll be fun finding out!
Answers, rayzor/psyopticon, please!
-
Okay; tell me, Liars: how do I get to join one of the tours where this conjuring trick is demonstrated?
Go to school?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-304_NASA_Food_Tiles_schools.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-304_NASA_Food_Tiles_schools.html)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/oia/nasaonly/itransition/Shuttle_Tiles_Disposition_Plan.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/oia/nasaonly/itransition/Shuttle_Tiles_Disposition_Plan.pdf)
-
Papa legba, you just need to spend about 3 dollars on fire bricks, put them in a fire, and take them out when they are nice and hot. Then you just pick them up by the corners a minute or so later when they have rapidly radiated away their heat. It's so easy to do, what are you waiting for?
Not a good idea, Mike. The block that the tile samples were sitting on was most likely fire brick and I wouldn't recommend picking it up, even by the edges, for a goodly number of hours after it comes out of an oven.
The shuttle tiles are probably closer to rigid fiberglass insulation in nature than fire brick, but residential fiberglass is only rated for around 450 F so it probably wouldn't make for as dramatic a demo.
Okay; tell me, Liars: how do I get to join one of the tours where this conjuring trick is demonstrated?
Is it a special tour or open to everyone?
Do you need to sign any waivers before participating?
How much does it cost?
The video was taken at the Kennedy Space Center, so you would probably want to get a hold of someone there for details.
https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx (https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx)
-
You f**cking idiot; have you ever felt the weight of a f**cking firebrick?!?
No, you clearly have not.
Cos they weigh a f**king ton!!!
F**king idiot.
How the f**k would the shuttle fly or glide or any f**king thing if it was covered in f**king firebricks, you f**king moron?!?
The entire point of the stupid fake f**king tiles is that they are LIGHTWEIGHT, you total f**king c**t...
What the f**k is WRONG with you?!?
Yeah, it's heavy. What's the big deal?
The NASA people could either a): put heavy heat shielding on the shuttle and increase the launch costs or b): let all the astronauts, experiments, and the expensive shuttle burn up in the atmosphere. It's ano brainier really.
-
Stop pretending you're 2 different people & tell me how I get to see this 'experiment' for myself, shills.
Is it a special tour or open to everyone?
Do you need to sign any waivers before participating?
How much does it cost?
Rayzor's been on it, so he should be able to answer all the above easily.
ANSWERS PLEASE!
P.s. 'firebrick-coated space-glider'; LOL!!!
-
It seems these people are contradicting each other. One minute it's a fire brick. There next minute it's a ceramic porous tile and the next minute it's something like loft insulation, except more rigid and as light. ;D
We know we will never get to see the demo in any physical way, because it's a complete an utter load of old tosh.
-
It seems these people are contradicting each other. One minute it's a fire brick. There next minute it's a ceramic porous tile and the next minute it's something like loft insulation, except more rigid and as light. ;D
That is because those materials are very similar. It is in an attempt at using something familiar to explain something not quite as familiar.
We know we will never get to see the demo in any physical way, because it's a complete an utter load of old tosh.
No, it is more likely because you are too lazy to climb the stairs out of your mom's basement to do anything that would rupture your little bubble that you have created to protect your fragile ego.
-
Stop pretending you're 2 different people & tell me how I get to see this 'experiment' for myself, shills.
Is it a special tour or open to everyone?
Do you need to sign any waivers before participating?
How much does it cost?
I already told you, talk to the people at the Kennedy Kpace Center.
https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx (https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx)
-
Typical discussion beginnings here.
conspiracy guy: I don't believe X.
Reasonable person: Well you can go see it/perform this experiment/etc. to decide for yourself.
conspiracy guy: I cannot do that because of A, B, or C.
Reasonable person: Well this may help, try this, it doesn't require A, B, or C.
conspiracy guy: No, I cannot do that because of A, B, or C. You don't read very well.
Reasonable person: No, I mean you can do it without A, B, or C.
conspiracy guy: No, I cannot do that because of A, B, or C. You are a moron.
Reasonable person: Well it doesn't matter to me, I gave you a way to experience it.
conspiracy guy: so now you don't know how to experience it, you are just another lying shill.
Reasonable person: No I am not, if you do not plan on taking someone else's account, and refuse to try to experience it yourself then there is nothing I can say.
conspiracy guy: Well X can't be because of Z, and you are stupid.
Reasonable person: Z has nothing to do with X, and you are now misstating what Z is.
conspiracy guy: See you are just trying to confuse us with complicated things. Lying shill, go somewhere else.
Reasonable person: Nothing is complicated, Z has nothing to do with X.
conspiracy guy: Well I believe its %%^
Reasonable person: Wait that doesn't make sense. I thought you wanted to know about X.
conspiracy guy: Stop derailing the thread. You know its $%.
Reasonable person: that's not even what you said before. You said you thought it was %%^.
conspiracy guy: So you admit it.
Reasonable person: No, did you read what I said? God your stupid.
conspiracy guy: See you have to insult me to win.
conspiracy guys friend: That %%^ thing is brilliant.
conspiracy guy: See, another shill defeated.
Reasonable person: so is it %%^ or $%.
conspiracy guy: I never said it was $%.
ETC.
-
STFU with your waffle, Conspiracy to Defraud-abetting criminal 'M'-people & BJ who has the same initials as BiJane.
Stop asking me to click on malware-infested links & Start answering my questions.
Rayzor claims to have been to this demo; so it should be easy for him, no?
There's a damn good reason I ask these questions, so get to it!
While we're at it, please confirm these 2 claims you made earlier:
*The cubes are still white hot in the middle.
*The cubes are easily crushable by hand.
Correct, yes?
-
Rayzor claims to have been to this demo; so it should be easy for him, no?
Better than that I actually have some of that same material, and no you can't crush it by hand, and yes you can hold it while white hot in the center.
Mikey T, has this whole thread pretty well spot on. (http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5039/zjPEil.gif)
-
Rayzor claims to have been to this demo; so it should be easy for him, no?
Better than that I actually have some of that same material, and no you can't crush it by hand, and yes you can hold it while white hot in the center.
Mikey T, has this whole thread pretty well spot on. (http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5039/zjPEil.gif)
I think Mikey T described this whole forum
-
Better than that I actually have some of that same material, and no you can't crush it by hand, and yes you can hold it while white hot in the center.
LOL!!!
So why does Wikipedia state you CAN easily crush the tiles by hand?
One of you is LYING; which could it be, I wonder?
LMAO: COS IT'S YOU, LYING LIAR RAYZOR!!!
But I'm glad you agree the cubes - which ARE easily crushable by hand, LIAR - are also still white-hot in the centre.
As for MikeyT's post; it was essentially the same twisted mass of blah & fail as poko's lulzy 'markjo fanfic' effort...
Do try to be original, eh, shills?
Honestly; I didn't realise how much hilarity I'd get out of these silly tiles & your fraud-tastic video.
But it's as if you're saying you have a black dog that is also a white cat, & the knots you tie yourselves in trying to justify such an outrageous impossibility provide endless farce & comedy moments for me to poke fun at...
So; Carry On Cultists!
-
I've just proved - absolutely & beyond doubt - that Rayzor is a LIAR.
Does this FACT not disturb you?
Just asking...
-
If your words prove Rayzor is a liar, then everyone has already proven you wrong.
-
The silica foam comprising the centre of the tiles is indeed quite delicate and can be damaged by hand and in this Rayzor is incorrect.
This does not make him a liar just got his facts wrong.
-
Well done Papa for proving them to be liars. You backed them into a corner and their desperation to keep up the bullshit, crumbled.
I think those who are looking in should be fairly comfortable in seeing the blatant lies about this and the many other things about the so called space shuttle.
If you can see these lies, then it's now time to open your eyes and mind to see the blatant bull crap they've implanted into your heads from childhood.
-
Well done Papa for proving them to be liars. You backed them into a corner and their desperation to keep up the bullshit, crumbled.
I think those who are looking in should be fairly comfortable in seeing the blatant lies about this and the many other things about the so called space shuttle.
If you can see these lies, then it's now time to open your eyes and mind to see the blatant bull crap they've implanted into your heads from childhood.
I'm sorry I must have missed that part. All I've seen is Papa accusing people of being liars and criminals. Doing a lot of LOLs and LMAOs and generally talking out of his arse. He hasn't proved anything. Not one single thing.
-
Well done Papa for proving them to be liars. You backed them into a corner and their desperation to keep up the bullshit, crumbled.
I think those who are looking in should be fairly comfortable in seeing the blatant lies about this and the many other things about the so called space shuttle.
If you can see these lies, then it's now time to open your eyes and mind to see the blatant bull crap they've implanted into your heads from childhood.
I'm sorry I must have missed that part. All I've seen is Papa accusing people of being liars and criminals. Doing a lot of LOLs and LMAOs and generally talking out of his arse. He hasn't proved anything. Not one single thing.
It doesn't matter what you think he has or hasn't proved. Those looking in, who are genuinely interested in finding the truth are the one's that can see it.
You people try like hell to make yourselves appear all knowing and smart by using copy and paste for answers, then kill it all off by trying to type your own words without any aid and mess it up, like Rayzor did this time.
You all end up doing it.
-
Typical discussion beginnings here.
conspiracy guy: I don't believe X.
Reasonable person: Well you can go see it/perform this experiment/etc. to decide for yourself.
conspiracy guy: I cannot do that because of A, B, or C.
Reasonable person: Well this may help, try this, it doesn't require A, B, or C.
conspiracy guy: No, I cannot do that because of A, B, or C. You don't read very well.
Reasonable person: No, I mean you can do it without A, B, or C.
conspiracy guy: No, I cannot do that because of A, B, or C. You are a moron.
Reasonable person: Well it doesn't matter to me, I gave you a way to experience it.
conspiracy guy: so now you don't know how to experience it, you are just another lying shill.
Reasonable person: No I am not, if you do not plan on taking someone else's account, and refuse to try to experience it yourself then there is nothing I can say.
conspiracy guy: Well X can't be because of Z, and you are stupid.
Reasonable person: Z has nothing to do with X, and you are now misstating what Z is.
conspiracy guy: See you are just trying to confuse us with complicated things. Lying shill, go somewhere else.
Reasonable person: Nothing is complicated, Z has nothing to do with X.
conspiracy guy: Well I believe its %%^
Reasonable person: Wait that doesn't make sense. I thought you wanted to know about X.
conspiracy guy: Stop derailing the thread. You know its $%.
Reasonable person: that's not even what you said before. You said you thought it was %%^.
conspiracy guy: So you admit it.
Reasonable person: No, did you read what I said? God your stupid.
conspiracy guy: See you have to insult me to win.
conspiracy guys friend: That %%^ thing is brilliant.
conspiracy guy: See, another shill defeated.
Reasonable person: so is it %%^ or $%.
conspiracy guy: I never said it was $%.
ETC.
That definitely sums up just about every conversation I have ever had with a conspiracy theorist. It's like they have a 5 second memory.
-
papa legba, please link to where you got the idea that space shuttle tiles could be crushed by hand. I think whatever you were reading was talking about the material inside the tiles, but the outer shell of the tiles are quite strong.
-
And yet you keep coming back for more, mikeman. The supposed intelligent 17/18 year old college kid that can play the piano whilst memorising 250 packs of shuffled cards and never smiling when given a hug and a cup of warm milk.
The same kid that wants to study every known scientific lie as well as the real science, all before he's 20. ;D
The very same kid who can also play all kinds of games on the internet inbetween helping conspiracy theorists see the light whilst also trying to intimidate and ridicule them, as and when required.
The very same kid that tells us he's a real nerd who likes to do this stuff, because....well....he's a nerd, he says.
You see: people like mikeman stand out like a blind cobblers thumb as not being who they say they are. It does give me a laugh though, because I sit back and think of all the work they have to put into keeping the multiple's going and the times they log in under the wrong name and type in the name of the other person they thought they logged in with. ;D
Carry on mikeman. Happy 18th. It's due soon, isn't it? :P
-
And yet you keep coming back for more, mikeman. The supposed intelligent 17/18 year old college kid that can play the piano whilst memorising 250 packs of shuffled cards and never smiling when given a hug and a cup of warm milk.
The same kid that wants to study every known scientific lie as well as the real science, all before he's 20. ;D
The very same kid who can also play all kinds of games on the internet inbetween helping conspiracy theorists see the light whilst also trying to intimidate and ridicule them, as and when required.
The very same kid that tells us he's a real nerd who likes to do this stuff, because....well....he's a nerd, he says.
You see: people like mikeman stand out like a blind cobblers thumb as not being who they say they are. It does give me a laugh though, because I sit back and think of all the work they have to put into keeping the multiple's going and the times they log in under the wrong name and type in the name of the other person they thought they logged in with. ;D
I am honestly having trouble figuring out what's so hard to believe here. I am certainly more knowledgeable about physics, science, and computers then most people my age because I take the initiative to study and do things, I would recommend you do that too because it can be quite fun.
I you want I could PM you my phone number so you could call me and hear my voice if you want. You could even hide your caller ID so I can't know your number, just Google how to do it.
Carry on mikeman. Happy 18th. It's due soon, isn't it? :P
It's August 29th, which is exactly 2 weeks from today.
-
Well done Papa for proving them to be liars. You backed them into a corner and their desperation to keep up the bullshit, crumbled.
I think those who are looking in should be fairly comfortable in seeing the blatant lies about this and the many other things about the so called space shuttle.
If you can see these lies, then it's now time to open your eyes and mind to see the blatant bull crap they've implanted into your heads from childhood.
I'm sorry I must have missed that part. All I've seen is Papa accusing people of being liars and criminals. Doing a lot of LOLs and LMAOs and generally talking out of his arse. He hasn't proved anything. Not one single thing.
Legba has proved many things in this thread. It's a shame you missed it. You have no moreknowledge now than when you started this thread. I guess it is par for the course for hard headed roundies.
-
papa legba, please link to where you got the idea that space shuttle tiles could be crushed by hand. I think whatever you were reading was talking about the material inside the tiles, but the outer shell of the tiles are quite strong.
Well , mikeman who can somehow neither find nor read the wikipedia article on the space shuttle thermal protection system, you are WRONG.
This fraudulent video DOES purport to show the material INSIDE the tiles.
Which is easy to observe, because the outer, 'RCG' coating is BLACK, whilst the inner material is WHITE.
Are the tiles in the video BLACK, mikeman?
Lie much, lying liar mikeman?
Taking lessons from Rayzor are you?
LOL!!!
So, to recap; the cubes in the video ARE easily crushable by hand: FACT
The cubes in the video ARE still white-hot in their centres: FACT.
You know where I'm going with this, don't you, shills?
& you really don't want me to get there...
But I will; & it'll be LOL!!!
-
What will be 'lol' is you fucking up whatever point you think you are proving. Which I suspect is something along the lines of:
Tiles are crushable by hand. The guys picks up the cube. Therefore he should have crushed the cube and burnt his hand.
You do realise that crushable by hand does require exerting a good deal of force still. It is entirely possible to pick something delicate up with enough care not to damage it. I can easily crush a plastic or foam cup in my hand, but I am also capable of picking it up carefully and causing no damage at all.
Your desperate efforts to try and prove us and the space shuttle wrong are pretty pathetic now.
-
Have you seen the length of the Wikipedia article on space shuttle thermal protection systems? It would take me much of my weekend to read, and I would rather do other things like have a life.
You have demonstrated in the past that you don't know the difference between red hot and illuminated by red light, so I am not surprised that your logic fail is that bad again. Being able to crush something by hand is not the same as inevitably crushing something every time you pick it up.
A great analogy here is if you had a styrofoam cup full of hot chocolate. Styrofoam cups can easily be crushed by hand, and the center is very hot and you don't want it to spill on you. You could easily crumple the cup and spill the hot chocolate all over you but does that mean you will? Just take care not to crush the cup and you can enjoy your drink.
Same goes for the shuttle tiles. If the guy held that tile like his life depended on it then it would crumble and he would burn his hands, but if he casually picked it up like any other light object like it then it would be perfectly fine. When was the last time you casually picked up a light weight object and then decided to use it to test your grip strength? I highly doubt that anyone would do that with a space shuttle tile of all things.
-
I've just proved - absolutely & beyond doubt - that Rayzor is a LIAR.
Does this FACT not disturb you?
Just asking...
Nope, you are the one being misled. The tiles I have can't be crushed easily by hand. Whoever is telling you that is misleading you, there are different tile types, so perhaps there are some others are in fact easily crushable?
Here is a russian one currently for sale on ebay, So, Papa Legover, why don't YOU buy it and find out for yourself.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SPACE-SHUTTLE-BURAN-HEAT-SHIELD-THERMAL-BLACK-TILE-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-/191660154039?hash=item2c9fd5dcb7 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/SPACE-SHUTTLE-BURAN-HEAT-SHIELD-THERMAL-BLACK-TILE-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-/191660154039?hash=item2c9fd5dcb7)
Here's a woman crushing a shuttle tile with her bare hands.. Doesn't seem to be crushing very much does it?
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/eEBVa6.jpg)
After a bit more research, I discovered that you can get tiles for free direct from NASA you can go to your local school and ask them to make the request, then you are only liable for postage and handling, After you do your testing you can pass it on to the school science department. (provided it's not too badly crushed!!!) Idiot!
http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm (http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm)
Here's another video. Skip to 2:45 for the heat transfer demo. At about 7:00 he demonstrates the waterproofing and cuts a block with an exacto knife, which gives some idea of the mechanical properties.
(http://#)
And another, this looks a bit like my piece, but a little bigger.
(http://#)
I like feeding trolls, sooner or later they choke on the truth.
-
Those tiles are the most versatile (pardon the pun) tiles in the history of the world of fantasy.
They can be cut with a craft knife and shaped like styrofoam, yet can be placed into an oven at 2000 degrees F and heated for 2 hours until they glow, yet can be brought out and immediately cool in seconds to be picked up by hand, yet can also be crushed as easily as a styrofoam cup.
We get shown tests on this so called stuff with a blow torch which supposedly shows up the heat glow and dissipation and yet it appears to be a different block. Almost as if it's like asbestos.
Anyway, regardless of that, we will get back to the blow torch. Is there any testing of this tile apart from the pretend shuttle launches?
What I mean is, are there any 2/3/4/5/.....etc.etc mph winds hitting this brittle tile in wind tunnels or whatever to show how strong its resistance is to surviving a cold launch and then surviving a hot re-entry at super speeds, regardless of just a simple oven heating or a mild plumbers blow torch heating?
If I was testing this shuttle tile, I would be doing this a different way so people could see the reality.
You see, those tiles are coated in a black substance (anyone know what that is?) that is obviously super heat resistant to the point of magical.
So anyway, let's move on.
If they coat a full tile and place it in a real oven for hours. An oven that we can actually see working by placing a real fire brick inside as well as the black (fully) coated shuttle bric....erm tile and see what happens when that tile is brought out and sliced in half.
What's the chances ?
Why can't anything NASA do, be done so we can see it first hand and in such a way that we have no chance to argue the point?
When these tiles were first built for the shuttle, they were super expensive. It seems that now, anyone can buy one for a small price.
Anyone that does buy one, I suggest you take it to a blacksmith's (if you know of one) and have that tile dropped into the heat for a while and let's see what state it's in when it's taken out.
The tile might be ok for a plumbers blow torch for a while but I'd be interested to see what effects would be on it in a blast furnace or something similar.
-
Psyopticon/Rayzor; You said the tiles were not easily crushable by hand.
Wikipedia says they are.
So do many other sources.
Even mikeman agrees...
Ergo, you lied.
& no amount of pompous pigeon-chested puffery will get you out of this indisputable fact.
LIAR.
My next point is unconnected to any of your above points; all that is needed are for the following 2 statements to be acknowledged as FACT:
1) The cubes in the video are easily crushable by hand.
2) The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the centre.
Once you acknowledge these FACTS, we will move on.
Until then, toodle-pip, criminals!
-
Those tiles are the most versatile (pardon the pun) tiles in the history of the world of fantasy.
They can be cut with a craft knife and shaped like styrofoam, yet can be placed into an oven at 2000 degrees F and heated for 2 hours until they glow, yet can be brought out and immediately cool in seconds to be picked up by hand, yet can also be crushed as easily as a styrofoam cup.
We get shown tests on this so called stuff with a blow torch which supposedly shows up the heat glow and dissipation and yet it appears to be a different block. Almost as if it's like asbestos.
Anyway, regardless of that, we will get back to the blow torch. Is there any testing of this tile apart from the pretend shuttle launches?
What I mean is, are there any 2/3/4/5/.....etc.etc mph winds hitting this brittle tile in wind tunnels or whatever to show how strong its resistance is to surviving a cold launch and then surviving a hot re-entry at super speeds, regardless of just a simple oven heating or a mild plumbers blow torch heating?
If I was testing this shuttle tile, I would be doing this a different way so people could see the reality.
You see, those tiles are coated in a black substance (anyone know what that is?) that is obviously super heat resistant to the point of magical.
So anyway, let's move on.
If they coat a full tile and place it in a real oven for hours. An oven that we can actually see working by placing a real fire brick inside as well as the black (fully) coated shuttle bric....erm tile and see what happens when that tile is brought out and sliced in half.
What's the chances ?
Why can't anything NASA do, be done so we can see it first hand and in such a way that we have no chance to argue the point?
When these tiles were first built for the shuttle, they were super expensive. It seems that now, anyone can buy one for a small price.
Anyone that does buy one, I suggest you take it to a blacksmith's (if you know of one) and have that tile dropped into the heat for a while and let's see what state it's in when it's taken out.
The tile might be ok for a plumbers blow torch for a while but I'd be interested to see what effects would be on it in a blast furnace or something similar.
Buy a tile and prove your point. How hard is it?
-
Those tiles are the most versatile (pardon the pun) tiles in the history of the world of fantasy.
They can be cut with a craft knife and shaped like styrofoam, yet can be placed into an oven at 2000 degrees F and heated for 2 hours until they glow, yet can be brought out and immediately cool in seconds to be picked up by hand, yet can also be crushed as easily as a styrofoam cup.
We get shown tests on this so called stuff with a blow torch which supposedly shows up the heat glow and dissipation and yet it appears to be a different block. Almost as if it's like asbestos.
Anyway, regardless of that, we will get back to the blow torch. Is there any testing of this tile apart from the pretend shuttle launches?
What I mean is, are there any 2/3/4/5/.....etc.etc mph winds hitting this brittle tile in wind tunnels or whatever to show how strong its resistance is to surviving a cold launch and then surviving a hot re-entry at super speeds, regardless of just a simple oven heating or a mild plumbers blow torch heating?
If I was testing this shuttle tile, I would be doing this a different way so people could see the reality.
You see, those tiles are coated in a black substance (anyone know what that is?) that is obviously super heat resistant to the point of magical.
So anyway, let's move on.
If they coat a full tile and place it in a real oven for hours. An oven that we can actually see working by placing a real fire brick inside as well as the black (fully) coated shuttle bric....erm tile and see what happens when that tile is brought out and sliced in half.
What's the chances ?
Why can't anything NASA do, be done so we can see it first hand and in such a way that we have no chance to argue the point?
When these tiles were first built for the shuttle, they were super expensive. It seems that now, anyone can buy one for a small price.
Anyone that does buy one, I suggest you take it to a blacksmith's (if you know of one) and have that tile dropped into the heat for a while and let's see what state it's in when it's taken out.
The tile might be ok for a plumbers blow torch for a while but I'd be interested to see what effects would be on it in a blast furnace or something similar.
Buy a tile and prove your point. How hard is it?
Any idea where I can buy one?
-
My next point is unconnected to any of your above points; all that is needed are for the following 2 statements to be acknowledged as FACT:
1) The cubes in the video are easily crushable by hand.
2) The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the centre.
Once you acknowledge these FACTS, we will move on.
Until then, toodle-pip, criminals!
Ok, let's move on, the cubes can be seen to be easily crushed, as soon as you show a video proving that happening.
The videos already presented show clearly that tiles can be easily handled without being damaged or crushed.
Game set and match I think.
I concede the second point as well, yes the cubes are in fact very hot in the center, as seen in multiple videos, and easily demonstrated with a high temperature oven.
TTFN
-
Any idea where I can buy one?
I provided links in my earlier post, just shows you don't read.
-
Please confirm the following statements as being FACTS:
1) The cubes in the video are easily crushable by hand.
2) The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the centre.
Answer, please, idiots who cannot tell the difference between emitted & reflected light...
& psyopticon/rayzor; wtf is WRONG with you?
Either YOU are lying or wikipedia, mainframes & mikeman are lying; why do you ask for video evidence, LIAR?
No wonder nobody likes you!
-
Please confirm the following statements as being FACTS:
1) The cubes in the video are easily crushable by hand.
2) The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the centre.
Answer, please, idiots who cannot tell the difference between emitted & reflected light...
& psyopticon/rayzor; wtf is WRONG with you?
Either YOU are lying or wikipedia, mainframes & mikeman are lying; why do you ask for video evidence, LIAR?
No wonder nobody likes you!
I'm running out of troll food, but I can feed you some facts, or I still have a bag full of insults, what would you prefer.... FACTS: ok,
Fact1: The cubes in the video can be handled without being crushed.
Fact2: The cubes are in fact white hot in the middle.
Neither Mikeman or Mainframes or myself are lying, you just haven't the brain capacity to understand. ( Sorry that was from the insult bag) You are in FACT: an idiot.
-
Those tiles are the most versatile (pardon the pun) tiles in the history of the world of fantasy.
They can be cut with a craft knife and shaped like styrofoam, yet can be placed into an oven at 2000 degrees F and heated for 2 hours until they glow, yet can be brought out and immediately cool in seconds to be picked up by hand, yet can also be crushed as easily as a styrofoam cup.
We get shown tests on this so called stuff with a blow torch which supposedly shows up the heat glow and dissipation and yet it appears to be a different block. Almost as if it's like asbestos.
Anyway, regardless of that, we will get back to the blow torch. Is there any testing of this tile apart from the pretend shuttle launches?
What I mean is, are there any 2/3/4/5/.....etc.etc mph winds hitting this brittle tile in wind tunnels or whatever to show how strong its resistance is to surviving a cold launch and then surviving a hot re-entry at super speeds, regardless of just a simple oven heating or a mild plumbers blow torch heating?
If I was testing this shuttle tile, I would be doing this a different way so people could see the reality.
You see, those tiles are coated in a black substance (anyone know what that is?) that is obviously super heat resistant to the point of magical.
So anyway, let's move on.
If they coat a full tile and place it in a real oven for hours. An oven that we can actually see working by placing a real fire brick inside as well as the black (fully) coated shuttle bric....erm tile and see what happens when that tile is brought out and sliced in half.
What's the chances ?
Why can't anything NASA do, be done so we can see it first hand and in such a way that we have no chance to argue the point?
When these tiles were first built for the shuttle, they were super expensive. It seems that now, anyone can buy one for a small price.
Anyone that does buy one, I suggest you take it to a blacksmith's (if you know of one) and have that tile dropped into the heat for a while and let's see what state it's in when it's taken out.
The tile might be ok for a plumbers blow torch for a while but I'd be interested to see what effects would be on it in a blast furnace or something similar.
Buy a tile and prove your point. How hard is it?
Any idea where I can buy one?
I've just proved - absolutely & beyond doubt - that Rayzor is a LIAR.
Does this FACT not disturb you?
Just asking...
Nope, you are the one being misled. The tiles I have can't be crushed easily by hand. Whoever is telling you that is misleading you, there are different tile types, so perhaps there are some others are in fact easily crushable?
Here is a russian one currently for sale on ebay, So, Papa Legover, why don't YOU buy it and find out for yourself.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SPACE-SHUTTLE-BURAN-HEAT-SHIELD-THERMAL-BLACK-TILE-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-/191660154039?hash=item2c9fd5dcb7 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/SPACE-SHUTTLE-BURAN-HEAT-SHIELD-THERMAL-BLACK-TILE-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-/191660154039?hash=item2c9fd5dcb7)
Here's a woman crushing a shuttle tile with her bare hands.. Doesn't seem to be crushing very much does it?
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/eEBVa6.jpg)
After a bit more research, I discovered that you can get tiles for free direct from NASA you can go to your local school and ask them to make the request, then you are only liable for postage and handling, After you do your testing you can pass it on to the school science department. (provided it's not too badly crushed!!!) Idiot!
http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm (http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm)
Here's another video. Skip to 2:45 for the heat transfer demo. At about 7:00 he demonstrates the waterproofing and cuts a block with an exacto knife, which gives some idea of the mechanical properties.
(http://#)
And another, this looks a bit like my piece, but a little bigger.
(http://#)
I like feeding trolls, sooner or later they choke on the truth.
-
I'm not asking if they can be handled without being crushed, rayzor/psyopticon/evil edna/ausgeoff/etc.
I already know they can, idiot.
I'm asking if they are easily crushable by hand.
You know; like wikipedia, mainframes & mikeman all state they are...
Also, I am uninterested in anything but the cubes displayed in the NASA tour video; so stop posting other nonsense to prop up your lies & derailing.
Your dishonesty, reading difficulties & general trolling incompetence are once again coming to the fore.
But you've already ruined your credibility enough for one day; why stop now, eh?
Whatever; you will be ignored from now on, & unless anyone else cares to reply, I will take wikipedia's word for it that the cubes are, indeed, easily crushable by hand.
-
Just state your point Papa.
-
Don't tell me what to do, mainframes.
I'll get to my point when I'm good & ready, & not before.
Btw, does it not bother you that rayzor is now implying YOU are a liar in order to cover up his own dishonesty?
I'd be damn angry about it; seems you Thought-Police types stick together no matter what though...
Which is interesting; neutral readers will surely note this Fact.
Anyhow, to sum up: STFU & wait, psy-cop.
Plus a little lol! for good luck...
-
No Rayzer is not implying I am lying at all. We are engaging in a debate as to the correct properties of the shuttle tile and at some point we will agree and go forward. This is why grown ups and scientists do. We ensure that we get to the facts.
Looking at the Wikipedia article it discusses the tile fragility as per the original 1970's technology. It may be the tiles produced currently are slightly more robust.
-
No Rayzer is not implying I am lying at all.
OH YES HE IS!
It may be the tiles produced currently are slightly more robust.
THE TILES PRODUCED CURRENTLY FOR THE SHUTTLE THAT HAS BEEN RETIRED?
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! STOP POSTING WHEN YOU'RE DRUNK, NUT-JOB!
To sum up: massive LOL & FAIL!!!
-
No Rayzer is not implying I am lying at all.
OH YES HE IS!
It may be the tiles produced currently are slightly more robust.
THE TILES PRODUCED CURRENTLY FOR THE SHUTTLE THAT HAS BEEN RETIRED?
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! STOP POSTING WHEN YOU'RE DRUNK, NUT-JOB!
To sum up: massive LOL & FAIL!!!
Yeah whatever Papa.
You know I clearly meant the most recently produced tiles. And in fact it may be that they are still produced and researched for future space programs.
-
LOL!!!
Am I supposed to be your interpreter now, moron?
Am I psychic?
YOU said 'the tiles currently produced' & when I pointed out the shuttle has been retired you then somehow blame ME for YOUR OWN dumb mistake?
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?
F**k this; I'm outa here, weirdo... See you in the morning when you've sobered up.
Say goodnight to your boyfriend rayzor for me, dipshit.
-
Also, I am uninterested in anything but the cubes displayed in the NASA tour video; so stop posting other nonsense to prop up your lies & derailing.
You understand that the cubes shown in the demo are not the same as the finished tiles that get attached to the shuttle, don't you? There is a layer of black glass glaze that gets fused to the insulation material that provides a much greater degree of waterproofing and damage resistance to the tiles than the unfinished cubes have.
-
What is your point, proven sock-puppeteer & liar markjo?
Are ALL the tiles on the shuttle BLACK?
NO.
Are the cubes in the video BLACK?
NO.
Now STFU, criminal.
The cubes in the video are crushable by hand: FACT.
The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the middle: FACT.
That is all I needed confirmed.
However, before moving on, I would also like to know this; Do you have to sign any kind of Legal Waiver before taking part in the demonstration shown in the video?
Please do not just give me a link; Yes or No will suffice.
-
What is your point, proven sock-puppeteer & liar markjo?
Are ALL the tiles on the shuttle BLACK?
NO.
What is your point
Are the cubes in the video BLACK?
NO.
What is your point
Now STFU, criminal.
The cubes in the video are crushable by hand: FACT.
The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the middle: FACT.
What is your point
That is all I needed confirmed.
However, before moving on, I would also like to know this; Do you have to sign any kind of Legal Waiver before taking part in the demonstration shown in the video?
Please do not just give me a link; Yes or No will suffice.
What is your point
-
The cubes in the video are crushable by hand: FACT.
The cubes in the video are still white-hot in the middle: FACT.
Yes and yes.
-
I'm getting to my point, impatient & fearful spam-bot criminal shills; but to be sure of it I'd like to know this:
Do you need to sign a legal waiver before attending the demonstration in the video?
Further evasion, such as you both display, will be taken as a 'NO'.
-
I'm getting to my point, impatient & fearful spam-bot criminal shills; but to be sure of it I'd like to know this:
Do you need to sign a legal waiver before attending the demonstration in the video?
Further evasion, such as you both display, will be taken as a 'NO'.
I highly doubt it. It would be like making someone sign a waver before they hold a cup of hot coffee, which they could easily crush and make the coffee spill all over them. There have been court cases where people have sued coffee companies for making their coffee too hot, so why don't they make people sign wavers? The answer is because people have the ability to regulate grip strength so you grip no harder then you have to, and people don't usually grip things as hard as they can at random. Being a person I would think you would know this.
-
LOL!!!
Oh, I know that, alright, criminal spam-bot sock-puppet mikeman!
I deal with such issues every day...
The question is: do YOU?
-
LOL!!!
"I deal with this every day" You mean you drink really hot coffee and crush it every day?
HA!
Sounds like an automatic bot response, proven troll!
LOL!!!
-
No, idiot sock-puppet misero, it means I deal with issues of Health & Safety every day.
& I assure you that there is no way that members of the public would be allowed to handle such potentially hazardous items as those cubes (or even be in the same room as them) without any safety measures whatsoever - as is shown in your fraudulent video - unless they first signed an iron-clad waiver renouncing their right to legal recourse in event of mishap.
It is absolutely out of the question, especially in a country as litigious as America.
Really; we're talking about the law here; & what that video shows is totally illegal.
I know you'll argue otherwise; but you'll be lying, as usual...
So get on with it; make even bigger fools of yourself.
& I'll LOL at your inept replies...
As ever.
Bye-bye!
-
I'm getting to my point, impatient & fearful spam-bot criminal shills; but to be sure of it I'd like to know this:
Do you need to sign a legal waiver before attending the demonstration in the video?
Check the back of the ticket when you go on the tour. There is probably some legalese declaring certain limits of liability that you accept by purchasing said ticket.
-
LOL!!!
& it starts...
It doesn't work that way, markjo; I show many visitors round projects & they have to wear full protective equipment at all times & are allowed nowhere near anything potentially hazardous.
Especially 'hot works' (google it, shills).
Fine print on the back of the ticket would be worth NOTHING in the event of an accident; & you are insane to suggest it would.
Even a lawyer as bad as yourself would tear that to shreds...
No; what we see in that video is both Illegal & Unthinkable; it can only be FRAUD, pure & simple.
But keep arguing otherwise; it all adds up.
-
So, argumentum ad hominum?
So all of Round Earth is proven wrong by you thinking people could get hurt on a tour.
-
No, idiot sock-puppet misero, it means I deal with issues of Health & Safety every day.
& I assure you that there is no way that members of the public would be allowed to handle such potentially hazardous items as those cubes (or even be in the same room as them) without any safety measures whatsoever - as is shown in your fraudulent video - unless they first signed an iron-clad waiver renouncing their right to legal recourse in event of mishap.
It is absolutely out of the question, especially in a country as litigious as America.
Really; we're talking about the law here; & what that video shows is totally illegal.
I know you'll argue otherwise; but you'll be lying, as usual...
So get on with it; make even bigger fools of yourself.
& I'll LOL at your inept replies...
As ever.
Bye-bye!
"Oh, we better make the tourists sign a waver and wear safety gloves just in case they have a seizure and crush the tiles in their hands"
Said nobody ever.
If someone is giving a tour of a dam then he/she doesn't make the tourists sign wavers and wear harnesses just in case they decide to jump off the edge of the dam. People don't just jump off dams just as people don't try to crush red hot space shuttle tiles with their hands.
-
It doesn't work that way, markjo; I show many visitors round projects & they have to wear full protective equipment at all times & are allowed nowhere near anything potentially hazardous.
If it was potentially hazardous, do you think that they would allow the visitors to touch the white hot blocks?
Fine print on the back of the ticket would be worth NOTHING in the event of an accident; & you are insane to suggest it would.
That depends on whether or not appropriate safety instructions were given, understood and followed. In this case, only touch the white hot block by the edges.
No; what we see in that video is both Illegal & Unthinkable; it can only be FRAUD, pure & simple.
And yet people touched the white hot blocks without incident.
-
I show many visitors round projects & they have to wear full protective equipment at all times & are allowed nowhere near anything potentially hazardous.
What's so hazardous about showing people around a truckstop food caravan? The deep fryer?
-
LOL!!!
Comparing a truck-stop food caravan to a NASA space center now, pitiful shill-thing rayzor?
LMFAO!!!
& markjjo; 'if it was potentially hazardous...'
IF?!?
OF COURSE IT'S POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS, YOU IDIOT; THE BLOCKS ARE WHITE-HOT IN THE CENTRE, & EASILY CRUSHABLE BY HAND, YET THE VISITORS ARE ALLOWED TO FREELY HANDLE THEM!
WHILE HOLDING MOBILE PHONES EVEN!
Seriously; this is enormously dangerous & totally Illegal.
Anyway; here is the video you all now seem so ashamed of...
& rightfully so, for there are enough Health & Safety violations contained therein to keep an entire Law Firm happily engaged for months; everyone reading this thread with the least experience in such matters will know I am correct.
It is Impossible that this can be anything but a staged video, using stage props; a cheap conjuring trick, in other words...
! No longer available (http://#)
Enjoy watching your tax-dollars at work!
-
& markjjo; 'if it was potentially hazardous...'
IF?!?
OF COURSE IT'S POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS, YOU IDIOT; THE BLOCKS ARE WHITE-HOT IN THE CENTRE, & EASILY CRUSHABLE BY HAND, YET THE VISITORS ARE ALLOWED TO FREELY HANDLE THEM!
WHILE HOLDING MOBILE PHONES EVEN!
Seriously; this is enormously dangerous & totally Illegal.
Anyway; here is the video you all now seem so ashamed of...
& rightfully so, for there are enough Health & Safety violations contained therein to keep an entire Law Firm happily engaged for months; everyone reading this thread with the least experience in such matters will know I am correct.
Would you care to cite just which regulations are being violated?
It is Impossible that this can be anything but a staged video, using stage props; a cheap conjuring trick, in other words...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke
-
LOL!!!
Comparing a truck-stop food caravan to a NASA space center now, pitiful shill-thing rayzor?
LMFAO!!!
& markjjo; 'if it was potentially hazardous...'
IF?!?
OF COURSE IT'S POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS, YOU IDIOT; THE BLOCKS ARE WHITE-HOT IN THE CENTRE, & EASILY CRUSHABLE BY HAND, YET THE VISITORS ARE ALLOWED TO FREELY HANDLE THEM!
WHILE HOLDING MOBILE PHONES EVEN!
Seriously; this is enormously dangerous & totally Illegal.
Anyway; here is the video you all now seem so ashamed of...
& rightfully so, for there are enough Health & Safety violations contained therein to keep an entire Law Firm happily engaged for months; everyone reading this thread with the least experience in such matters will know I am correct.
It is Impossible that this can be anything but a staged video, using stage props; a cheap conjuring trick, in other words...
! No longer available (http://#)
Enjoy watching your tax-dollars at work!
Nobody is ashamed of this video, it's an incredible demonstration of technology and your desperate attempt to prove it fake don't change that. Unless someone has a seizure while holding the time I don't see any scenario where anyone would just decide to crush a red hot tile with their hands. Just like my dam tourist example, people can jump off the edge of the dam but they don't because of common sense and even though wavers and harnesses aren't involved the tour is still legal.
-
Papa, if you get bored with that video, here's another one that does a better job of explaining what's going on:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
Stop changing the subject, criminals.
What we see in the video is Illegal.
Whoever shot that video should have gone straight to a lawyer & sued for Criminal Negligence.
He would have won.
NO p.p.e.
NO training.
NO safety barriers.
Those 3 H&S violations alone would've won him a BIG payout.
But none of that happened, because it is all fake.
Say what you like, newly-reunited markjo/mikeman sock-puppet combo (lol!); because there are many people who work in similar industries, like myself, who will know instantly that I am correct.
-
What we see in the video is Illegal.
Really? I didn't know there was a law against making it possible for people to do stupid things that would hurt them. Right now I could stab myself with a pencil, jump off my balcony, set my shirt on fire, eat super glue, electrocute myself, and many more stupid dangerous things without even leaving the comfort of my home but I don't consider it a death trap because I have common sense and I don't do those things. Under your logic pencils should have warning labels on them saying "WARNING: Can be used to poke your eyes out".
-
What we see in the video is Illegal.
Really? I didn't know there was a law against making it possible for people to do stupid things that would hurt them. Right now I could stab myself with a pencil, jump off my balcony, set my shirt on fire, eat super glue, electrocute myself, and many more stupid dangerous things without even leaving the comfort of my home but I don't consider it a death trap because I have common sense and I don't do those things. Under your logic pencils should have warning labels on them saying "WARNING: Can be used to poke your eyes out".
You know fine well what he's talking about. This is supposed to be a facility that's testing dangerous stuff.
If that's the case then you know fine well that people would not be able to swan around like that against 2000 degree ovens and so called super heated frogging blocks.
They aren't in someone's back garden, so they're either under strict instructions (which they're clearly not) or they're playing a part in a scam.
The one markjo added made me piss myself laughing. Soaking the water up like that. 94% air. ;D
To think people swallow this stuff. It's scary as hell at how gullible so called intelligent people are. ::) ;D
-
The people in the video have been actively encouraged to pick up, with their bare hands, items that, if slightly more pressure were applied, would cause them severe injury.
This IS criminally negligent & thus totally illegal.
End of story.
-
Here is the Incriminating video that you all refuse to post again.
Note the Criminal Negligence (if not Reckless Endangerment), total absence of any Health & Safety procedures & all-round Fraudulence.
!
NASA are Criminals; here is the evidence.
(http://#)
-
Here is the Incriminating video that you all refuse to post again.
Note the Criminal Negligence (if not Reckless Endangerment), total absence of any Health & Safety procedures & all-round Fraudulence.
!
NASA are Criminals; here is the evidence.
(http://#)
Do you see any toddlers honding those cubes? Of course not. This means that all the people there have enough experience with life and common sense to not try and crush the cubes. Why the heck would they? You might as well say that they should warn tourists to not eat the tiles, as that is about as logical as crushing them.
Please answer my question, do you think that all pencils should warn people they they could be used to poke your eyes out.
-
The people in the video have been actively encouraged to pick up, with their bare hands...
Yes, after it was demonstrated that doing so was perfectly safe, as long as you hold it by the corners. No harm, no foul.
Perhaps that tour was for the people who were smart enough to be able to follow simple instructions, like don't grab or crush the glowing parts of the cube.
-
Stop being stupid.
The video shows a tour of an industrial facility & there are very strict laws that apply to such things.
These laws are being flagrantly violated.
Which is criminal negligence.
Now STFU, proven sock-puppet shill duo.
-
Also note that, in his last reply, mikeman deliberately cut this video out.
Proof that the shills are embarrassed by it & do not want you to watch it...
Please do so; witness both the Criminal Negligence & blatant fraud therein.
!
LOL!!! (http://#)
-
Also note that, in his last reply, mikeman deliberately cut this video out.
Proof that the shills are embarrassed by it & do not want you to watch it...
Please do so; witness both the Criminal Negligence & blatant fraud therein.
!
LOL!!!
(http://#)
Embedded videos don't work inside of quotes, not my fault.
Do you want me to post that video? Here you go:
There is nothing to hide in that video and I am not ashamed that it exists. It's not criminal at all, just as not warning people that pencils could poke your eyes out is not criminal. Without this your argument falls apart so you are desperately trying to defend it. If anyone should e feeling shameful if that video it's you. (http://#)
-
LOL!!!
Spam as many False Analogies about pencils as you like, proven sock-puppet; anyone who works in an industrial plant or construction site will be looking at that video & KNOWING it is fraudulent.
Not THINKING, shills; KNOWING.
Because it is ILLEGAL, okay?
Encouraging people to pick up hazardous materials with NO training & NO safety precautions whatsoever = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; ask any lawyer ffs...
Jesus Christ - you live in a fantasy world, don't you?
-
LOL!!!
Spam as many False Analogies about pencils as you like, proven sock-puppet; anyone who works in an industrial plant or construction site will be looking at that video & KNOWING it is fraudulent.
Not THINKING, shills; KNOWING.
Because it is ILLEGAL, okay?
Encouraging people to pick up hazardous materials with NO training & NO safety precautions whatsoever = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; ask any lawyer ffs...
Jesus Christ - you live in a fantasy world, don't you?
But they did have all the training and knew all the safety precautions they needed. They were told to only touch the corners and be careful.
Also, if they did touch a too hot part then they would pull their hand away just like you would do if you put your hand on a hot stove, and why would they try to crush it? Unless they wanted to burn their hands I see no scenario where they could be hurt.
-
Stop being stupid.
You first.
The video shows a tour of an industrial facility & there are very strict laws that apply to such things.
These laws are being flagrantly violated.
And yet no one gets hurt when they pick up the glowing blocks as instructed.
Which is criminal negligence.
The tourists are instructed on how to safely pick up the glowing block (by the corners). I'm sorry, but where is the negligence?
-
LOL!!!
What is WRONG with you?
It is ILLEGAL to allow people to do what is shown in that video; which is why it MUST be fraudulent.
Argue with the Law, not me, criminals.
-
LOL!!!
What is WRONG with you?
It is ILLEGAL to allow people to do what is shown in that video; which is why it MUST be fraudulent.
Argue with the Law, not me, criminals.
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
-
Why do you even bother? 128 pages and hardly any progress.
-
It is ILLEGAL to allow people to do what is shown in that video; which is why it MUST be fraudulent.
Argue with the Law, not me, criminals.
Then why don't you hire a lawyer and sue the Kennedy Space Center on behalf of all of the tourists who were injured on that tour?
-
Why do you even bother? 128 pages and hardly any progress.
A generous assessment.
-
Car factories are quite dangerous and you are encouraged to look at things, touch certain things, and they are, of course, fraudulent.
-
Thank you for your sock-puppet blah & fail, markjo.
'goebbels'; that's a new one for my list.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care is being grossly violated in this video.
Which is Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
!
This video can be nothing other than Fake; deal with it, criminals. (http://#)
-
Thank you for your sock-puppet blah & fail, markjo.
'goebbels'; that's a new one for my list.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care is being grossly violated in this video.
Which is Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
!
This video can be nothing other than Fake; deal with it, criminals.
(http://#)
Perhaps you missed the part where the tour guide told everyone exact ally how to handle the tiles. It's also safe to say that anyone who has been around for very long knows how heat works and it's not something that people have no experience with. I also don't think they those tiles qualify as hazardous material as it is not any more dangerous then a camp fire.
I again ask, do you think that dam tourists should sign wavers and wear harnesses just in case they decide to jump off the edge?
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
Whatever; tell me more about the tour this video was taken from.
Do not just post links; use your own words.
How much does it cost?
How regular is it?
How do you apply?
That kind of thing...
Because I'm not sure it exists as shown in the video; Convince me.
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
Whatever; tell me more about the tour this video was taken from.
Do not just post links; use your own words.
How much does it cost?
How regular is it?
How do you apply?
That kind of thing...
Because I'm not sure it exists as shown in the video; Convince me.
The tour is in the Kenedy Space Center in the Thermal Protection Facility. The space center is in Florida, USA and it's a rather popular tourist destination, especially when a rocket is being launched there.
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
Whatever; tell me more about the tour this video was taken from.
Do not just post links; use your own words.
How much does it cost?
How regular is it?
How do you apply?
That kind of thing...
Because I'm not sure it exists as shown in the video; Convince me.
The tiles themselves are not hazardous materials. You won't be poisoned, cut or catch a disease by touching them. And even if they are heated it is completely safe to grab them by the corners, something that they are told.
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
You keep saying that, but supply no testimony from anyone that agrees with you. Interesting.
Whatever; tell me more about the tour this video was taken from.
Do not just post links; use your own words.
How much does it cost?
How regular is it?
How do you apply?
That kind of thing...
Because I'm not sure it exists as shown in the video; Convince me.
Why are you insisting on second hand information from a bunch of people who haven't taken the tour when you can call the Kennedy Space Center and get first hand information for yourself?
Then again, since the shuttle program has concluded, it's possible that they no longer do the tile demonstration. That's something that you can find out for yourself when you call the KSC at (866) 737-5235 for more information.
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
Whatever; tell me more about the tour this video was taken from.
Do not just post links; use your own words.
How much does it cost?
How regular is it?
How do you apply?
That kind of thing...
Because I'm not sure it exists as shown in the video; Convince me.
Lol
You were destroyed, again.
Lol
Hahaha
-
Papa - do you think bars and restaurants should be banned or closed down?
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
You keep saying that, but supply no testimony from anyone that agrees with you. Interesting.
I don't NEED testimony from anyone who agrees with me, idiot sock-puppeteer criminal; THE LAW agrees with me & that is ALL I need to prove my point.
So don't argue with ME; argue with THE LAW, okay?
This one's got you shills well rattled, hasn't it?
LOL!!!
Mikeman: you did not actually answer a single one of my questions, idiot sock-puppet shill-thing.
Well done!
Sokarul: LOL!!!
You are totally f**ked in the head.
Your contributions are invaluable in undermining your cause...
Thanks for that!
LMFAO!!!
P.s. mainframes; I think YOU & your derailing should be 'shut down'.
Now either provide valid & relevant legislation supporting your assertion that what we see in the video is NOT illegal criminal negligence or STFU...
You won't, because you can't, because it IS...
But keep trying; & I'll keep laughing.
Bye-bye, Criminals...
-
Papa legba, do you also thing that the people doing the tour should put safety locks on cabinets of chemicals, put safety pads in the corners of tables, and not let the tourists use stairs in case they fall? They are not toddlers.
-
Papa - you can go into any bar and get a glass which is easily crushable by hand and will deal you a serious injury. I can't believe they are allowed or don't make you sign a disclaimer when you order a drink.......
See how stupid your argument is now......
-
'the tiles do not qualify as hazardous material...'
LOL!!!
You are insane.
& everyone with any experience of Health & Safety legislation & practices will agree with me.
You keep saying that, but supply no testimony from anyone that agrees with you. Interesting.
I don't NEED testimony from anyone who agrees with me, idiot sock-puppeteer criminal; THE LAW agrees with me & that is ALL I need to prove my point.
So don't argue with ME; argue with THE LAW, okay?
Since you're the one claiming that laws are being violated, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
This one's got you shills well rattled, hasn't it?
Not at all. In fact, I look forward to you bringing legal action against the KSC for their alleged safety violations.
LOL!!!
Yeah, I didn't think you were serious either. ;D
Now either provide valid & relevant legislation supporting your assertion that what we see in the video is NOT illegal criminal negligence or STFU...
You won't, because you can't, because it IS...
We won't because we don't need to. Remember, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The court of Papa Legba's opinion doesn't cut it.
-
LOL!!!
My Opinion has nothing to do with this, criminal shills.
The events we see in the video are criminally negligent; The Law says so, not me!
Why can you not understand this?
Argue with The Law, not me.
Either cite, then debate, the relevant legislation on the subject or STFU.
You won't, because you can't, because you are WRONG.
Honestly; it's not MY fault your video is fraudulent; take it up with NASA ffs; they created this Fraud...
-
LOL!!!
My Opinion has nothing to do with this, criminal shills.
The events we see in the video are criminally negligent; The Law says so, not me!
Why can you not understand this?
Argue with The Law, not me.
Either cite, then debate, the relevant legislation on the subject or STFU.
You won't, because you can't, because you are WRONG.
Honestly; it's not MY fault your video is fraudulent; take it up with NASA ffs; they created this Fraud...
There is no law stating that it's illegal to make it possible for idiots to hurt themselves. The burden of proof is on you to prove that such a law exists.
-
In case you missed it here is the essence of the matter:
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Stick to the FACTS, shills...
(http://#)
-
In case you missed it here is the essence of the matter:
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Stick to the FACTS, shills...
(http://#)
Specify the exact law being violated.
-
I already have, repeatedly; CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, IF NOT RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.
Plus; reported for trolling.
-
So you can't back up your claims. Got it.
-
LOL!!!
Reported for trolling & shitposting.
-
If the tourists were toddlers then I could see your point, but they are grown adults that unlike you have a brain. They won't crush the tiles because that would be stupid and they have no reason to do it. Your point is like saying that having uncovered corners on tables, stairs, and glass that people can break and cut themselves with is "endangerment". There is a difference between being safe and being physically unable to hurt yourself if you tried, and handling those tiles is perfectly safe so long as the person holding it doesn't break it, eat it, throw it, or want to hurt themselves in some way. According to your logic I shouldn't be allowed to handle a steak knife because I could stab myself. I can't believe someone could be as desperate for evidence as you are, if you were really right then evidence would be easy to find, but if this is the best you have it's pretty pathetic.
-
I already have, repeatedly; CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, IF NOT RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.
Plus; reported for trolling.
That's not a specified law, that's rambling.
Please specify the exact one or multiple broken law(s).
-
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
-
In case you missed it here is the essence of the matter:
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Except for the fact that the whole point of the demonstration is to prove that the tiles are safe enough to handle with minimal training (only grab the corners) and no PPE. That's why the presenter handled the white hot material first.
If you insist that safety regulations are being violated, then it becomes your moral duty to report such negligence to the appropriate legal authorities. If you don't, then that just proves that you're just another internet tough guy with a big mouth.
-
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
OSHA allows me to use hydrofluoric acid. If I spilled some on me covering something like 8 square inches of skin it would kill me. You can still do dangerous tasks and be in compliance.
-
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
OSHA allows me to use hydrofluoric acid. If I spilled some on me covering something like 8 square inches of skin it would kill me. You can still do dangerous tasks and be in compliance.
OSHA also specifies what what PPE you must wear while handling your chemicals, how the chemicals should be stored and handled, and the emergency safety equipment that your employer must provide, such as eye wash and shower stations, so that when an idiot like you screws up, the harm is minimal. We already know that you violate OSHA regulations because you told us that you did not wear proper PPE while handling cyanide and you ingested some accidentally, but your lack of following regulations does not negate the fact that the regulations are there and your employer, and possibly yourself, could be fined or jailed for breaking the law, not to mention the civil liability if you harm someone else with your disregard for the law.
The NFPA and OSHA also allows be to work with electricity, and I personally deal with up to 4160 V. which would cook you in a fraction of a second if you messed up. However, NFPA 70E specifies exactly what PPE I must wear, the safety precautions I must follow, and the training I must have before doing anything. NFPA 79 specifies the safeguards for the machinery. And, OSHA regulations specify the safety equipment that must be provided by my employer.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yeehawww
-
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
NFPA is not a regulatory body, it's a trade association. They cannot make laws. They do create codes and standards that are often adopted as laws, sometimes with modifications, by appropriate regulatory bodies such as municipal governments.
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
OSHA allows me to use hydrofluoric acid. If I spilled some on me covering something like 8 square inches of skin it would kill me. You can still do dangerous tasks and be in compliance.
OSHA also specifies what what PPE you must wear while handling your chemicals, how the chemicals should be stored and handled, and the emergency safety equipment that your employer must provide, such as eye wash and shower stations, so that when an idiot like you screws up, the harm is minimal. We already know that you violate OSHA regulations because you told us that you did not wear proper PPE while handling cyanide and you ingested some accidentally, but your lack of following regulations does not negate the fact that the regulations are there and your employer, and possibly yourself, could be fined or jailed for breaking the law, not to mention the civil liability if you harm someone else with your disregard for the law.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yeehawww
More nearly closer to back on topic, can you post the specific NFPA codes and OSHA regs regarding thermal tiles that you think have been violated by NASA in the public demos?
-
NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law. I don't deal with everything the NFPA mandates, but I could probably find it, seeing as I am a member of the association and have unlimited access to all of their code books online. Then, we would just need to find out if the particular code is also a law in the particular state in question.
Also, when their codes are modified by a state or county, they are modified to make them more stringent, just to let you know.
Yeehawww
-
So no one here is going to cite the exact law that is being broken?
-
How about the laws ensuring people's safety, which we are discussing, dummy?
Yeehawww
-
How about the laws ensuring people's safety, which we are discussing, dummy?
Yeehawww
Which laws?
specify
Read the posts before posting.
-
How about the laws ensuring people's safety
So which laws are NASA breaking in that video then? Saying "the laws" isn't going to get us anywhere...
-
How about the laws ensuring people's safety, which we are discussing, dummy?
Yeehawww
Ensuring people's safety doesn't extend to making sure that they can't hurt themselves if they wanted to.
-
NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.
Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi? With no statewide adoption of the NEC? Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php (http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php)
Yeehawww
So you working on a new catch phrase? I think you better keep working.
-
NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.
Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi? With no statewide adoption of the NEC? Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php (http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php)
Also, when their codes are modified by a state or county, they are modified to make them more stringent, just to let you know.
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
[Edit] Insert omitted word.
-
Now that this little diversion seems settled, can anyone cite any specific laws that you think NASA violated in conducting public demonstrations of thermal tiles?
Vague references to the existence of certain trade associations and regulatory agencies aren't citations of specific laws, in case you didn't know. Focus, guys. Focus!
-
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
OSHA allows me to use hydrofluoric acid. If I spilled some on me covering something like 8 square inches of skin it would kill me. You can still do dangerous tasks and be in compliance.
OSHA also specifies what what PPE you must wear while handling your chemicals, how the chemicals should be stored and handled, and the emergency safety equipment that your employer must provide, such as eye wash and shower stations, so that when an idiot like you screws up, the harm is minimal.
Where is this master list of proper PPE for chemicals? It could come in handy so I don't have to look up SDS's. You know, since MSDS's and the newer SDS's really tell me what PPE to wear.
We already know that you violate OSHA regulations because you told us that you did not wear proper PPE while handling cyanide and you ingested some accidentally, but your lack of following regulations does not negate the fact that the regulations are there and your employer, and possibly yourself, could be fined or jailed for breaking the law, not to mention the civil liability if you harm someone else with your disregard for the law.
OSHA can not fine employees. Also there is no jail time. Not quite sure where you are getting your info from. Maybe pay attention in your yearly refresher?
The NFPA and OSHA also allows be to work with electricity, and I personally deal with up to 4160 V. which would cook you in a fraction of a second if you messed up. However, NFPA 70E specifies exactly what PPE I must wear, the safety precautions I must follow, and the training I must have before doing anything. NFPA 79 specifies the safeguards for the machinery. And, OSHA regulations specify the safety equipment that must be provided by my employer.
It's quite hard to be OSHA compliant and work on 4160 V without being an electrician. You must have went through 1000's of hours of training. Or more likely, you aren't 1910.333 complaint. My company doesn't allow us to work on anything energized over 12V DC.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yes. I'm not sure what your point was.
Yeehawww
You are a donkey?
-
Ensuring people's safety doesn't extend to making sure that they can't hurt themselves if they wanted to.
Nobody can stop someone from intentionally harming themselves. The regulations are put in place to minimize the risk of someone accidentally hurting themselves.
NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.
Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi? With no statewide adoption of the NEC? Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php (http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php)
Yeehawww
So you working on a new catch phrase? I think you better keep working.
lol, BJ, the states you listed do not mandate which version of the code is used at the state level. That is not the same as saying that the entire state has not adopted the code at the local level.
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
Pleace cite a source stating that preventing people from being stupid and hurting themselves is a law.
NFPA and OSHA
OSHA allows me to use hydrofluoric acid. If I spilled some on me covering something like 8 square inches of skin it would kill me. You can still do dangerous tasks and be in compliance.
OSHA also specifies what what PPE you must wear while handling your chemicals, how the chemicals should be stored and handled, and the emergency safety equipment that your employer must provide, such as eye wash and shower stations, so that when an idiot like you screws up, the harm is minimal.
Where is this master list of proper PPE for chemicals? It could come in handy so I don't have to look up SDS's. You know, since MSDS's and the newer SDS's really tell me what PPE to wear.
We already know that you violate OSHA regulations because you told us that you did not wear proper PPE while handling cyanide and you ingested some accidentally, but your lack of following regulations does not negate the fact that the regulations are there and your employer, and possibly yourself, could be fined or jailed for breaking the law, not to mention the civil liability if you harm someone else with your disregard for the law.
OSHA can not fine employees. Also there is no jail time. Not quite sure where you are getting your info from. Maybe pay attention in your yearly refresher?
The NFPA and OSHA also allows be to work with electricity, and I personally deal with up to 4160 V. which would cook you in a fraction of a second if you messed up. However, NFPA 70E specifies exactly what PPE I must wear, the safety precautions I must follow, and the training I must have before doing anything. NFPA 79 specifies the safeguards for the machinery. And, OSHA regulations specify the safety equipment that must be provided by my employer.
It's quite hard to be OSHA compliant and work on 4160 V without being an electrician. You must have went through 1000's of hours of training. Or more likely, you aren't 1910.333 complaint. My company doesn't allow us to work on anything energized over 12V DC.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yes. I'm not sure what your point was.
Yeehawww
You are a donkey?
Please try not to quote tree like that. It makes it difficult for anyone to answer anything without heavy edits to the quote. This is why it is against the rules. I'll answer everything in you mentioned in my next post, because I am moving furniture right now, and do not have time for your laziness.
Wahooo
-
NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.
Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi? With no statewide adoption of the NEC? Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php (http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php)
Yeehawww
So you working on a new catch phrase? I think you better keep working.
lol, BJ, the states you listed do not mandate which version of the code is used at the state level. That is not the same as saying that the entire state has not adopted the code at the local level.
lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.
Banzai
-
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection. Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment. lol.
Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol
-
lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.
Banzai
If every locality in a state enforces it, then it is statewide, dumb-dumb, even if the state does not mandate it. ::)
Wahooo
-
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection. Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment. lol.
Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol
What do you think AFCI means?
-
lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.
Banzai
If every locality in a state enforces it, then it is statewide, dumb-dumb, even if the state does not mandate it. ::)
Wahooo
But that is not what you said. You said by the state. Not in the state. Maybe you should be learn to proofread before you comment eh?
Also, what about, Illinois, for instance, that has only enacted it for localities that don't have their own Code?
-
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection. Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment. lol.
Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol
What do you think AFCI means?
AFCI is, since you seem unable to use google for some reason, is Arc Fault Circuit Interruption. It is a device that shuts off power to a branch circuit if it senses that there is sufficient arcing on the circuit. This is to prevent fires. They are required by the NEC to be installed on circuits that reach sleeping quarters in residential domiciles.
Arc Flash Protection is ppe that you utilize to help protect against arc flash. NFPA 70e tells you what you need to do based on the voltage that you are working on. So, lol why don't you quit being such and arrogant ass and admit you don't know what you are talking about here.
-
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
A trade association can mandate rules on the general public? Can you justify this assertion?
Arc Fault, Arc Flash. Hey, they sound kinda sorta the same, so they must be the same. Close enough to confuse anyone who is willing to believe the Earth might be flat, fer sure.
Do you even understand or care about anything you write? If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about, it would be a good idea to at least know the meaning of basic terminology you spill on the page.
-
Please try not to quote tree like that. It makes it difficult for anyone to answer anything without heavy edits to the quote. This is why it is against the rules. I'll answer everything in you mentioned in my next post, because I am moving furniture right now, and do not have time for your laziness.
Wahooo
That's not what a quote tree is.
-
lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.
Banzai
If every locality in a state enforces it, then it is statewide, dumb-dumb, even if the state does not mandate it. ::)
Wahooo
But that is not what you said. You said by the state. Not in the state. Maybe you should be learn to proofread before you comment eh?
Also, what about, Illinois, for instance, that has only enacted it for localities that don't have their own Code?
I am sorry that you do not understand what statewide means.
Edit for Wahooo
-
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection. Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment. lol.
Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol
What do you think AFCI means?
AFCI is, since you seem unable to use google for some reason, is Arc Fault Circuit Interruption. It is a device that shuts off power to a branch circuit if it senses that there is sufficient arcing on the circuit. This is to prevent fires. They are required by the NEC to be installed on circuits that reach sleeping quarters in residential domiciles.
Arc Flash Protection is ppe that you utilize to help protect against arc flash. NFPA 70e tells you what you need to do based on the voltage that you are working on. So, lol why don't you quit being such and arrogant ass and admit you don't know what you are talking about here.
So, interupting a circuit in the event of an arc flash is not the same as protecting the people who are exposed to the arc flash? Are you really this dumb?
Wahooo
-
lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.
Banzai
If every locality in a state enforces it, then it is statewide, dumb-dumb, even if the state does not mandate it. ::)
Wahooo
But that is not what you said. You said by the state. Not in the state. Maybe you should be learn to proofread before you comment eh?
Also, what about, Illinois, for instance, that has only enacted it for localities that don't have their own Code?
I am sorry that you do not understand what statewide means.
Edit for Wahooo
I am sorry that you do not understand that localities enacting NEC, or not, is not the same as a state enacting it statewide. Maybe you should lay off sauce for a bit.
-
Please try not to quote tree like that. It makes it difficult for anyone to answer anything without heavy edits to the quote. This is why it is against the rules. I'll answer everything in you mentioned in my next post, because I am moving furniture right now, and do not have time for your laziness.
Wahooo
That's not what a quote tree is.
I have to break down each one of your quotes in order for me to address you. I will, when I have a little more time. Right now I am unloading a U-Haul truck.
-
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.
The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.
This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.
lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70. So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.
lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection. Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment. lol.
Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol
What do you think AFCI means?
AFCI is, since you seem unable to use google for some reason, is Arc Fault Circuit Interruption. It is a device that shuts off power to a branch circuit if it senses that there is sufficient arcing on the circuit. This is to prevent fires. They are required by the NEC to be installed on circuits that reach sleeping quarters in residential domiciles.
Arc Flash Protection is ppe that you utilize to help protect against arc flash. NFPA 70e tells you what you need to do based on the voltage that you are working on. So, lol why don't you quit being such and arrogant ass and admit you don't know what you are talking about here.
So, interupting a circuit in the event of an arc flash is not the same as protecting the people who are exposed to the arc flash? Are you really this dumb?
Wahooo
No it is not. Are you really this drunk?
-
What do you think AFCI means?
AFCI is, since you seem unable to use google for some reason, is Arc Fault Circuit Interruption. It is a device that shuts off power to a branch circuit if it senses that there is sufficient arcing on the circuit. This is to prevent fires. They are required by the NEC to be installed on circuits that reach sleeping quarters in residential domiciles.
Arc Flash Protection is ppe that you utilize to help protect against arc flash. NFPA 70e tells you what you need to do based on the voltage that you are working on. So, lol why don't you quit being such and arrogant ass and admit you don't know what you are talking about here.
So, interupting a circuit in the event of an arc flash is not the same as protecting the people who are exposed to the arc flash? Are you really this dumb?
Wahooo
Nope, and nope. Since you bring it up, though, it seems like you might really be this dumb.
No examples of the laws NASA was violating with its public thermal-tile demonstrations, I see. You must not have any since you keep reverting to this dumb diversion.
-
What do you think AFCI means?
AFCI is, since you seem unable to use google for some reason, is Arc Fault Circuit Interruption. It is a device that shuts off power to a branch circuit if it senses that there is sufficient arcing on the circuit. This is to prevent fires. They are required by the NEC to be installed on circuits that reach sleeping quarters in residential domiciles.
Arc Flash Protection is ppe that you utilize to help protect against arc flash. NFPA 70e tells you what you need to do based on the voltage that you are working on. So, lol why don't you quit being such and arrogant ass and admit you don't know what you are talking about here.
So, interupting a circuit in the event of an arc flash is not the same as protecting the people who are exposed to the arc flash? Are you really this dumb?
Wahooo
Nope, and nope. Since you bring it up, though, it seems like you might really be this dumb.
No examples of the laws NASA was violating with its public thermal-tile demonstrations, I see. You must not have any since you keep reverting to this dumb diversion.
Just in case you have alzheimer's, my original post was in response to Mikeman's repeated declarations that there are no laws that protect people from getting hurt. Please, learn to read. Or, better yet, learn to comprehend what you read. Reading is Fundamental (http://www.rif.org/).
-
Then why did you go on and on by posting a bunch of false information? Mikeman and others were addressing papa's claim that NASA was breaking the law by allowing people to pick up a cold to the touch object. You felt the need to chime in and now are regretting it.
-
Ok, sokarul, I think here is the OSHA regulation that you should have been following when you ingested cyanide, or what ever it was. 1910 Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment (https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10118)
In addition, your lab should be regulated by NFPA 2, NFPA 30, NFPA 45, and NFPA 86, to name a few out of the first 100 codes that I looked at. I don't know what exactly you do at your lab, except for that time that you told us you check pee for a living, but, if you do not follow the safe handling of chemicals by willfully disregarding the law, then I am not surprised that they put you in charge of watching the oven. ;D
-
<blah, blah, snark, blah> my original post was in response to Mikeman's repeated declarations that there are no laws that protect people from getting hurt. <More blah, blah, etc.>
You are saying that you can't cite any laws that NASA has violated in their thermal tile demonstrations, so you tried to lead the discussion, using enough perhaps intentionally (or maybe not intentional) erroneous bait, into an argument about building codes? It's about time you admitted that.
If that isn't right, again, please cite the specific laws (not vague references to trade associations, etc.) that NASA violated in their public thermal-tile demonstrations. Thanks! We haven't seen anything about that yet.
-
Thank you jroa, for perceiving what should be blindingly obvious to anyone with any experience of such matters.
Anyway; here is the incriminating video again.
Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
This is ALL Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such gross negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props.
Now; carry on Lying...
(http://#)
-
So no FE has cited any violated laws yet? Well that just proves them to be liars.
-
For starters, I am not a 'flat-earther' & you are well aware of this, criminal disinfo-thing who has just spammed THREE idiotic, zero-content posts in under 14 minutes.
Nor am I a 'round-earther', either; false dichotomies & Hegelian dialectic traps are of no interest to me.
For seconds, calling jroa a Liar when he has just taken a lot of time out of his busy schedule to point out exactly which laws ARE being broken is probably not a good idea...
LOL!!!
-
For starters, I am not a 'flat-earther' & you are well aware of this, criminal disinfo-thing who has just spammed THREE idiotic, zero-content posts in under 14 minutes.
Nor am I a 'round-earther', either; false dichotomies & Hegelian dialectic traps are of no interest to me.
For seconds, calling jroa a Liar when he has just taken a lot of time out of his busy schedule to point out exactly which laws ARE being broken is probably not a good idea...
LOL!!!
You are both saying that NASA is breaking the rules. Until you tell us the specific f*cking law that is being violated I can dismiss you as liars.
-
LOL!!!
Another THREE zero-content posts from master_b8r inside 15 minutes.
Jroa has answered you, at length.
Ergo: reported for shitposting.
Again.
-
LOL!!!
Another THREE zero-content posts from master_b8r inside 15 minutes.
Jroa has answered you, at length.
Ergo: reported for shitposting.
Again.
Cite the exact law being violated or I might report you for derailing the thread.
-
Ok, I finally have a little time to break sokarul's post into managable responses.
Where is this master list of proper PPE for chemicals? It could come in handy so I don't have to look up SDS's. You know, since MSDS's and the newer SDS's really tell me what PPE to wear.
I posted it a few posts back.
OSHA can not fine employees. Also there is no jail time. Not quite sure where you are getting your info from. Maybe pay attention in your yearly refresher?
Just to let you know, at the place I currently work, around a half dozen people were taken to both criminal and civil court for violating lockout/tagout procedures when a coworker died.
It's quite hard to be OSHA compliant and work on 4160 V without being an electrician. You must have went through 1000's of hours of training. Or more likely, you aren't 1910.333 complaint. My company doesn't allow us to work on anything energized over 12V DC.
Who said I am not an electrician? Who said I have not had thousands of hours of training? You make a lot of assumptions, 12V boy.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yes. I'm not sure what your point was.
My point is that you are an idiot.
Yeehawww
You are a donkey?
Why, would that turn you on if I was?
-
As I already told you, the UK version of the law being violated is the Health & Safety at Work Act.
Jroa has been explaining its American equivalent.
The UK version states (in summary): 'You are responsible for ensuring the health, safety & welfare of all your employees, plus anyone else who could be affected by your work activities e.g. guests'
As I have pointed out several gross violations of Health & Safety in your video, it is safe to say Criminal Negligence by NASA is displayed therein.
The only way out of this is if the tourists in the video signed legal waivers before the tour indemnifying NASA in the case that they came to harm.
Which is why I asked you earlier if they had done so; you refused to answer.
I have also been unable to find any evidence through google that they are required to do so.
Thus, I ask again: Did the tourists in the video sign legal waivers before taking part in the demonstration?
If they did not, then the ONLY logical conclusion to be reached is that your video is FAKE.
Q.E.D.
-
As I already told you, the UK version of the law being violated is the Health & Safety at Work Act.
Jroa has been explaining its American equivalent.
The UK version states (in summary): 'You are responsible for ensuring the health, safety & welfare of all your employees, plus anyone else who could be affected by your work activities e.g. guests'
As I have pointed out several gross violations of Health & Safety in your video, it is safe to say Criminal Negligence by NASA is displayed therein.
The only way out of this is if the tourists in the video signed legal waivers before the tour indemnifying NASA in the case that they came to harm.
Which is why I asked you earlier if they had done so; you refused to answer.
I have also been unable to find any evidence through google that they are required to do so.
Thus, I ask again: Did the tourists in the video sign legal waivers before taking part in the demonstration?
If they did not, then the ONLY logical conclusion to be reached is that your video is FAKE.
Q.E.D.
We want the exact US law that is being violated cited, we don't need to know about UK:s laws or where the law would stem from, we just want you to cite the exact law being violated. Then we can continue to check if the law is actually being violated or not.
-
As I already told you, the UK version of the law being violated is the Health & Safety at Work Act.
Jroa has been explaining its American equivalent.
The UK version states (in summary): 'You are responsible for ensuring the health, safety & welfare of all your employees, plus anyone else who could be affected by your work activities e.g. guests'
As I have pointed out several gross violations of Health & Safety in your video, it is safe to say Criminal Negligence by NASA is displayed therein.
The only way out of this is if the tourists in the video signed legal waivers before the tour indemnifying NASA in the case that they came to harm.
Which is why I asked you earlier if they had done so; you refused to answer.
I have also been unable to find any evidence through google that they are required to do so.
Thus, I ask again: Did the tourists in the video sign legal waivers before taking part in the demonstration?
If they did not, then the ONLY logical conclusion to be reached is that your video is FAKE.
Q.E.D.
We want the exact US law that is being violated cited, we don't need to know about UK:s laws or where the law would stem from, we just want you to cite the exact law being violated. Then we can continue to check if the law is actually being violated or not.
The one about criminal negligence. for a start.
-
As I already told you, the UK version of the law being violated is the Health & Safety at Work Act.
Jroa has been explaining its American equivalent.
The UK version states (in summary): 'You are responsible for ensuring the health, safety & welfare of all your employees, plus anyone else who could be affected by your work activities e.g. guests'
As I have pointed out several gross violations of Health & Safety in your video, it is safe to say Criminal Negligence by NASA is displayed therein.
The only way out of this is if the tourists in the video signed legal waivers before the tour indemnifying NASA in the case that they came to harm.
Which is why I asked you earlier if they had done so; you refused to answer.
I have also been unable to find any evidence through google that they are required to do so.
Thus, I ask again: Did the tourists in the video sign legal waivers before taking part in the demonstration?
If they did not, then the ONLY logical conclusion to be reached is that your video is FAKE.
Q.E.D.
We want the exact US law that is being violated cited, we don't need to know about UK:s laws or where the law would stem from, we just want you to cite the exact law being violated. Then we can continue to check if the law is actually being violated or not.
The one about criminal negligence. for a start.
exact
cited
It is as if you don't even know what law is being violated. Humm...
-
I am sorry, but I did not realize that this is a legal forum, or maybe we are in a court of law? Do you think that we are all lawyers, or that we just have lots of free time on our hands to sift through thousands of laws in order to appease you? Maybe you think that criminal negligence does not exist in the US? Or, maybe this is a straw man tactic to derail the debate?
Do you claim that criminal negligence laws do not exist? Simple question. Please answer or quit asking for specific laws, like anyone here has time for that. I really think you are just trying to make people waste their time, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
-
I am sorry, but I did not realize that this is a legal forum, or maybe we are in a court of law? Do you think that we are all lawyers, or that we just have lots of free time on our hands to sift through thousands of laws in order to appease you? Maybe you think that criminal negligence does not exist in the US? Or, maybe this is a straw man tactic to derail the debate?
Do you claim that criminal negligence laws do not exist? Simple question. Please answer or quit asking for specific laws, like anyone here has time for that. I really think you are just trying to make people waste their time, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you use the law to win an argument, you have to use it properly. Saying "It's a law" doesn't make you right. You have to cite the law in it's exact form (The exact words in the exact order) and where this law can be found/read.The burden is on you, not us.
-
The American equivalent of the Health & Safety Act is the Occupational Safety & Health Act.
It is at least as stringent as the UK version, as America is a notoriously litigious nation.
Now; tell me if the tourists in the video had to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of injury.
Because I can find no evidence that they did sign such waivers.
If this is true, either NASA are guilty of Criminal Negligence or your silly video is FAKE.
-
The American equivalent of the Health & Safety Act is the Occupational Safety & Health Act.
It is at least as stringent as the UK version, as America is a notoriously litigious nation.
Now; tell me if the tourists in the video had to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of injury.
Because I can find no evidence that they did sign such waivers.
If this is true, either NASA are guilty of Criminal Negligence or your silly video is FAKE.
Which passage? (§?)
-
I am sorry, but I did not realize that this is a legal forum, or maybe we are in a court of law? Do you think that we are all lawyers, or that we just have lots of free time on our hands to sift through thousands of laws in order to appease you? Maybe you think that criminal negligence does not exist in the US? Or, maybe this is a straw man tactic to derail the debate?
Do you claim that criminal negligence laws do not exist? Simple question. Please answer or quit asking for specific laws, like anyone here has time for that. I really think you are just trying to make people waste their time, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you use the law to win an argument, you have to use it properly. Saying "It's a law" doesn't make you right. You have to cite the law in it's exact form (The exact words in the exact order) and where this law can be found/read.The burden is on you, not us.
If I say, "It is illegal to kill someone," on a public forum, is it not true until I cite the specific laws that state that it is against the law to kill someone? You roundies grasp at every straw you can. Also, you ignore defacto law.
-
You are pushing your luck, master_b8r.
I have cited the Legislation you asked for.
I have outlined the clear violations of that Legislation displayed in your video.
Now; yet again, I will ask: Did the tourists in the video sign a legal waiver before the tour indemnifying NASA from culpability in the case of personal injury?
Answer the question, Troll.
Because if they did not, either NASA is guilty of Criminal Negligence or your video is Fake.
-
I am sorry, but I did not realize that this is a legal forum, or maybe we are in a court of law? Do you think that we are all lawyers, or that we just have lots of free time on our hands to sift through thousands of laws in order to appease you? Maybe you think that criminal negligence does not exist in the US? Or, maybe this is a straw man tactic to derail the debate?
Do you claim that criminal negligence laws do not exist? Simple question. Please answer or quit asking for specific laws, like anyone here has time for that. I really think you are just trying to make people waste their time, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you use the law to win an argument, you have to use it properly. Saying "It's a law" doesn't make you right. You have to cite the law in it's exact form (The exact words in the exact order) and where this law can be found/read.The burden is on you, not us.
If I say, "It is illegal to kill someone," on a public forum, is it not true until I cite the specific laws that state that it is against the law to kill someone? You roundies grasp at every straw you can. Also, you ignore defacto law.
There are countries and occassions where you can kill someone and still be protected by the law. But killing is something that is well known to be illegal in majority of cases. Laws surrounding health and safety measures for workplaces etc. are not all as well known, and they can be vague or contain loopholes. We are also not certain what danger there is. The only danger would be if someone decided to go against their orders and touch a hot surface by their own will. This would not be an accident, and in the worst case they would get a burn mark.
So please, specify the exact law being violated.
-
It is illegal to speed. Are you going to disagree just for the purpose of disagreeing, or are you going to now claim that I need to cite the law that states speeding is against the law, or are you going to through another straw man out there?
Yahooo
-
Here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are BUSTED, cultists; deal with it. (http://#)
-
Doing a recap, there have been a suggestion of 0 cited laws being broken.
So all in all, 0 laws has been broken.
So what's your next complaint, flat earthers?
-
Is Legislation not Law now, Troll?
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are BUSTED, cultists; deal with it. (http://#)
-
Still 0 laws reported broken.
Care to complain about something new?
-
Ok, I finally have a little time to break sokarul's post into managable responses.
Where is this master list of proper PPE for chemicals? It could come in handy so I don't have to look up SDS's. You know, since MSDS's and the newer SDS's really tell me what PPE to wear.
I posted it a few posts back.
It did not list sodium cyanide anywhere.
OSHA can not fine employees. Also there is no jail time. Not quite sure where you are getting your info from. Maybe pay attention in your yearly refresher?
Just to let you know, at the place I currently work, around a half dozen people were taken to both criminal and civil court for violating lockout/tagout procedures when a coworker died.
I can't see how a person can die from a lockout/tagout procedure violation without also being at fault. If you don't have your lock locked with the others, it's also your fault. And I don't believe the criminal court part unless it was standard procedure to not lockout/tagout.
It's quite hard to be OSHA compliant and work on 4160 V without being an electrician. You must have went through 1000's of hours of training. Or more likely, you aren't 1910.333 complaint. My company doesn't allow us to work on anything energized over 12V DC.
Who said I am not an electrician? Who said I have not had thousands of hours of training? You make a lot of assumptions, 12V boy.
No one did, pay attention. I said you can't handle 4,160 V while being 1910.333 compliant without being an electrician. I see now you were just lying to try and sound cool. You may lockout/tagout and work on non energized equipment. That's not the same thing.
Do you ever think before you post, sokarul?
Yes. I'm not sure what your point was.
My point is that you are an idiot.
Scroll up to see the opposite.
Yeehawww
You are a donkey?
Why, would that turn you on if I was?
It would make you a jackass.
-
The definition of 'Legislation' is 'Laws considered collectively', Troll.
Reported yet again...
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are BUSTED, cultists; deal with it.
Ps. Sock-arul; f**k off. (http://#)
-
My favorite part is that you think the video is real now and in violation of laws. Earlier it was fake to you because the physics behind it was too complicated for you.
-
No, idiot; either the video proves NASA are criminals or it is Fake.
Both are thoroughly undesirable outcomes for NASA, & full of LOLS; thus I am happy.
Now; f**k off, d**khead.
-
We are still waiting for anyone to point out something new or to cite a law being broken.
-
The definition of 'Legislation' is 'Laws considered collectively', Troll.
So, if Legislation is being broken then Laws must also be being broken.
Reported yet again...
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are so, so BUSTED, cultists; deal with it.
[/quote] (http://#)
-
I guess we all agree no rules is broken then. And since no one is bringing any new complaints about the tiles we can assume they are real and works how they should.
-
We agree on NOTHING, shill.
The definition of 'Legislation' is 'Laws considered collectively', Troll.
So, if Legislation is being broken then Laws must also be being broken.
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are so, so BUSTED, cultists; deal with it. (http://#)
-
Oh. & I must ask again: Did the tourists in the above video sign waivers indemnifying NASA from all culpability in the event of personal injury?
I can find NO evidence they did so.
This is a VERY important question, yet all the NASA Cultists refuse to answer it...
I wonder why?
Answers please, obvious criminal cultist software-assisted military-managed disinfo personae (I'm looking at YOU, master_b8r!).
-
Papa Legba, how can you prove criminal negligence when no one has been injured due to your claimed lack of PPE or safety training? If these tours have been ongoing for any length of time and there have been no injuries, then that suggests that reasonable safety measures are indeed being observed and therefore there is no negligence.
Also:
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.
-
Nonsense, markjo; I am trained in spotting Health & Safety violations, & there's damn good Legal reasons for me being thus trained; so stop posting irrelevant links & trying to tell me how to do my own f**king job.
Okay?
Now; Did the tourists in the video have to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of personal injury?
Answer me.
-
Nonsense, markjo; I am trained in spotting Health & Safety violations, & there's damn good Legal reasons for me being thus trained; so stop posting irrelevant links & trying to tell me how to do my own f**king job.
Oh? Who trained you? When did you perform a complete inspection of the facility in question? Check me if I'm wrong, but a proper investigator would personally inspect the facility and get all of the facts before drawing any conclusions.
Now; Did the tourists in the video have to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of personal injury?
Answer me.
I didn't take the tour, so I don't know. However, I did provide you with the phone number to the KSC tour office so that you could call them yourself and find out. Did you? No? I didn't think that you would.
-
It did not list sodium cyanide anywhere.
Did you expect it to list every chemical ever discovered, or to simply state things like, "If you are handling a dangerous chemical, then you should follow these safegaurds?"
You really are an idiot, are you not?
No one did, pay attention. I said you can't handle 4,160 V while being 1910.333 compliant without being an electrician. I see now you were just lying to try and sound cool. You may lockout/tagout and work on non energized equipment. That's not the same thing.
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
-
I can't see how a person can die from a lockout/tagout procedure violation without also being at fault. If you don't have your lock locked with the others, it's also your fault. And I don't believe the criminal court part unless it was standard procedure to not lockout/tagout.
The individual who died was at fault. He removed his own lock. However, the other individuals knew he was still working inside the machine when they removed their locks, under his orders. You really are retarded, sokarul.
-
We agree on NOTHING, shill.
The definition of 'Legislation' is 'Laws considered collectively', Troll.
So, if Legislation is being broken then Laws must also be being broken.
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are so, so BUSTED, cultists; deal with it.
(http://#)
Again, according to your logic all bars are criminally negligent as they provide no safety equipment or training for handling fragile glasses that will shatter into razor sharp shards that can be lethal if the glass is not handled correctly.
-
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Should we let them know you lack basic electrical knowledge? Such as the difference between an AFCI and arc flash protection?
-
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Should we let them know you lack basic electrical knowledge? Such as the difference between an AFCI and arc flash protection?
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
-
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Should we let them know you lack basic electrical knowledge? Such as the difference between an AFCI and arc flash protection?
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
Is that the best you can do when confronted with your lack of knowledge? Not even a remotely cunning ad hominem?
I am not the one who lacks knowledge about the differences of arc fault and arc flash. You have shown lack of electrical knowledge in this thread, yet you strut around like a pigeon playing chess. I thought only scepti could stoop that low.
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician. I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such. Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
-
It did not list sodium cyanide anywhere.
Did you expect it to list every chemical ever discovered, or to simply state things like, "If you are handling a dangerous chemical, then you should follow these safegaurds?"
You really are an idiot, are you not?
You claimed OSHA set's the proper PPE for chemicals. I stated it was MSDS's and SDS's. I am right, you are wrong.
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Then yes, you could be OSHA complaint. Which is strange since you have claimed you are an engineer.
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician.
Well, maybe if you hadn't implied as such in the following statement, I wouldn't have assumed you were claiming as such.
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such.
And from your lack of knowledge presented by you in this thread shows that your training is inadequate. Don't worry, I work with a lot of people who are only electrician in title and really don't know much.
Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
Yes I do read the posts. Maybe the problem lies in your lack of communication skills and ability to type clear and unambiguous posts?
*Edit fixed quoting problems*
-
It did not list sodium cyanide anywhere.
Did you expect it to list every chemical ever discovered, or to simply state things like, "If you are handling a dangerous chemical, then you should follow these safegaurds?"
You really are an idiot, are you not?
You claimed OSHA set's the proper PPE for chemicals. I stated it was MSDS's and SDS's. I am right, you are wrong.
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Then yes, you could be OSHA complaint. Which is strange since you have claimed you are an engineer.
I claimed I have an engineering degree, not that I was employed as an engineer. I also claimed that I have a degree in Industrial Electricity/Electronics. I have worked in engineering positions in the past, but I make far more money as an electrician in the area in which I live. What is confusing you about this?
-
We agree on NOTHING, shill.
The definition of 'Legislation' is 'Laws considered collectively', Troll.
So, if Legislation is being broken then Laws must also be being broken.
Whatever; here is the Incriminating video again, neutrals; please watch it, then read the below, plus my above posts, as well as jroa's informative posts on USA Occupational Safety & Health legislation, for a summation of the situation thus far.
"Note that NONE of the tourists are wearing p.p.e; that they are NOT given thorough & adequate training in handling hazardous materials before touching the blocks; that there are NO safety barriers between them & either the oven or the white-hot fire-brick; that they are allowed to hold mobile phones in one hand whilst handling the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT blocks in the other; & general lack of ANY kind of adequate supervision or safety precautions whatsoever.
These are ALL gross violations of Health & Safety legislation & thus Criminally Negligent; if I were to allow even ONE of the above violations to occur whilst escorting visitors round a project I would be fired Immediately.
These are all FACTS; you can argue the fine details until the cows come home, but you will never change that.
There is NO WAY an allegedly state-of-the-art, government-sponsored organisation like NASA would allow such appalling negligence to occur.
Thus, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that either NASA are Criminals, or the video is FAKE; a cheap conjuring trick achieved using harmless stage-props."
You are so, so BUSTED, cultists; deal with it.
(http://#)
Tour Guide:"This red hot tile can be held safely with your bear hands!"
Tourist:"Cool! Can I pick it up?"
Tour Guide:"No, you have to wear these gloves."
Tourist:"Why not? You are doing it, and wearing gloves takes away the whole point of holding it."
Tour Guide:"We are afraid that you might crush it and burn yourself."
Tourist:"Being human and all I know how to regulate grip strength and not crush everything I hold. I can easily crush a coffee cup and spill the coffee all over myself but I don't do it."
Tour Guide:"If you want to hold it you could take a 3 day course on basic motor skills so you can be certified at holding things."
Tourist:"I have used my hands every day of my life, I think I know what I am doing."
Tour Guide:"No you don't. You will crush it and keep holding on to it until your hand is burnt off. We also think you might eat it and/or throw it and we just can't take the risk."
Tourist:"I am not a toddler and I don't want to kill myself! This is so stupid."
In any case, I told you where the building was and markjo gave you their phone number, you could go on a tour yourself and prove that it's not fake.
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician.
Well, maybe if you hadn't implied as such in the following statement, I wouldn't have assumed you were claiming as such.
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such.[/quote[ And from your lack of knowledge presented by you in this thread shows that your training is inadequate. Don't worry, I work with a lot of people who are only electrician in title and really don't know much.
Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
Yes I do read the posts. Maybe the problem lies in your lack of communication skills and ability to type clear and unambiguous posts?
Oh, I see now. Your ability to jump to conclusions and make assumptions is my fault. Thanks for letting me know. ::)
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician.
Well, maybe if you hadn't implied as such in the following statement, I wouldn't have assumed you were claiming as such.
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such.[/quote[ And from your lack of knowledge presented by you in this thread shows that your training is inadequate. Don't worry, I work with a lot of people who are only electrician in title and really don't know much.
Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
Yes I do read the posts. Maybe the problem lies in your lack of communication skills and ability to type clear and unambiguous posts?
Oh, I see now. Your ability to jump to conclusions and make assumptions is my fault. Thanks for letting me know. ::)
It seems to be as good as your electrical ability.
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician.
Well, maybe if you hadn't implied as such in the following statement, I wouldn't have assumed you were claiming as such.
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such.[/quote[ And from your lack of knowledge presented by you in this thread shows that your training is inadequate. Don't worry, I work with a lot of people who are only electrician in title and really don't know much.
Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
Yes I do read the posts. Maybe the problem lies in your lack of communication skills and ability to type clear and unambiguous posts?
Oh, I see now. Your ability to jump to conclusions and make assumptions is my fault. Thanks for letting me know. ::)
It seems to be as good as your electrical ability.
Please, let me come over to your house to rewire a circuit. Thanks.
-
Oh, yes, I forgot that your electrical knowledge is only limited by Google, lol
Oh yes, that is why I am schooling a self proclaimed Master Electrician that works on 4160 who doesn't even know the difference between AFCI and arc flash protection ::)
I never claimed to be a master electrician.
Well, maybe if you hadn't implied as such in the following statement, I wouldn't have assumed you were claiming as such.
I am sorry, but I did not realize you were licensed as a master electrician, tweeb. Come back when you actually have something. ::)
I simply stated that I am and work as an electrician, and that I have been trained as such.[/quote[ And from your lack of knowledge presented by you in this thread shows that your training is inadequate. Don't worry, I work with a lot of people who are only electrician in title and really don't know much.
Do you even read what other people post, or do you just make up the conversation in your head? :-\
Yes I do read the posts. Maybe the problem lies in your lack of communication skills and ability to type clear and unambiguous posts?
Oh, I see now. Your ability to jump to conclusions and make assumptions is my fault. Thanks for letting me know. ::)
It seems to be as good as your electrical ability.
Please, let me come over to your house to rewire a circuit. Thanks.
Why? I would just do it myself. I am a trained electrician you know. I actually know some things too, unlike what you have shown in this thread. I have also installed AFCI breakers and worn arc flash suits. SO I think I know what I am doing.
-
What kind of electrical work do you specialize in, just out of curiosity? I am not trying to start another fight with you, I am just genuinely curious, now that I know we are professional brothers. I work as an industrial electrician.
-
So; none of you can tell me if the tourists had to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the case of personal injury.
Thus, I must assume they did not.
Which, in view of the clear Health & Safety violations I have outlined in the video, can only mean that NASA are either Criminals, or the video is FAKE.
Both conclusions are LOL, but I'll go for the latter.
Ready to move on?
Wanna talk about aluminium?
It'll be fun!
-
So; none of you can tell me if the tourists had to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the case of personal injury.
Thus, I must assume they did not.
Which, in view of the clear Health & Safety violations I have outlined in the video, can only mean that NASA are either Criminals, or the video is FAKE.
Both conclusions are LOL, but I'll go for the latter.
Ready to move on?
Wanna talk about aluminium?
It'll be fun!
lol
All talk no evidence.
lawl
Did you know the Washington Monument is capped in aluminum? It used to be precious in a sense that it was rare to have in metal forum.
-
'no evidence', eh, sock-in-mouth?
LOL!!!
STFU.
Before we move on, though, let's look at NASA's shuttle tile demo video again.
Because it is a hoot; a shoddy conjuring trick performed by a sleazy carny, full to the brim with Hoax, LOL & Fail...
Witness the Shitness, folks!
!
(http://#)
-
It did not list sodium cyanide anywhere.
Did you expect it to list every chemical ever discovered, or to simply state things like, "If you are handling a dangerous chemical, then you should follow these safegaurds?"
You really are an idiot, are you not?
You claimed OSHA set's the proper PPE for chemicals. I stated it was MSDS's and SDS's. I am right, you are wrong.
You are implying that I am not an electrician. Please, let my employer know so that they can take me off the payroll, because they are paying me to be an electrician, dummy.
Then yes, you could be OSHA complaint. Which is strange since you have claimed you are an engineer.
I claimed I have an engineering degree, not that I was employed as an engineer. I also claimed that I have a degree in Industrial Electricity/Electronics. I have worked in engineering positions in the past, but I make far more money as an electrician in the area in which I live. What is confusing you about this?
Do you and sceptic go to Bugatti meetups?
-
'no evidence', eh, sock-in-mouth?
LOL!!!
STFU.
Before we move on, though, let's look at NASA's shuttle tile demo video again.
Because it is a hoot; a shoddy conjuring trick performed by a sleazy carny, full to the brim with Hoax, LOL & Fail...
Witness the Shitness, folks!
!
(http://#)
I thought you wanted to talk about aluminum.
Looks real to me. What again is fake about it? Is it that it's red hot but not putting off any sound since you know, sound=light?
Oh I got it, you think that cube is the companion cube from Portal. Now it makes sense, you keep posting the video because you think the cube will love you.
-
What kind of electrical work do you specialize in, just out of curiosity? I am not trying to start another fight with you, I am just genuinely curious, now that I know we are professional brothers. I work as an industrial electrician.
I did my apprenticeship in Local 134 out of Chicago as a commercial and industrial electrician. I have worked on a range of jobs from office remodels to new schools to installing gas insulated switchgear in electrical utility yards. I also have worked in refineries. Unfortunately, we got hit really hard in the housing crash and really haven't recovered around here.
The bills don't care though so I had to transfer my membership to Local 757 which is a railroad local. Less pay, but the work is more steady. Currently work on troubleshooting and installing electrical systems on locomotives.
-
'Looks real to me...'
LOL!!!
Pure shill-speak.
You really don't want people to watch this video, do you, sock-arul?
So I think I'll post it again...
A shoddy fairground conjuring trick, performed by a con-man, displaying a Feast of Fail.
Witness the Shitness, folks!
! (http://#)
-
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. I have never been a member of a union. I only stick to the industrial side of the profession, so when I actually work, I am usually troubleshooting a faulty switch or maybe a bad motor. I get paid very good money to do nothing most of the time. I suppose they pay me to be there in case something goes wrong, but it rarely does.
The cool thing about my current job is that I only have to work 14 days per month, yet I still bring home a full paycheck. I also get 7 straight days off in a row every month. And, I have unlimited overtime. I can come in anytime I want on my days off, and sit around chit-chatting with coworkers while sipping coffee and earning $45 per hour. I really do not see the benefit of a union. How is a union better than this?
-
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. I have never been a member of a union. I only stick to the industrial side of the profession, so when I actually work, I am usually troubleshooting a faulty switch or maybe a bad motor. I get paid very good money to do nothing most of the time. I suppose they pay me to be there in case something goes wrong, but it rarely does.
The cool thing about my current job is that I only have to work 14 days per month, yet I still bring home a full paycheck. I also get 7 straight days off in a row every month. And, I have unlimited overtime. I can come in anytime I want on my days off, and sit around chit-chatting with coworkers while sipping coffee and earning $45 per hour. I really do not see the benefit of a union. How is a union better than this?
Unions are usually joined out of either self-interest (they keep laboral negotiations fair and provide assistance to workers), ideology and (for those trully convinced) out of compassion for other peers that might need the strength of a union to fight for their rights. The guys chatting and sipping coffee? 8 years ago, in my country, that was what being a goverment office-man was. 8 years layer, this elections propaganda promises to unfreeze their wages and give them the money the goverment owes them. It happened to them. Might happen to you.
-
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. I have never been a member of a union. I only stick to the industrial side of the profession, so when I actually work, I am usually troubleshooting a faulty switch or maybe a bad motor. I get paid very good money to do nothing most of the time. I suppose they pay me to be there in case something goes wrong, but it rarely does.
The cool thing about my current job is that I only have to work 14 days per month, yet I still bring home a full paycheck. I also get 7 straight days off in a row every month. And, I have unlimited overtime. I can come in anytime I want on my days off, and sit around chit-chatting with coworkers while sipping coffee and earning $45 per hour. I really do not see the benefit of a union. How is a union better than this?
Around here, mostly health and welfare benefits and the higher pay rate. While I was unemployed, I got supplemental unemployment benefits, and didn't lose my health insurance. Something that is very important to a family with young children.
-
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. I have never been a member of a union. I only stick to the industrial side of the profession, so when I actually work, I am usually troubleshooting a faulty switch or maybe a bad motor. I get paid very good money to do nothing most of the time. I suppose they pay me to be there in case something goes wrong, but it rarely does.
The cool thing about my current job is that I only have to work 14 days per month, yet I still bring home a full paycheck. I also get 7 straight days off in a row every month. And, I have unlimited overtime. I can come in anytime I want on my days off, and sit around chit-chatting with coworkers while sipping coffee and earning $45 per hour. I really do not see the benefit of a union. How is a union better than this?
Unions are usually joined out of either self-interest (they keep laboral negotiations fair and provide assistance to workers), ideology and (for those trully convinced) out of compassion for other peers that might need the strength of a union to fight for their rights. The guys chatting and sipping coffee? 8 years ago, in my country, that was what being a goverment office-man was. 8 years layer, this elections propaganda promises to unfreeze their wages and give them the money the goverment owes them. It happened to them. Might happen to you.
The difference is that I am paid to perform a service, when required. When I am not required to perform that service, there is not much for me to do. But, I still have to be there and I still get paid for being there.
If the plant goes down, the company is losing thousands of dollars per hour. So, they pay an electrician a fraction of that to sit around and do pretty much nothing but be there in case of an electrical problem.
-
Sorry to hear about your misfortune. I have never been a member of a union. I only stick to the industrial side of the profession, so when I actually work, I am usually troubleshooting a faulty switch or maybe a bad motor. I get paid very good money to do nothing most of the time. I suppose they pay me to be there in case something goes wrong, but it rarely does.
The cool thing about my current job is that I only have to work 14 days per month, yet I still bring home a full paycheck. I also get 7 straight days off in a row every month. And, I have unlimited overtime. I can come in anytime I want on my days off, and sit around chit-chatting with coworkers while sipping coffee and earning $45 per hour. I really do not see the benefit of a union. How is a union better than this?
Around here, mostly health and welfare benefits and the higher pay rate. While I was unemployed, I got supplemental unemployment benefits, and didn't lose my health insurance. Something that is very important to a family with young children.
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
-
I said thousands of dollars per hour, but it is really closer to thousands per minute.
-
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
Like I mentioned, here is a different story. I was working non union, was making 50% of what a union electrician was making. My health insurance was part of my benefits, if I wanted to cover my wife and kids, it would have been X a month. thankfully I wasn't married at the time, with no dental or vision.
After joining the union and going through the apprenticeship, I over doubled my pay rate, had an annuity contribution of 2 dollars per hour, gained health insurance that included dental and vision that cost nothing monthly, didn't lose it while unemployed, and other benefits that I didn't have prior.
I believe if you were in my position, you would have decided to join also, and if I were in yours, I probably would not have joined.
-
Before we move on, though, let's look at NASA's shuttle tile demo video again.
*sigh* That isn't a NASA video. It's a video that a tourist took while touring a NASA facility. Do you honestly not understand the difference?
-
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
Like I mentioned, here is a different story. I was working non union, was making 50% of what a union electrician was making. My health insurance was part of my benefits, if I wanted to cover my wife and kids, it would have been X a month. thankfully I wasn't married at the time, with no dental or vision.
After joining the union and going through the apprenticeship, I over doubled my pay rate, had an annuity contribution of 2 dollars per hour, gained health insurance that included dental and vision that cost nothing monthly, didn't lose it while unemployed, and other benefits that I didn't have prior.
I believe if you were in my position, you would have decided to join also, and if I were in yours, I probably would not have joined.
If you are ever curious about moving down south, let me know. The worst part about my job is occasionally having to climb ladders, the un-climate controlled conditions that you have to endure, and boredom. Other than that, it is a sweet job.
-
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
Like I mentioned, here is a different story. I was working non union, was making 50% of what a union electrician was making. My health insurance was part of my benefits, if I wanted to cover my wife and kids, it would have been X a month. thankfully I wasn't married at the time, with no dental or vision.
After joining the union and going through the apprenticeship, I over doubled my pay rate, had an annuity contribution of 2 dollars per hour, gained health insurance that included dental and vision that cost nothing monthly, didn't lose it while unemployed, and other benefits that I didn't have prior.
I believe if you were in my position, you would have decided to join also, and if I were in yours, I probably would not have joined.
If you are ever curious about moving down south, let me know. The worst part about my job is occasionally having to climb ladders, the un-climate controlled conditions that you have to endure, and boredom. Other than that, it is a sweet job.
Thanks. Seems like a sweet gig you have. Worst part of my current job is changing brushes on traction motors and generators. Locomotives get pretty greasy you know. But in the year and a half I have been there, I believe I have shown promise and have been getting more and more complex troubleshooting issues. Others who have been there longer get thrown at the dirty jobs since they lack the skills to figure things out from the prints and thinking things through.
-
My guess is Jroa works at a power plant.
-
I have done residential and commercial electricity in the past, and I got paid for the work that I did. Now, I am an Industrial Electrician and I get paid for what I know. It is a world of difference. No union involved.
Also, sokarul, you are wrong. I work for an industrial plant.
-
Very nice, good stuff, lots of electrical engineers on this forum; what are the odds of that eh..?
Anyhow, BJ1234; as an experienced tradesman I assume you also noticed the outrageous Health & Safety violations in the fraudulent shuttle tile demo video?
I don't see how you can have missed them, really; Health & Safety is a huge issue in every workplace & as a tradesman you must be aware of this Fact.
Care to comment on why NASA would allow such blatant Criminal Negligence to occur?
-
Very nice, good stuff, lots of electrical engineers on this forum; what are the odds of that eh..?
Anyhow, BJ1234; as an experienced tradesman I assume you also noticed the outrageous Health & Safety violations in the fraudulent shuttle tile demo video?
I don't see how you can have missed them, really; Health & Safety is a huge issue in every workplace & as a tradesman you must be aware of this Fact.
Care to comment on why NASA would allow such blatant Criminal Negligence to occur?
What safety procedures should be followed for handling cold to the touch objects?
-
In case you missed it, BJ1234, here is the video in question.
I particularly like the pink/purple box full of lights that is allegedly a white-hot fire-brick..
Sorry; pink/purple-hot?
LOL!!!
Anyhow; Health & Safety violations galore for you to enjoy; as a tradesman you'll spot them all easily, won't you?
! (http://#)
-
Very nice, good stuff, lots of electrical engineers on this forum; what are the odds of that eh..?
Anyhow, BJ1234; as an experienced tradesman I assume you also noticed the outrageous Health & Safety violations in the fraudulent shuttle tile demo video?
I don't see how you can have missed them, really; Health & Safety is a huge issue in every workplace & as a tradesman you must be aware of this Fact.
Care to comment on why NASA would allow such blatant Criminal Negligence to occur?
What safety procedures should be followed for handling cold to the touch objects?
-
I have done residential and commercial electricity in the past, and I got paid for the work that I did. Now, I am an Industrial Electrician and I get paid for what I know. It is a world of difference. No union involved.
Also, sokarul, you are wrong. I work for an industrial plant.
Power plants are industrial plants. When a power plant trips, it will cost them a lot of money a second. It's also can be boring work when it's running correctly.
-
I have done residential and commercial electricity in the past, and I got paid for the work that I did. Now, I am an Industrial Electrician and I get paid for what I know. It is a world of difference. No union involved.
Also, sokarul, you are wrong. I work for an industrial plant.
Power plants are industrial plants. When a power plant trips, it will cost them a lot of money a second. It's also can be boring work when it's running correctly.
I fail to see the point of your post, unless you are actually agreeing with me for a change. Are you drunk posting again?
-
Haven't you got a meth-lab to run, socky-boy?
Hop to it then!
Anyhow; here is a video of a NASA tour.
The tourists are allowed to play around with allegedly fragile, white-hot materials with no training or safety precautions whatsoever.
Which is clearly criminally negligent.
Of course, the whole thing is Fraud; the oven, the cubes & the box are just shoddy stage-props filled with lights.
So no-one was actually in danger.
Again: Witness the Shitness...
! (http://#)
-
So if I use oven mitts for hot things, do I use refrigerator mitts for cold thing?
-
The tourists in the video aren't using ANY kind of mitts, socky-boy.
But they SHOULD be; H&S laws, you know?
Stick to the topic, tweeker-head.
-
What mitts do you wear to take a soda out of the refrigerator?
-
LOL!!!
Meth's a terrible drug, sock-arul; seek help asap!
-
Yeah I didn't think you needed protection to take a soda out of the refrigerator. Better luck next time kid.
-
'Better luck next time kid...'
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
The tourists in the video aren't using ANY kind of mitts, socky-boy.
But they SHOULD be; H&S laws, you know?
Stick to the topic, tweeker-head.
But why? It's not like the cubes are really hot, they have since cooled down enough that anyone can pick them up without hurting themselves. It's about as damgerous as you holding a warm pizza slice.
-
LOL!!!
They're allegedly still WHITE-HOT INSIDE, retard.
& EASILY-CRUSHABLE BY HAND, retard.
Remember agreeing to that, retard?
Which makes HANDLING them HAZARDOUS, retard.
& allowing people to HANDLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS without correct safety precautions is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, retard.
WTF is WRONG with you?
-
Drinks glasses can shatter into lethal razor sharp pieces and are easily crushable by hand.
This makes handling them hazardous.
People handle them without safety precautions everyday.
Get it yet Papa? Now go back under your bridge.
-
LOL!!!
They're allegedly still WHITE-HOT INSIDE, retard.
& EASILY-CRUSHABLE BY HAND, retard.
Remember agreeing to that, retard?
Which makes HANDLING them HAZARDOUS, retard.
& allowing people to HANDLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS without correct safety precautions is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, retard.
WTF is WRONG with you?
What does it mean for an object to be white hot?
-
Stop lying, fail-shill mainframes; this one won't go away.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
(http://#)
-
LOL!!!
They're allegedly still WHITE-HOT INSIDE, retard.
& EASILY-CRUSHABLE BY HAND, retard.
Remember agreeing to that, retard?
Which makes HANDLING them HAZARDOUS, retard.
& allowing people to HANDLE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS without correct safety precautions is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, retard.
WTF is WRONG with you?
What does it mean for an object to be white hot?
-
The cubes are allegedly still 2200C in their centres, retard; i.e. WHITE-HOT.
Retard.
This video REALLY has you shills rattled, don't it?
LOL!!!
So here it is again...
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
(http://#)
-
I see you're still missing the point.
A common drinks glass is very dangerous if handled incorrectly and you tried to crush it in you hand but you don't. You know to use just enough force to grip and lift it up.
The same goes for these cubes. They may by easily crushable but that is not the same as them disintegrating at the slightest touch. The guy in the lab demonstrated that they were perfectly safe if picked up correctly, in the same way as a glass is perfectly safe if picked up correctly.
-
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
-
LOL!!!
You really think you're onto a winner with your drinks glass, don't you, mainframes?
But you ain't.
Cos you know nothing about H&S regs.
People who do will take one look at the video & think 'Wtf?! That's ILLEGAL!'.
& you can't stop that with your rinky-dink quibbling...
Now f**k off.
-
It shocks me how people cannot see how pathetic those videos are with those so called glowing 2000 degree tiles. ;D
It's laughable how they're so porous that they supposedly soak up any amount of water as was shown in the other video and yet it makes no sense for them to be used as some kind of shuttle underbelly protector.
It's like telling someone that you've made them a super sponge life raft that will protect them from drowning because it soaks the water up over hours, not seconds and yet the same sponge in a so called lab can accept a jug of water in seconds.
Once that nonsense gets shown up, it comes down to coating one face of the sponge in a black waterproof/fireproof coating and everything's hunky dory. It's pathetic.
It's like Papa said. It's a silly con trick. It's as clear as day to anyone prepared to look and think.
The problem is, too many people prefer to live off magic.
Let me tell you people something. If these things did what they portray, then they would be put to use in many hazardous situations that occur, yet they don't get used. Why?
It's because they don't exist in how we are shown. Those so called other videos of blow torches against fire brick are exactly that. Firebrick of WEIGHT.
Put that under a so called shuttle and it would weigh ?.....well you get the idea.
For people to believe light polystyrene like tiles placed under a shuttle body and coated in black waterproof, so called fire resistant coating that can survive a so called atmospheric dense lift off and also a supposed re-entry fire ball, you need your head checking, unless you accept it with no more reality thought than your weekly comic, where you can fantasise about it being real but knowing that after a cold water swill of the face, it becomes exactly what you suspected. A fantasy story that will remain just that.
-
So in a nutshell you still don't understand thermodynamics, heat capacity, heat transfer and composite materials.
-
It shocks me how people cannot see how pathetic those videos are with those so called glowing 2000 degree tiles. ;D
It's laughable how they're so porous that they supposedly soak up any amount of water as was shown in the other video and yet it makes no sense for them to be used as some kind of shuttle underbelly protector.
Apparently you missed the part later on in that other video where the tour guide explains that the tiles get a waterproofing treatment so that they won't absorb water like a sponge.
-
It shocks me how people cannot see how pathetic those videos are with those so called glowing 2000 degree tiles. ;D
It's laughable how they're so porous that they supposedly soak up any amount of water as was shown in the other video and yet it makes no sense for them to be used as some kind of shuttle underbelly protector.
Apparently you missed the part later on in that other video where the tour guide explains that the tiles get a waterproofing treatment so that they won't absorb water like a sponge.
Actually no I didn't. I laughed at it and explained about the coating. Why did I laugh?
I laughed because coating a supposed tile like that still does not make it water proof when you consider that the tiles are supposedly stuck under the shuttle piece by piece, meaning the gaps are open to being filled with water vapour at speed not to mention absorbing the re-entry furnace which would also not allow it to dissipate due to the coating.
There's just too much wrong with the bullshit for it to be anything other than being bullshit.
Like I said, it's akin to making a raft out of hard sponge. Pathetic.
-
It shocks me how people cannot see how pathetic those videos are with those so called glowing 2000 degree tiles. ;D
It's laughable how they're so porous that they supposedly soak up any amount of water as was shown in the other video and yet it makes no sense for them to be used as some kind of shuttle underbelly protector.
It's like telling someone that you've made them a super sponge life raft that will protect them from drowning because it soaks the water up over hours, not seconds and yet the same sponge in a so called lab can accept a jug of water in seconds.
Once that nonsense gets shown up, it comes down to coating one face of the sponge in a black waterproof/fireproof coating and everything's hunky dory. It's pathetic.
It's like Papa said. It's a silly con trick. It's as clear as day to anyone prepared to look and think.
The problem is, too many people prefer to live off magic.
Let me tell you people something. If these things did what they portray, then they would be put to use in many hazardous situations that occur, yet they don't get used. Why?
It's because they don't exist in how we are shown. Those so called other videos of blow torches against fire brick are exactly that. Firebrick of WEIGHT.
Put that under a so called shuttle and it would weigh ?.....well you get the idea.
For people to believe light polystyrene like tiles placed under a shuttle body and coated in black waterproof, so called fire resistant coating that can survive a so called atmospheric dense lift off and also a supposed re-entry fire ball, you need your head checking, unless you accept it with no more reality thought than your weekly comic, where you can fantasise about it being real but knowing that after a cold water swill of the face, it becomes exactly what you suspected. A fantasy story that will remain just that.
Scepti, you could go to this your yourself if you are in the area. The tour is in the thermal protection facility in Kenedy space center in Florida. Anyone can take that tour. Do you think that when you enter the tour they hand you a fake video and pay you to keep quiet? Maybe you should go and find out, because if you are right this would expose the entire conspiracy.
-
The cubes are allegedly still 2200C in their centres, retard; i.e. WHITE-HOT.
Retard.
This video REALLY has you shills rattled, don't it?
LOL!!!
So here it is again...
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
So what makes the center white instead of red?
What gloves are required to take a soda out of a refrigerator?
-
O noez its sokarrul agann i am defeetd i am distroyd o noes o noes hellp mi hlp mii!!!11!!
LOL!!!
-
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
-
LOL!!!
It doesn't matter wehre the tourists are holding the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT cubes, idiot.
H&S regs state they shouldn't be holding them at all.
Unless they signed a legal waiver, that is...
So; did they sign a legal waiver indemnifying NASA from culpability in the case of personal injury?
If you can't answer then sod off...
-
What H&S regs? Please quote the regulation.
-
Why do you need the exact regulation number? Is it required for you to put it in your shill report? Can't you do a google search yourself? Or, do you always require other people to hold your hand while performing mundane tasks? This is getting ridiculous.
-
LOL!!!
It doesn't matter wehre the tourists are holding the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT cubes, idiot.
H&S regs state they shouldn't be holding them at all.
Unless they signed a legal waiver, that is...
So; did they sign a legal waiver indemnifying NASA from culpability in the case of personal injury?
If you can't answer then sod off...
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
-
Why do you need the exact regulation number? Is it required for you to put it in your shill report? Can't you do a google search yourself? Or, do you always require other people to hold your hand while performing mundane tasks? This is getting ridiculous.
It's required for papa to back up his claim. Not that you would know anything about backing up a claim.
-
Why? Is he going to actually look it up? Oh, that is right. It is called a stalling tactic to demand insignificant details, as if he has made a point. Why don't you pack it up, sokarul. You have been defeated 1 too many times. :o
-
Why do you need the exact regulation number? Is it required for you to put it in your shill report? Can't you do a google search yourself? Or, do you always require other people to hold your hand while performing mundane tasks? This is getting ridiculous.
I want Papa to demonstate why a waiver is in this are specifically required given the many object we encounter in public or business premises are very dangerous if used wrong. Hencey example of drinks glasses. Or perhaps a steak knife in a restaurant, if you grab that in the wrong way you could do yourself or others serious injury. Can't remember ever signing a waiver to go into a bar or restaurant.
So Papa needs to show why this instance is any different. So far nothing.
-
If someone throws a rock through your window, do you have to look up the specific law that was broken before you call the cops? This is really getting ridiculous. Perhaps you people should quit asking for specific laws and admit that it is criminal negligence to knowingly allow someone to handle an object with their bare hands that has enough heat energy to burn a hole in the floor and a half dozen floors below it. You can grasp at straws, derail, and do the rest of the stuff that you roundies are known for, but that does not change facts. Facts is Facts
-
If someone throws a rock through your window, do you have to look up the specific law that was broken before you call the cops? This is really getting ridiculous. Perhaps you people should quit asking for specific laws and admit that it is criminal negligence to knowingly allow someone to handle an object with their bare hands that has enough heat energy to burn a hole in the floor and a half dozen floors below it. You can grasp at straws, derail, and do the rest of the stuff that you roundies are known for, but that does not change facts. Facts is Facts
You don't have to, but the police will have to look up the exact broken law/laws. And there are also a set of comittable crimes that are more easily accessible and well known, that the police can arrest you for. In this are the only crime would be breaking the law, and if that is the crime then the exact law has to be cited. If someone throws a rock through your window you can report them for damaging property.
-
Why? Is he going to actually look it up? Oh, that is right. It is called a stalling tactic to demand insignificant details, as if he has made a point. Why don't you pack it up, sokarul. You have been defeated 1 too many times. :o
Papa made a claim and still hasn't back it up. Nothing else to it.
-
LOL!!!
It doesn't matter wehre the tourists are holding the FRAGILE, WHITE-HOT cubes, idiot.
Actually, that's pretty much the whole point of the demonstration. If you hold the white hot cube by the corners that aren't white hot, then it's perfectly safe to hold the otherwise white hot cube without any safety equipment.
Also, would you please knock it off with the personal attacks? You wouldn't want to get a warning from jroa, would you?
-
If someone throws a rock through your window, do you have to look up the specific law that was broken before you call the cops? This is really getting ridiculous. Perhaps you people should quit asking for specific laws and admit that it is criminal negligence to knowingly allow someone to handle an object with their bare hands that has enough heat energy to burn a hole in the floor and a half dozen floors below it. You can grasp at straws, derail, and do the rest of the stuff that you roundies are known for, but that does not change facts. Facts is Facts
You don't have to, but the police will have to look up the exact broken law/laws. And there are also a set of comittable crimes that are more easily accessible and well known, that the police can arrest you for. In this are the only crime would be breaking the law, and if that is the crime then the exact law has to be cited. If someone throws a rock through your window you can report them for damaging property.
So, in other words, it is de facto law, like murder and arson? If you see someone burning down a house, you do not need to look up the specific law to know that something bad is happening, amiright?
-
If someone throws a rock through your window, do you have to look up the specific law that was broken before you call the cops? This is really getting ridiculous. Perhaps you people should quit asking for specific laws and admit that it is criminal negligence to knowingly allow someone to handle an object with their bare hands that has enough heat energy to burn a hole in the floor and a half dozen floors below it. You can grasp at straws, derail, and do the rest of the stuff that you roundies are known for, but that does not change facts. Facts is Facts
It's pretty much common knowledge that throwing a rock through someone's window is a violation of one or more laws. Workplace safety regulations are not always common knowledge, and sometimes it's hard to know just what constitutes a violation without reference to the text of the rule supposedly being violated.
Speaking of violations, is there any chance that we can get you to do you job as a moderator and tell Papa Legba to tone down his aggressive posting style that clearly violates forum rules against personal attacks?
-
I would be a hypocrite if I did that.
-
I would be a hypocrite if I did that.
When has that stopped you before?
-
So, in other words, it is de facto law, like murder and arson? If you see someone burning down a house, you do not need to look up the specific law to know that something bad is happening, amiright?
Most people know the laws being broke there off the top of their head and people and property is obviously being harmed. In Papa Legba's excuse for a proof people are harmlessly holding cubes that are cool to the touch after being told how to hold them. No danger involved and unless they let toddlers near those cubes nobody would ever get hurt. If that somehow is illegal it requires more then just an assertion.
-
LOL!!!
What a bunch of lunatics...
Thanks for trying, jroa, but they're clearly beyond help.
Anyhow, I'm off to work now; think I'll just remove all the safety-barriers, warning signs & screening round the Welding Area, as I now know they're completely unnecessary,,,
No need to sign all those Hot Work Permits either; after all, nothing bad can happen whilst working with extreme temperatures can it?
So no need at all for Legal cover...
Thanks, crim-bot shills - you've made my day a lot easier; you're okay!
Toodle-pip, d**kheads.
LMFAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
What a bunch of lunatics...
Thanks for trying, jroa, but they're clearly beyond help.
Anyhow, I'm off to work now; think I'll just remove all the safety-barriers, warning signs & screening round the Welding Area, as I now know they're completely unnecessary,,,
No need to sign all those Hot Work Permits either; after all, nothing bad can happen whilst working with extreme temperatures can it?
So no need at all for Legal cover...
Thanks, crim-bot shills - you've made my day a lot easier; you're okay!
Toodle-pip, d**kheads.
LMFAO!!!
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. Theres a difference between holding the handle or the blade of a knife, and there is a difference between holding in the middle, on the surfaces or on the corners on that cube.
-
Good for you!
But it doesn't matter WHERE you hold the cubes; the point is that they are still 2200C in the middle, easily crushable by hand & thus HAZARDOUS MATERIALS to HANDLE.
I've told you this already; ergo your question HAS been answered.
& if the answer I gave did not fit your dishonest agenda, it does not mean you are entitled to a different answer.
Now, please answer my own question, which is this: Did the tourists in the video have to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of personal injury?
Of course, you will not answer; none of you have yet...
Which says all I need to know about you & your motivations here.
But keep up your lying, denying, diverting & derailing...
Cos it is LOL!!!
-
Good for you!
But it doesn't matter WHERE you hold the cubes; the point is that they are still 2200C in the middle, easily crushable by hand & thus HAZARDOUS MATERIALS to HANDLE.
I've told you this already; ergo your question HAS been answered.
& if the answer I gave did not fit your dishonest agenda, it does not mean you are entitled to a different answer.
Now, please answer my own question, which is this: Did the tourists in the video have to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of personal injury?
Of course, you will not answer; none of you have yet...
Which says all I need to know about you & your motivations here.
But keep up your lying, denying, diverting & derailing...
Cos it is LOL!!!
LOL!!!
What a bunch of lunatics...
Thanks for trying, jroa, but they're clearly beyond help.
Anyhow, I'm off to work now; think I'll just remove all the safety-barriers, warning signs & screening round the Welding Area, as I now know they're completely unnecessary,,,
No need to sign all those Hot Work Permits either; after all, nothing bad can happen whilst working with extreme temperatures can it?
So no need at all for Legal cover...
Thanks, crim-bot shills - you've made my day a lot easier; you're okay!
Toodle-pip, d**kheads.
LMFAO!!!
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. Theres a difference between holding the handle or the blade of a knife, and there is a difference between holding in the middle, on the surfaces or on the corners on that cube.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
(http://#)
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
(http://#)
You are stuck on repeat.
Did you figure out what it means to be white hot yet?
-
Already told you, shill; what's more YOU ALL AGREED WITH ME; the cubes are still 2200C in the middle when handled by the tourists.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
(http://#)
-
Already told you, shill; what's more YOU ALL AGREED WITH ME; the cubes are still 2200C in the middle when handled by the tourists.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
(http://#)
Good for you!
But it doesn't matter WHERE you hold the cubes; the point is that they are still 2200C in the middle, easily crushable by hand & thus HAZARDOUS MATERIALS to HANDLE.
I've told you this already; ergo your question HAS been answered.
& if the answer I gave did not fit your dishonest agenda, it does not mean you are entitled to a different answer.
Now, please answer my own question, which is this: Did the tourists in the video have to sign waivers indemnifying NASA from culpability in the event of personal injury?
Of course, you will not answer; none of you have yet...
Which says all I need to know about you & your motivations here.
But keep up your lying, denying, diverting & derailing...
Cos it is LOL!!!
LOL!!!
What a bunch of lunatics...
Thanks for trying, jroa, but they're clearly beyond help.
Anyhow, I'm off to work now; think I'll just remove all the safety-barriers, warning signs & screening round the Welding Area, as I now know they're completely unnecessary,,,
No need to sign all those Hot Work Permits either; after all, nothing bad can happen whilst working with extreme temperatures can it?
So no need at all for Legal cover...
Thanks, crim-bot shills - you've made my day a lot easier; you're okay!
Toodle-pip, d**kheads.
LMFAO!!!
Papa legba, where are the tourists holding the cube in the video? In the center, on the surfaces or on the corners?
I'll keep asking the same question until you answer it. Theres a difference between holding the handle or the blade of a knife, and there is a difference between holding in the middle, on the surfaces or on the corners on that cube.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
[/quote] (http://#)
-
What gloves do you use to take a soda out of the refrigerator?
-
Irrelevant.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
(http://#)
-
There are actually many reasons why we haven't answered:
1. You haven't provided any proof whatsoever that handling hot ceramic constitutes a hazardous activity regulated by law. As many people before have stated, handling a knife is way more dangerous (you could, after all, slit your throat and die within minutes, while the tiles at most will burn your hand, and perhaps lose a finger or two, tops. And Im not even sure of that).
2. You claim the video to be fake, but, why would NASA make a fake video on the guise of tourism? Don't you realize that that installation was (and possibly is still) open to the public for demonstrations? Does that make any kind of sense to you.
3. And last, and the answer you think you wanted to hear is: I don't know. And neither do you! So why don't you do the logical thing, and call the tour center yourself? I'm sure they pay someone a shitty wage so he has to sit through dozens of conspiranoics like you daily. Just call them, and tell us what do they think!
-
LOL!!!
The mighty conker weighs in now...
& strangely enough, he too knows absolutely nothing about H&S regs; what a surprise!
Plus, he also doesn't know if the tourists signed a waiver or not...
Thus, he added NOTHING to the debate except for his pseudo-authoritarian tone.
Ergo, he can f**k right off back where he came from until he DOES know something about these things.
Bye-bye, conker; don't bang your enormous head on the door on the way out!
-
LOL!!!
The mighty conker weighs in now...
& strangely enough, he too knows absolutely nothing about H&S regs; what a surprise!
Plus, he also doesn't know if the tourists signed a waiver or not...
Thus, he added NOTHING to the debate except for his pseudo-authoritarian tone.
Ergo, he can f**k right off back where he came from until he DOES know something about these things.
Bye-bye, conker; don't bang your enormous head on the door on the way out!
Of course I don't have any clue! I don't even live in the same continent. However, if I get it correct, you live in the USA. Then, why don't you get this info yourself? Why do you insist on using 4rth hand information instead of picking up the phone and getting to the source? If you call them, they will answer your questions. Unlike "zeteticists", I have no problem with admiting I don't know about something. The thing is, you don't know, either. If you did, you would have given us a source for your claim that hot ceramic with a safe place to handle is a dangerous material that requires some kind of waver. BUT. And here is the BUT. I don't have to believe EITHER that it IS safe to handle. It might be, it might not be. I don't know. And I don't know any US lawyer to confirm or deny your claim. I have asked a Spanish lawyer, and he shook his head, and told me it would be fine: "If there are worshops that let you make your own glass bottles, that NASA stuff can't be much more dangerous", were his words. But US law might be different. The burden of proof, ultimatelly, relies on you. And you haven't given any data, proof, or source on anything. Try doing that first, if you want anyone with a bit of science education to take you seriously. You are the guy who claims to know the truth. Share it with us, please, then.
-
"Of course I don't have any clue!"
Yeah; I noticed...
"However, if I get it correct, you live in the USA."
Well, you don't. So f**k off.
-
"Of course I don't have any clue!"
Yeah; I noticed...
"However, if I get it correct, you live in the USA."
Well, you don't. So f**k off.
Ok then, calls are out of the question, then. What about an email? I would even do it myself, but I doubt you would trust my 4rth hand info.
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
-
LOL!!!
You're not even allowed to pick up an empty box without a Manual Handling Certificate now, jackass.
I had to retake the stupid thing earlier this year & it took an entire afternoon.
So what the carny in the video told the tourists in no way constitutes 'adequate training'.
Did he warn them of the severity of the consequences if they gripped the cubes too hard & crushed them?
Did he have them practice on an unheated cube first?
No; he did not.
Very Naughty!
You lot know NOTHING about H&S regs.
You are clutching at straws...
This video is FAKE; deal with it.
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
-
LOL!!!
You're not even allowed to pick up an empty box without a Manual Handling Certificate now, jackass.
You might not be, but I am. In fact, I pick up empty boxes at work fairly regularly at work with no box handling certification at all.
I had to retake the stupid thing earlier this year & it took an entire afternoon.
Well then, I guess that it sucks to be you.
So what the carny in the video told the tourists in no way constitutes 'adequate training'.
It seemed adequate to keep any of the tourists from being injured.
Did he warn them of the severity of the consequences if they gripped the cubes too hard & crushed them?
I think that the consequences would be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, even without being told.
Did he have them practice on an unheated cube first?
No; he did not.
Very Naughty!
Yeah, it's a good thing that no one recorded it or posted a video for the whole world to see.
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
Yeah, I am sure the minimum wage tour guide had thousands of hours worth of training, markjo. ::) I know you are attempting to distract, derail, and disturb this conversation, markjo, but your little strawman tactics have little effect on me, markjo.
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
Yeah, I am sure the minimum wage tour guide had thousands of hours worth of training, markjo. ::) I know you are attempting to distract, derail, and disturb this conversation, markjo, but your little strawman tactics have little effect on me, markjo.
It took you thousands of hours to learn how to use an oven?
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
Yeah, I am sure the minimum wage tour guide had thousands of hours worth of training, markjo. ::)
What evidence do you have that the tour guide was a minimum wage employee? How do you know that he isn't a tech or engineer at that facility and the tour demos are just an occasional duty that he performs as needed? Also, what makes you think that "thousands of hours" worth of training are required to handle those white hot cubes?
I know you are attempting to distract, derail, and disturb this conversation, markjo, but your little strawman tactics have little effect on me, markjo.
Oh? I'm not the one making assumptions about what, if any, safety procedures are being violated. The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what went on before the events in the video. We don't know if the tourists received any information on the fragility of the tile material. We don't know if they were allowed to handle any room temperature tiles because we weren't there and the video doesn't cover that part of the tour. It's Papa Legba's strawman that's screaming that he didn't see it happen in the video, so no appropriate training or other safety measures were taken therefore the demo must be fake.
-
LOL!!!
Shills are so dumb...
I'm not writing for YOU; I KNOW you're pure disinfo & denial, so will NEVER allow yourselves to admit the Truth of what I say.
No; I'm writing for others reading this thread, many of whom will have personal experience of the strictness of H&S regs, & will be very perplexed both by what they see in the silly, fraudulent video & your bizarrely vehement denial of all the facts pertaining to it.
But keep up your Lies; cos the more you cling to them, the more they weaken your case...
Poor you!
Now; carry on Lying...
-
From your sources, how much energy, in joules, is required for the cubes to be crushed? If it's in the ballpark of 60 joules, yes, it is dangerous. That's about double the energy used for picking up an apple. Above that, you would have to intentionally crush it.
-
This is the 19th post, sock-puppet misero/markjo; do you think I don't know your game by now?
Just make another shitpost to get to 20, then we can turn a page & carry on...
Off you go, criminal time-wasting shill.
Plus: LOL!!!
-
LOL!!!
Shills are so dumb...
I'm not writing for YOU; I KNOW you're pure disinfo & denial, so will NEVER allow yourselves to admit the Truth of what I say.
No; I'm writing for others reading this thread, many of whom will have personal experience of the strictness of H&S regs, & will be very perplexed both by what they see in the silly, fraudulent video & your bizarrely vehement denial of all the facts pertaining to it.
Unless you've taken the tour yourself, you don't know what happened before the events of the video. You don't know the credentials of the person giving the demonstration. How can you claim to know the truth when you don't know many of the relevant details?
But keep up your Lies; cos the more you cling to them, the more they weaken your case...
Poor you!
Now; carry on Lying...
What lies? I've already told you that I haven't taken the tour, so I don't know what happened before the events of the video. I'm guessing that you've never taken the tour either, so you don't know the full story either, but that doesn't stop you from screaming "safety violation!!!"
-
STFU, markjo; nobody cares what you think...
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
(http://#)
-
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
If you don't like abortions, then you won't like those Planned Parenthood videos, but there's nothing "incriminating" about them, and the recent fervor to "defund" the organization is dumb and needs to go away soon.
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
Yeah, I am sure the minimum wage tour guide had thousands of hours worth of training, markjo. ::) I know you are attempting to distract, derail, and disturb this conversation, markjo, but your little strawman tactics have little effect on me, markjo.
It took you thousands of hours to learn how to use an oven?
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
But they did receive training before handling the cubes.
The tour guide said to pick the cube up only by the corners.
If the tourists follow the training provided, then no PPE is required.
Everyone in the video who handled the blocks did as they were trained and there were no injuries.
If no one that followed their training is harmed, then how do you prove negligence?
Just to let you know, that does not constitute as training in an industrial setting. Not in any one that I have ever been in, anyway. lol
Do you suppose that the tour guide was properly trained in handling the white hot cubes? I'm guessing that he was and he got by just fine handling them before allowing the tourists to do so (by which time the corners of the cubes had cooled even more).
Yeah, I am sure the minimum wage tour guide had thousands of hours worth of training, markjo. ::)
What evidence do you have that the tour guide was a minimum wage employee? How do you know that he isn't a tech or engineer at that facility and the tour demos are just an occasional duty that he performs as needed? Also, what makes you think that "thousands of hours" worth of training are required to handle those white hot cubes?
I know you are attempting to distract, derail, and disturb this conversation, markjo, but your little strawman tactics have little effect on me, markjo.
Oh? I'm not the one making assumptions about what, if any, safety procedures are being violated. The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what went on before the events in the video. We don't know if the tourists received any information on the fragility of the tile material. We don't know if they were allowed to handle any room temperature tiles because we weren't there and the video doesn't cover that part of the tour. It's Papa Legba's strawman that's screaming that he didn't see it happen in the video, so no appropriate training or other safety measures were taken therefore the demo must be fake.
Apparently, you believe that they pay a scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to guide tours, markjo? ::)
-
Nothing about this video makes sense from a practical, everyday view; it is a twisted mass of Fraud, LOL, Hoax & Fail.
That silly purple/pink box with the fluorescent coating that is allegedly white-hot is especially lulzy; as is the total lack of any evidence of extreme temperatures, such as Heat Wave Refraction...
It is clearly a shoddy conjuring trick, performed by those too ugly & talentless for Vegas, intended to fool those too brainwashed & gullible to Think, designed to uphold a gigantic FRAUD.
But carry on telling us otherwise, criminals; the more you do so, the dumber you look.
LOL!!!
-
the more you do so, the dumber you look.
Dammit! There goes another irony meter.....
-
Apparently, you believe that they pay a scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to guide tours, markjo? ::)
LOL!! You think that NASA pays their scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
-
Apparently, you believe that they pay a scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to guide tours, markjo? ::)
LOL!! You think that NASA pays their scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
Only way to keep them all quite you know.
-
NASA has no scientists; stop pretending it does.
It just has people like you...
Pimps, shills, idiots & Z-grade showbiz failures.
Like Adam Steltzner; Google him, neutrals...
Cos he is very, very LOL!!!
-
Apparently, you believe that they pay a scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to guide tours, markjo? ::)
LOL!! You think that NASA pays their scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
Are you claiming they are all interns making minimum wage that work for NASA, markjo? Do you have any sense of decency, markjo? You are making all roundies look like foolish idiots, when really it is just you and a couple of others.
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
Those aren't oven made to heat ceramics.
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
Those aren't oven made to heat ceramics.
Thank you, dipshit. Are you going to tell me what color the sky is next? ::)
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
Those aren't oven made to heat ceramics.
Thank you, dipshit. Are you going to tell me what color the sky is next? ::)
Are you going to compare the sky to a Honda lawnmower engine?
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
Those aren't oven made to heat ceramics.
Thank you, dipshit. Are you going to tell me what color the sky is next? ::)
Are you going to compare the sky to a Honda lawnmower engine?
Are you ever going to stay on subject, or do you find it gratifying to derail every thread with retarded remarks? Let me know, please.
-
I understand that they did not give you much training before assigning you to "oven watch duty" at your job, but, apparently you think that an industrial furnace is the same as an Easybake Oven, sokarul. ::)
We have a 1000 degree C oven in the lab. We didn't need 1000's of hours of training. Refractory metal auotclaves are nothing like ovens, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
At my previous job, we had aluminum furnaces and at my current job, we have a press that is bigger than most peoples houses that is heated with thermal oil that would instantly combust with the slightest introduction of oxygen. Do you think that they just let anyone go near those things, or do the companies provide lots of training before allowing people to approach, much less work on, this equipment?
Those aren't oven made to heat ceramics.
Thank you, dipshit. Are you going to tell me what color the sky is next? ::)
Are you going to compare the sky to a Honda lawnmower engine?
Are you ever going to stay on subject, or do you find it gratifying to derail every thread with retarded remarks? Let me know, please.
Are you dumb?
We were talking about training for an oven. You brought up an aluminum furnace and giant press. I was pointing out those had nothing to do with training for an oven. So YOU need to stay on topic.
-
Apparently, you believe that they pay a scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to guide tours, markjo? ::)
LOL!! You think that NASA pays their scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
Are you claiming they are all interns making minimum wage that work for NASA, markjo? Do you have any sense of decency, markjo? You are making all roundies look like foolish idiots, when really it is just you and a couple of others.
Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse me of strawman arguments. ::)
-
A few things in this thread that I find hilarious:
- Rockets/Space travel - Despite overwhelming evidence, there are people saying that rockets and space travel are impossible. Watch a rocket launch, look through a telescope, watch PBS, etc. *Fingers in ears* "Lalalalala"
- Ceramics - Like using ceramics to contain heat is a new thing. Whether keeping heat contained in a pottery furnace or keeping heat from reaching the guts of a space shuttle, the concept is the same... contain heat. There are numerous videos of people heating tiles and touching them. Shit, you can BUY YOUR OWN on E-bay and try it yourself. *Hands over eyes* "Nope-nope-nope"
- People claiming to know how Newton's 3rd Law is applied, yet clearly have no clue. I'm not a scientist, but I get it. *Bangs head on wall*
The more I read here, the more I think that 99% of the FEr's are trolling. I originally came here to troll, but now I see that the REr's are the ones being trolled. Bravo FES! Bravo!
-
A few things in this thread that I find hilarious:
Blah, blah, blah, fail, blah, lie, FE/RE/FE/RE, waffle, fail, blah-lie, yawn, snore, fail...
Therefore you are trolls!
To sum up; Hi there, Rayzor!
Now f**k off.
-
Who's that trip-trapping on my bridge....?
-
A few things in this thread that I find hilarious:
- Rockets/Space travel - Despite overwhelming evidence, there are people saying that rockets and space travel are impossible. Watch a rocket launch, look through a telescope, watch PBS, etc. *Fingers in ears* "Lalalalala"
here's no overwhelming evidence, except for those who are naive enough to buy into fantasy.
- Ceramics - Like using ceramics to contain heat is a new thing. Whether keeping heat contained in a pottery furnace or keeping heat from reaching the guts of a space shuttle, the concept is the same... contain heat. There are numerous videos of people heating tiles and touching them. Shit, you can BUY YOUR OWN on E-bay and try it yourself. *Hands over eyes* "Nope-nope-nope"
Buy your own eh? Did you buy one? No doubt you have and they work as told and are the real shuttle tiles. ::)
- People claiming to know how Newton's 3rd Law is applied, yet clearly have no clue. I'm not a scientist, but I get it. *Bangs head on wall*
Obviously you don't.
The more I read here, the more I think that 99% of the FEr's are trolling. I originally came here to troll, but now I see that the REr's are the ones being trolled. Bravo FES! Bravo!
You are here to troll you're doing it now, except, badly.
-
Let's turn the page...
-
LOL!!!
Job done...
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
(http://#)
-
We don't refuse to answer, we just don't know as we haven't been on the tour. If you're that interested why don't you contact the space centre and find out....?
-
LOL!!!
Job done...
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
(http://#)
What gloves do you wear to take a soda out of the refrigerator?
-
LOL!!!
Are the cubes refrigerated, mad-man sock-arul?
No.
So STFU.
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
This is not optional; it is a Legal Obligation.
& by allowing those members of the public to handle hazardous materials such as the white-hot, easily-crushable cubes without correct p.p.e, training, or any other safety measures whatsoever, that Duty Of Care, plus Health & Safety legislation, is being grossly violated in this video.
Which constitutes Criminal Negligence, if not Reckless Endangerment; FACT.
Unless the tourists in the video signed waivers indemnifying NASA in the case of personal injury, this video can be nothing other than FAKE.
So; DID the tourists sign waivers?
The NASA-cultists here refuse to answer; NOW WHY SHOULD THAT BE, I WONDER?
Give it up, shills... (http://#)
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Throw in some LOL's and call him
PooPoo Lol-gba or something like that ??? ??? ???
-
LOL!!!
Are the cubes refrigerated, mad-man sock-arul?
No.
So STFU.
Both are cold to the touch. Do I need gloves to pick up room temperature objects?
-
Are the cubes refrigerated, mad-man sock-arul?.
Both are cold to the touch.
ROFLMFAO!!!
You have made my day with that one, sock-arul; thank you!
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
Electric bulbs radiate a huge amount of light but don't radiate a lot of heat. Heat is only radiated if the wavelength falls in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Even the old incandescent bulbs, whilst hot to touch, didn't radiate huge levels of heat from their surface.
Pizza ovens and other electric heaters radiate mainly in the IR spectrum, which is why they ten to appear red as some EM creeps into the visible red part of the spectrum.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
The infrared light is very weak (Very few photons). You don't get grilled by sitting close to a campfire.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
The infrared light is very weak (Very few photons). You don't get grilled by sitting close to a campfire.
A campfire is a fraction of the temperature of the tile. Please, try again. :-\
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
The infrared light is very weak (Very few photons). You don't get grilled by sitting close to a campfire.
A campfire is a fraction of the temperature of the tile. Please, try again. :-\
The corners are a fraction of the temperature of a campfire. Please, use your brain.
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
The infrared light is very weak (Very few photons). You don't get grilled by sitting close to a campfire.
A campfire is a fraction of the temperature of the tile. Please, try again. :-\
The corners are a fraction of the temperature of a campfire. Please, use your brain.
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
-
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
But there is a highly effective insulator between their fingers and the hot part. It's like taking a really hot tray out of the oven with oven mits, the mits are insulators so you don't get burned.
Think yourself ::)
-
The fact is that NASA has a Duty Of Care towards members of the public who PAY for its tours.
It does. It doesn't allow the tourists to handle the cubes until the person giving the demo proves that the cube is safe to handle by handling it first. I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear.
Let us say you shills are right, and the heat energy is concentrated in the middle and the edges are room temperature. The fact that it is glowing in the center means that energy is radiating away from the center. The people would be putting their hands just inches away from Radiant Energy, markjo. You do realize that this is the way pizzas are baked, do you not? So, please explain how the magic energy is radiated in the form of light, but not heat, markjo?
I'm sorry, but do you not understand the concept of heat transfer as it relates to thermal insulation? Because of its large surface area, the edges radiate their heat very quickly. However, because because of silica's poor thermal conductivity and the abundance of dead air (a very good insulator), the heat inside the cube radiates very slowly.
You are describing thermal conductivity. I am discussing radiant energy transfer, markjo. ::) We can discuss convection as well, but there is obviously radiant energy because you can see it in the video.
Visible light and heat (infrared) are different wavelengths and radiate at different rates through different materials.
When visible light is present from something that is hot, infrared light is as well, markjo. Or, maybe you are claiming that the tile is lit using LEDs, lol.
The infrared light is very weak (Very few photons). You don't get grilled by sitting close to a campfire.
A campfire is a fraction of the temperature of the tile. Please, try again. :-\
The corners are a fraction of the temperature of a campfire. Please, use your brain.
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
Yes, and there is some very good insulation between the inner glowing part and the outer not glowing part where your fingers go. You do understand that insulation works against radiant heat, don't you?
-
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
But there is a highly effective insulator between their fingers and the hot part. It's like taking a really hot tray out of the oven with oven mits, the mits are insulators so you don't get burned.
Think yourself ::)
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
-
Since all flat earthers seem to avoid this at all cost, no matter how stupid they make themselves look;
A guide picks up the cube in the cooled, not-glowing corners to demonstrate how to hold the cube, and as extra safety he also tells the visitors to hold the cube in the cooled non-glowing corners. The cooled non-glowing corners are not dangerous in any way, they are neither sharp, corrosive or hot. Holding a not-so-dangerous object in a completely safe and protective way is not illegal anywhere. It would be more illegal to peel potatoes, since you put your fingers in a dangerous position. The cubes are held in a responsible, safe and protected way. You can do this tour yourself, and report them if you think they are breaking any law. There is nothing more to discuss about that in this thread.
-
People only need to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Simpler?
Ok. For every force applied and equal force is applied.
Simpler?
Ok, simpler. When you put something like...ermmm...a so called shuttle tile into an oven and it takes, supposedly a few hours to fully heat up to around 2000 degrees and then from this point on we are told that it loses it's heat slowly, then it has to follow logic by sight, right?
Take a look at the video. Take a look at the LARGE block. A few hours to heat through and a minute to cool, except for the glowing inner...by which time you should see the blatant bullshit with it. But...let's concentrate on those little blocks that do not burn bare hands.
Again, 2 hours top heat up to 2000 degrees. Take them out and they start to cool within seconds. But we are told they dissipate heat really slowly.
It would make sense to dissipate heat really slowly if the truth was the 2 hour heating up time, because, like I said. Action/reaction.
So if this is the case, then the corners of the blocks would not lose heat that quickly and also the glowing inner would naturally burn someone's hand extremely badly regardless of the corners being supposedly cool.
It's like telling someone to pick up a charcoal brick as the outside has spent and the inside is glowing. Just make sure you hold the edges. Yeah right. Come on for fu....fu.....Pete's sake.
Realistically what we see in that video defies the laws of action/reaction.
It has to be fake. there's no argument about it. It's fake. It's a clear con.
Papa and one or two other's have already pulled it to bits to show it's fake. I thought I'd add my bit in because people should stop being so easily led and naive with this crap.
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
The fibers don't transfer heat well (Conduction) and the fibers have plenty of air in between to stop convection. So no, it's not a problem at all.
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Since when did being inches away from a red hot object cause you to get burned? If your hand was an inch away from red hot iron then it would be hot but it wouldn't burn you unless you touch it.
People only need to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Simpler?
Ok. For every force applied and equal force is applied.
Simpler?
Ok, simpler. When you put something like...ermmm...a so called shuttle tile into an oven and it takes, supposedly a few hours to fully heat up to around 2000 degrees and then from this point on we are told that it loses it's heat slowly, then it has to follow logic by sight, right?
Take a look at the video. Take a look at the LARGE block. A few hours to heat through and a minute to cool, except for the glowing inner...by which time you should see the blatant bullshit with it. But...let's concentrate on those little blocks that do not burn bare hands.
Again, 2 hours top heat up to 2000 degrees. Take them out and they start to cool within seconds. But we are told they dissipate heat really slowly.
It would make sense to dissipate heat really slowly if the truth was the 2 hour heating up time, because, like I said. Action/reaction.
So if this is the case, then the corners of the blocks would not lose heat that quickly and also the glowing inner would naturally burn someone's hand extremely badly regardless of the corners being supposedly cool.
It's like telling someone to pick up a charcoal brick as the outside has spent and the inside is glowing. Just make sure you hold the edges. Yeah right. Come on for fu....fu.....Pete's sake.
Realistically what we see in that video defies the laws of action/reaction.
It has to be fake. there's no argument about it. It's fake. It's a clear con.
Papa and one or two other's have already pulled it to bits to show it's fake. I thought I'd add my bit in because people should stop being so easily led and naive with this crap.
Think about how the tiles would have heated up in the oven, the outside would rapidly get very hot and then the heat would slowly conduct to the center over a long time. When taken out the tiles rapidly cool on the outside but the heat on the inside slowly conducted away. Even when the entire surface was cool to the touch the inside of the cube was still very hot for a while. I see no laws being broken, and you cen even take this tour yourself if you are in the area (the Thermal Protection facility in the Kennedy Space Center in Florida USA).
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
The fibers don't transfer heat well (Conduction) and the fibers have plenty of air in between to stop convection. So no, it's not a problem at all.
You just skipped over the radiant part, didn't you? Once again, if you can see light, then energy is radiating quite easily.
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Since when did being inches away from a red hot object cause you to get burned? If your hand was an inch away from red hot iron then it would be hot but it wouldn't burn you unless you touch it.
It's not like your hand warming up when getting it near the 200 degree burner on your mom's stove. Nor is it like sitting near a campfire. It is more than 1000 degrees. What are you not understanding?
Why do you people think that black smiths us long tongs to handle hot metal? It is because if their had was close to the metal, they would quickly become burned.
-
It's not like your hand warming up when getting it near the 200 degree burner on your mom's stove. Nor is it like sitting near a campfire. It is more than 1000 degrees. What are you not understanding?
Why do you people think that black smiths us long tongs to handle hot metal? It is because if their had was close to the metal, they would quickly become burned.
Just like the corners, the entire surface of the cube cooled down albeit not as much. It is no longer 1,000 degrees. I remind you that this is a tour that anyone can take if they are in the area.
-
It's not like your hand warming up when getting it near the 200 degree burner on your mom's stove. Nor is it like sitting near a campfire. It is more than 1000 degrees. What are you not understanding?
Why do you people think that black smiths us long tongs to handle hot metal? It is because if their had was close to the metal, they would quickly become burned.
Just like the corners, the entire surface of the cube cooled down albeit not as much. It is no longer 1,000 degrees. I remind you that this is a tour that anyone can take if they are in the area.
The sides have not cooled enough to not be glowing, have they? That means radiant energy is still transferring.
-
The sides have not cooled enough to not be glowing, have they? That means radiant energy is still transferring.
Yes, but the sides are clearly less then 1,000 degrees.
-
The sides have not cooled enough to not be glowing, have they? That means radiant energy is still transferring.
Yes, but the sides are clearly less then 1,000 degrees.
How can you tell the temperature just by looking at a video? Please, tell us, oh wise learned one.
-
Thanks, jroa; this video is by far the best source of LOLs on this thread yet.
Let's look at it again & behold the bullshit...
Purple/pink hot firebricks!
Magic cubes!
Magic tongs!
No health & safety whatsoever!
No evidence of heat refraction!
Etc!
LMFAO!!!
(http://#)
-
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
But there is a highly effective insulator between their fingers and the hot part. It's like taking a really hot tray out of the oven with oven mits, the mits are insulators so you don't get burned.
Think yourself ::)
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Have you ever seen a clear oven mitt?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/719rdVcdd%2BL._SX355_.jpg)
Different wavelengths of radiant energy (visible light and infrared) will radiate at different rates through the same material. The same material may be transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared light.
-
None of the tourists in the video are wearing oven mitts, markjo.
Or any form of p.p.e. to protect against 2200C heat whatsoever...
So STFU about them, shill.
-
The sides have not cooled enough to not be glowing, have they? That means radiant energy is still transferring.
Yes, but the sides are clearly less then 1,000 degrees.
How can you tell the temperature just by looking at a video? Please, tell us, oh wise learned one.
The fact that they didn't burn their hands. Remember that this is a tour, so anyone in the vicinity can go there, get on the tour and pick up the cubes themselves. And the video was not made by NASA anyways, but by a visitor.
-
The inner part, just inches from their fingers, is still radiating lots of energy. Think yourself. ::)
But there is a highly effective insulator between their fingers and the hot part. It's like taking a really hot tray out of the oven with oven mits, the mits are insulators so you don't get burned.
Think yourself ::)
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg (http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Have you ever seen a clear oven mitt?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/719rdVcdd%2BL._SX355_.jpg)
Different wavelengths of radiant energy (visible light and infrared) will radiate at different rates through the same material. The same material may be transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared light.
lol, markjo. This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? ::)
(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
-
Masre_b8r: The fact they didn't burn their hands shows the video is FAKE, dingbat!
Because the cubes & the box & everything else in the video is A SHODDY CONJURING TRICK.
& I love your little get-out clause at the end; 'not made by NASA...'
Yeah, right; good criminals ALWAYS have alibis at hand...
LOL!!!
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
The fibers don't transfer heat well (Conduction) and the fibers have plenty of air in between to stop convection. So no, it's not a problem at all.
You just skipped over the radiant part, didn't you? Once again, if you can see light, then energy is radiating quite easily.
How hot is red light? And no, the sides aren't glowing anymore.
-
lol, markjo. This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? ::)
(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
Not in the visible spectrum, but I'm willing to guess that it would glow quite nicely in the infrared range.
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
The fibers don't transfer heat well (Conduction) and the fibers have plenty of air in between to stop convection. So no, it's not a problem at all.
You just skipped over the radiant part, didn't you? Once again, if you can see light, then energy is radiating quite easily.
How hot is red light? And no, the sides aren't glowing anymore.
According to this chart, the color temperature of the sides is around 2000K, sokarul. ::)
(http://www.seesmartled.com/images/general/led-color-temperature.jpg)
-
If you can see light, then it is not insulating radiant energy, now is it? Oven mitts block conductive, radiant, and to an extent, convective energy transfer. Hold a flashlight up to an oven mitt and you will not see very much light penetrating it, because mitt is blocking it.
Do you people even know what radiant energy is? I feel like I am speaking to a class room full of 1st graders, or paid disinformation agents.
Are the corners of the cubes glowing? No they are not.
No, but their hand is just inches away from parts that are glowing. Please, just stop it. You are making your side sound dumb. I thought you liked science?
The fibers don't transfer heat well (Conduction) and the fibers have plenty of air in between to stop convection. So no, it's not a problem at all.
You just skipped over the radiant part, didn't you? Once again, if you can see light, then energy is radiating quite easily.
How hot is red light? And no, the sides aren't glowing anymore.
According to this chart, the color temperature of the sides is around 2000K, sokarul. ::)
(http://www.seesmartled.com/images/general/led-color-temperature.jpg)
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
-
lol, markjo. This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? ::)
(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
Not in the visible spectrum, but I'm willing to guess that it would glow quite nicely in the infrared range.
Yes, markjo, I am sure that the amount of infrared light emitted by the 125 degree C cookie sheet is anywhere close to the amount of IR light emitted by the 2000 degree C tile, lol.
Are you going to show us pictures of monkeys next? ??? I think you need to lay off the sauce, if you know what I mean. ::)
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
I ask an nonsensical question because your rebuttal was wrong. You claimed that the red light next to someone's finger when picking up the cube mattered. I showed that it did not.
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
I ask an nonsensical question because your rebuttal was wrong. You claimed that the red light next to someone's finger when picking up the cube mattered. I showed that it did not.
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
I ask an nonsensical question because your rebuttal was wrong. You claimed that the red light next to someone's finger when picking up the cube mattered. I showed that it did not.
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
So what if there is a lot of IR light being radiated? It's not like it's going to burn their hands. If you think otherwise, you have to prove it.
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
-
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
Not everything that's red hot will burn you when your hand gets close to it, even if that thing is highly conductive unlike the tiles. Learn to use that thing filling the cavity in your head, assuming it's there of course.
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
I ask an nonsensical question because your rebuttal was wrong. You claimed that the red light next to someone's finger when picking up the cube mattered. I showed that it did not.
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
So what if there is a lot of IR light being radiated? It's not like it's going to burn their hands. If you think otherwise, you have to prove it.
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
Did your drunk friends have their hands inches away from the fire? No, because they would have gotten burnt. Oh, and do you really expect us to believe that the campfire was 2200C? OK, next anecdote or straw man distraction excuse please.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
-
I asked what the temperature of red was, not what temperature it's emitted from in an LED.
lol, you asked a nonsensical question, so I gave a nonsensical answer. The temperature of the LED is not really 2000k. That is the color temperature of it. Please, learn a little about the science of light and then come back to talk to the big kids.
I ask an nonsensical question because your rebuttal was wrong. You claimed that the red light next to someone's finger when picking up the cube mattered. I showed that it did not.
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
So what if there is a lot of IR light being radiated? It's not like it's going to burn their hands. If you think otherwise, you have to prove it.
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
Did your drunk friends have their hands inches away from the fire? No, because they would have gotten burnt. Oh, and do you really expect us to believe that the campfire was 2200C? OK, next anecdote or straw man distraction excuse please.
I never stated that the campfire was 2200C. Are you hallucinating? That would explain a lot about you.
And I had my fingers inches away from the fire, since I was in charge of the fire. Thee fire had to be as hot as possible since we were cooking a lot of food, and used a giant pot with filled with lot's of water and food. Therefore I kept managing the fire almost all the time to make it as hot and efficient as possible. And I can say I didn't get burned.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
-
I said if something that is that temperature is emitting that much visible light, then it is also emitting a lot of IR light. In other words, there would be a lot of radiant energy being emitted. Are you ever going to learn to read?
Not everything that's red hot will burn you when your hand gets close to it, even if that thing is highly conductive unlike the tiles. Learn to use that thing filling the cavity in your head, assuming it's there of course.
Apparently, you do not even understand how a toaster works.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
-
Come on; let's laugh at the incriminating video again!
Those magical cubes & their Alice in Wonderland physics are a veritable Fistful of Fail...
(http://#)
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
You are stupid that doesn't understand this yet. On the outside there is a flowing air current, heated air flows away and cold air moves in, get's heated up and flows away. On the inside of the cube, the air is still, it has nowhere to move. Air is really bad at dissipating heat, and if it can't flow away to leave space for cold air then the cooling is going to be really slow.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
You are stupid that doesn't understand this yet. On the outside there is a flowing air current, heated air flows away and cold air moves in, get's heated up and flows away. On the inside of the cube, the air is still, it has nowhere to move. Air is really bad at dissipating heat, and if it can't flow away to leave space for cold air then the cooling is going to be really slow.
You are describing convection heat transfer when the discussion is about the radiant energy emitting from the tile. You are as dumb as markjo, who kept going on about conduction. I see now that knowing about thermodynamics and physics is not a prerequisite for be an RE'er.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The heat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
You are stupid that doesn't understand this yet. On the outside there is a flowing air current, heated air flows away and cold air moves in, get's heated up and flows away. On the inside of the cube, the air is still, it has nowhere to move. Air is really bad at dissipating heat, and if it can't flow away to leave space for cold air then the cooling is going to be really slow.
You are describing convection heat transfer when the discussion is about the radiant energy emitting from the tile. You are as dumb as markjo, who kept going on about conduction. I see now that knowing about thermodynamics and physics is not a prerequisite for be an RE'er.
The discussion is about why the visitors don't burn their hands. The IR is not near enough to burn their hands, and the corners have no (considerable) heat to transfer.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.. I am
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
You are stupid that doesn't understand this yet. On the outside there is a flowing air current, heated air flows away and cold air moves in, get's heated up and flows away. On the inside of the cube, the air is still, it has nowhere to move. Air is really bad at dissipating heat, and if it can't flow away to leave space for cold air then the cooling is going to be really slow.
You are describing convection heat transfer when the discussion is about the radiant energy emitting from the tile. You are as dumb as markjo, who kept going on about conduction. I see now that knowing about thermodynamics and physics is not a prerequisite for be an RE'er.
The discussion is about why the visitors don't burn their hands. The IR is not near enough to burn their hands, and the corners have no (considerable) heat to transfer.
Why does this black smith keep his hand so far away from the glowing part?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blacksmith_Lebanon_%28Petteri_Sulonen_-_Flickr%29_cca2.0.jpg)
-
Here's the video again: note that the alleged 2200C of the cubes is around 2000C hotter than a baking tray...
That's a LOT!
& the carny in the video says the cubes dissipate heat VERY FAST...
Dissipate WHERE, exactly?
Not into the tourist's fingers, somehow, impossibly...
Cos NASA's Imagineers would never let you get hurt, suckers.. I am
Savour the Fraud, cultists!
(http://#)
Heat is dissipated into the air.
So heat will dissipate into Air, but will not dissipate into Human Fingers?
Oookay...
More Voodoo Physics, Master_b8r?
Or are you just blotto again?
After a few seconds the corners have no more heat to dissipate, so there is not heat to dissipate into the fingers of the visitors. Too much for your brain to understand?
The heat dissipates after a few seconds, yet the glowing part does not dissipate heat? lol, you people are really getting desperate for excuses now.
That is what we have been telling you over and over and over and over and over [...] again. You didn't understand until now? You're really slow.
The inside can't dissipate the to the air. That's why it takes so much time. Again. And again. Have we told you this.
So, hear we go full circle. You claim it is not dissipating heat, yet it is radiating energy? Are you really this dumb, or is this just an act, like your shtick or something?
You are stupid that doesn't understand this yet. On the outside there is a flowing air current, heated air flows away and cold air moves in, get's heated up and flows away. On the inside of the cube, the air is still, it has nowhere to move. Air is really bad at dissipating heat, and if it can't flow away to leave space for cold air then the cooling is going to be really slow.
You are describing convection heat transfer when the discussion is about the radiant energy emitting from the tile. You are as dumb as markjo, who kept going on about conduction. I see now that knowing about thermodynamics and physics is not a prerequisite for be an RE'er.
The discussion is about why the visitors don't burn their hands. The IR is not near enough to burn their hands, and the corners have no (considerable) heat to transfer.
Why does this black smith keep his hand so far away from the glowing part?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blacksmith_Lebanon_%28Petteri_Sulonen_-_Flickr%29_cca2.0.jpg)
Because metal is an very good conductor of heat. The metal would be very hot further up the tool.
Why can't I cook food under a lightbulb that glows much brighter?
-
Why does this black smith keep his hand so far away from the glowing part?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blacksmith_Lebanon_%28Petteri_Sulonen_-_Flickr%29_cca2.0.jpg)
Because metal is an very good conductor of heat. The metal would be very hot further up the tool.
If it is such a good conductor, then why is he touching the metal with his bare hand? Oh, wait, you are talking about conduction again and I am talking about radiation.
Why can't I cook food under a lightbulb that glows much brighter?
Because you do not have an Easy Bake Oven. ::)
(http://blogs.bgsu.edu/jaberry/files/2010/09/EasyBakeOven-11.jpg)
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven? Are you just shitting me now? I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down. :-[
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven? Are you just shitting me now? I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down. :-[
^ This is not how you evade an argument kids, if you're smart.
I never spoke anything about a campfire in that whole post, or wether I burned my fingers or not. Here's the quote since you completely ignored it:
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
-
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
-
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.
Your eyes are made of silica now? Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica? You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make.
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.
Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. ::)
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.
Your eyes are made of silica now? Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica? You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make.
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.
Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. ::)
We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.
Your eyes are made of silica now? Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica? You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make.
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.
Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. ::)
We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.
lol, you were the one who brought up not burning your fingers at a campfire. You really are drunk, are you not?
-
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.
Your eyes are made of silica now? Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica? You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make.
I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces. Maybe you can help here?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.
Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. ::)
We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.
lol, you were the one who brought up not burning your fingers at a campfire. You really are drunk, are you not?
My post:
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
Your next post:
The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven? Are you just shitting me now? I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down. :-[
As you can see I didn't say anything about a campfire. I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.
-
lol, Master_Evar, why do you post the original post of you talking about you and your friends at the campfire instead of being deceitful?
-
lol, Master_Evar, why do you post the original post of you talking about you and your friends at the campfire instead of being deceitful?
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
Quote the words campfire and friends from that quote, because I certainly can't find them. Or better, highlight them in the quote.
-
I really wish you would quit lying. Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace. Liar.
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
-
lol, markjo. This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? ::)
(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
Not in the visible spectrum, but I'm willing to guess that it would glow quite nicely in the infrared range.
Yes, markjo, I am sure that the amount of infrared light emitted by the 125 degree C cookie sheet is anywhere close to the amount of IR light emitted by the 2000 degree C tile, lol.
The amount of infrared emitted by the cookie sheet is irrelevant, that the clear silicone can protect you from it is. The point that I'm trying to make is that a material can be transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared light (heat). In other words, just because you can see the light doesn't mean that you're going to feel the heat if that insulating material is opaque to infrared.
-
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
I really wish you would quit lying. Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace. Liar.
Damn you're slow. As I SAID:
I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.
That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
-
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
I really wish you would quit lying. Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace. Liar.
Damn you're slow. As I SAID:
I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.
That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
\
So, you are admitting that you are lying?
-
I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.
I really wish you would quit lying. Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace. Liar.
Damn you're slow. As I SAID:
I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.
That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
\
So, you are admitting that you are lying?
So you are admitting that you are an idiot?
Stop digressing, please, MODERATOR.
Let's continue from before you started digressing and evading:
And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.
Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.
Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.
The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.
lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube. Does the light need a conductor or convection currents? No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation. Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.
No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.
And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.
I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video. You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. ::)
The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.
Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.
-
You all bore me now; let's move on...
The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.
& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.
So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?
They really loved the stuff; why?
Learning is Fun!
-
You all bore me now; let's move on...
The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.
& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.
So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?
They really loved the stuff; why?
Learning is Fun!
It is a lightweight material, and has a better structural strength per unit of mass than most materials.
-
You all bore me now; let's move on...
The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.
& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.
So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?
They really loved the stuff; why?
Learning is Fun!
For the same reasons that the airplane industry uses so much of it; because aluminum alloys can be made light and strong. NASA can use so much of it in their spacecraft because they put a lot of time and effort in thermal protection systems.
http://www.aluminum.org/product-markets/aircraft-aerospace (http://www.aluminum.org/product-markets/aircraft-aerospace)
-
LOL!!!
I think I've just shown how pathetically fraudulent NASA's 'thermal protection systems' are!
& I didn't even get deeply into the subject; in the past they've used such 'advanced' systems as layers of cork & fibreglass...
They are Useless.
Anyhow; the wing leading edges, nose-cone & other parts of the SR-71 spy plane had to be made of titanium (melting point 1668C; a full 1000C higher than aluminium) in order to withstand the 350+C heat-friction caused by travelling at 3,000+ mph.
But aluminium is perfectly fine for NASA's contraptions even though they travel at up to 8 times that velocity?
8 x 350 = what, exactly?
I will tell you what it equals; it equals ROFLMFAO at anyone dumb enough to buy what NASA sells!!!
-
And that's why aluminium is used for the airframe which isn't subjected to heat, and why thermal tiles and carbon-carbon panels for the outer skin which is.
-
O rly?
And what was the outer skin of the Saturn V made of, mainframes?
Well, you asked me for proof that you are a Liar; thanks for providing it with minimum effort!
Just LOL!!!
-
The Saturn V didn't undergo re-entry.....
-
Anyhow; the wing leading edges, nose-cone & other parts of the SR-71 spy plane had to be made of titanium (melting point 1668C; a full 1000C higher than aluminium) in order to withstand the 350+C heat-friction caused by travelling at 3,000+ mph.
But aluminium is perfectly fine for NASA's contraptions even though they travel at up to 8 times that velocity?
Actually, the nose and wing leading edges of the shuttle are made of reinforced carbon-carbon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon
-
The Saturn V didn't undergo re-entry.....
LOL!!!
Neither did the SR-71 you idiot.
The point is that heat-friction from the atmosphere is a big problem for Real hypersonic aircraft...
But not Imaginary ones, like the Saturn V.
Which, lest we forget, also allegedly weighed 3,000 lol-tastic TONNES.
Now; do me some math: what is 8 x 350?
Oh, & markjo; while looking good on paper, reinforced carbon-carbon (lol! So good they named it twice...) has Big structural problems in high-speed aerospace applications...
But you wouldn't know about them, being a dumb disinfo-spammer that's utterly uninterested in Truth.
Anyway; glad you're all coming round - I'll start on your silly fake ISS again soon, cos I dug up some lulzy info on the subject that's sure to get you all leaping round your shill-cages, shrieking & flinging poo like the jizz-monkeys you are.
It'll be ACE!
-
Oh, & markjo; while looking good on paper, reinforced carbon-carbon (lol! So good they named it twice...) has Big structural problems in high-speed aerospace applications...
Would you care to explain some of those "Big structural problems" and tell us why they can't be overcome?
-
LOL!!!
Would YOU care to explain why you can't use google & tell us why you're a time-wasting disinfo-spammer?
Carbon-carbon is very brittle & porous; not the most desirable characteristics for a material you plan to smash through the atmosphere, & all the moisture contained therein (i.e. CLOUDS before you ask...) at tens of thousands of miles per hour.
Anyhow; the Saturn V had an aluminium outer skin yet allegedly travelled at 8 times the velocity of the SR-71, which had to be made of titanium to cope with the heat-friction it created...
Bit of a problem there, no?
Meh; whatever... You'll just ignore it, won't you?
Think I'll get some dinner now, whilst you work out your troll-tactics for avoiding my point but still looking like you have something worthwhile to say...
Have fun, criminal!
-
Papa you retard.
When the Saturn V is travelling at hypersonic speeds it is so high up in the atmosphere the air density is very low and doesn't cause any significant heating. The SR-71 travels at high altitude but well below the altitude at which Saturn v hits hypersonic speeds and there is still significant air density to cause frictional heating.
-
LOL!!!
Would YOU care to explain why you can't use google & tell us why you're a time-wasting disinfo-spammer?
Because it's not my job to do your research.
Carbon-carbon is very brittle & porous; not the most desirable characteristics for a material you plan to smash through the atmosphere, & all the moisture contained therein (i.e. CLOUDS before you ask...) at tens of thousands of miles per hour.
Yes, RCC is somewhat brittle, but less so than many other ceramics. I'm just not sure why you think that RCC is porous. I'm also not sure why you think that the shuttle was traveling through clouds at "tens of thousands of miles per hour".
Anyhow; the Saturn V had an aluminium outer skin yet allegedly travelled at 8 times the velocity of the SR-71, which had to be made of titanium to cope with the heat-friction it created...
To which part of the Saturn V are you referring?
Bit of a problem there, no?
If you're referring to the first stage, then no, it's not really a problem at all. If you're referring to the command module, then you're just plain wrong as it used stainless steel.
Meh; whatever... You'll just ignore it, won't you?
No, you're the one who ignores pretty much anything that contradicts your ranting.
-
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
Like I mentioned, here is a different story. I was working non union, was making 50% of what a union electrician was making. My health insurance was part of my benefits, if I wanted to cover my wife and kids, it would have been X a month. thankfully I wasn't married at the time, with no dental or vision.
After joining the union and going through the apprenticeship, I over doubled my pay rate, had an annuity contribution of 2 dollars per hour, gained health insurance that included dental and vision that cost nothing monthly, didn't lose it while unemployed, and other benefits that I didn't have prior.
I believe if you were in my position, you would have decided to join also, and if I were in yours, I probably would not have joined.
If you are ever curious about moving down south, let me know. The worst part about my job is occasionally having to climb ladders, the un-climate controlled conditions that you have to endure, and boredom. Other than that, it is a sweet job.
Thanks. Seems like a sweet gig you have. Worst part of my current job is changing brushes on traction motors and generators. Locomotives get pretty greasy you know. But in the year and a half I have been there, I believe I have shown promise and have been getting more and more complex troubleshooting issues. Others who have been there longer get thrown at the dirty jobs since they lack the skills to figure things out from the prints and thinking things through.
Do you get to drive the locomotives, test drives or whatever?
-
If you're referring to the command module, then you're just plain wrong as it used stainless steel.
LOL!!!
The outer skin of the C.M. was allegedly made of aluminium; anyone who can use google (unlike yourself, incomprehensibly) knows this.
So; your tactic is just plain LYING, is it?
Disappointing, yet to be expected...
Because it really is all you have left, isn't it, pathetic thwarted disinfo-thing?
& it's gonna get worse, criminal scum; for I am nowhere near out of ammo yet.
Nor am I out of lols, either; thus: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Suck it up, Marine!
-
Markjo is half correct. The heat shield at the base of the command module is made from stainless steel, while the conical top section is made from aluminium.
-
When the Saturn V is travelling at hypersonic speeds it is so high up in the atmosphere the air density is very low and doesn't cause any significant heating. The SR-71 travels at high altitude but well below the altitude at which Saturn v hits hypersonic speeds and there is still significant air density to cause frictional heating.
The cruising velocity of the SR-71 is 3,000+mph at 85,000 feet/16 miles/25km.
I can not find ANY information ANYWHERE about the velocity of the Saturn V at the same altitude.
Which is in itself a huge red flag.
But, as orbital escape velocity is 24,500 mph, then it should at least be going at more than an EIGHTH of the required velocity when it is a FOURTH of the way there, should it not?
After all, Real rockets accelerate FAST, as we have seen...
Now; either provide the information on the Saturn V's velocity at 25km altitude, from a reputable source, or STFU.
Oh, & no, markjo is NOT 'half-correct'; he is a WHOLE liar.
Like you.
Now spam them numbers, creep.
-
I get full benefits, including short and long term disability, 401k with matching, profit sharing, health and dental, ect. I still do not see the advantage of being in a union, but, as I said, I never have been, so maybe I am missing something.
Like I mentioned, here is a different story. I was working non union, was making 50% of what a union electrician was making. My health insurance was part of my benefits, if I wanted to cover my wife and kids, it would have been X a month. thankfully I wasn't married at the time, with no dental or vision.
After joining the union and going through the apprenticeship, I over doubled my pay rate, had an annuity contribution of 2 dollars per hour, gained health insurance that included dental and vision that cost nothing monthly, didn't lose it while unemployed, and other benefits that I didn't have prior.
I believe if you were in my position, you would have decided to join also, and if I were in yours, I probably would not have joined.
If you are ever curious about moving down south, let me know. The worst part about my job is occasionally having to climb ladders, the un-climate controlled conditions that you have to endure, and boredom. Other than that, it is a sweet job.
Thanks. Seems like a sweet gig you have. Worst part of my current job is changing brushes on traction motors and generators. Locomotives get pretty greasy you know. But in the year and a half I have been there, I believe I have shown promise and have been getting more and more complex troubleshooting issues. Others who have been there longer get thrown at the dirty jobs since they lack the skills to figure things out from the prints and thinking things through.
Do you get to drive the locomotives, test drives or whatever?
Yes, I even get to ring the bell and blow the horn.
-
Yet you know NOTHING about Health & Safety Regs, even though you claim to be a Union man...
Yeah; right.
Now f**k off.
-
Papa - the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity so not quite sure why you're using that as a calculation basis.
Anyway. The Saturn V will be at least double the altitude ( about 50km) when it hits the same speed as the SR-71.
Didn't take long to find velocity and altitude profile graphs. Suggest you google better.
-
Papa - the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity .
So how did it get to the f**king Moon, retard?
WTF is WRONG with you?!?
-
If you're referring to the command module, then you're just plain wrong as it used stainless steel.
LOL!!!
The outer skin of the C.M. was allegedly made of aluminium; anyone who can use google (unlike yourself, incomprehensibly) knows this.
*sigh* OK, so the CM was made from a fair bit of aluminum. So what? Again, that's what the thermal protection system is for.
The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum "face sheet". The central heat shield consisted of 40 individual panels interspersed with several holes and openings for the reaction control engines and after-compartment equipment access. The central compartment structure consisted of an inner aluminum face sheet with a steel honeycomb core, a glass-phenolic ablative honeycomb heat shield, a layer of q-felt fibrous insulation, a pore seal, a moisture barrier, and a layer of aluminized PET film thermal strips.[citation needed]
The aft heat shield consisted of four brazed honeycomb panels, four spot-welded sheet metal fairings, and a circumferential ring. The fairing segments were attached to the honeycomb panels and ring with conventional fasteners. The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were then thermally bonded to the inner skin in a giant autoclave. The aft heat shield was nearly identical to the central, except no alluminized film layer was applied.
The cruising velocity of the SR-71 is 3,000+mph at 85,000 feet/16 miles/25km.
No, the top speed of the SR-71 is 2200 mph.
I can not find ANY information ANYWHERE about the velocity of the Saturn V at the same altitude.
Which is in itself a huge red flag.
??? Why should that be a red flag? What does the top speed of the SR-71 have to do with the Saturn V?
BTW, the first stage burns out at an altitude of about 43 miles and a velocity of about 6200 mph.
-
Yet you know NOTHING about Health & Safety Regs, even though you claim to be a Union man...
Yeah; right.
Now f**k off.
LOL
You are just mad that my conversation about locomotives is more interesting than anything you post.
LOL
-
Oh God, you disgust me , markjo...
if the top speed of the SR-71 were only 2,200mph it actually makes it WORSE for NASA; cos the heating problems from air-friction would still be the same, yet the velocities they occur at would be reduced by 30%!
Also, how could a plane flying at only 2,200mph be immune to A.A. Rocket interception if rockets were as fast & efficient as you & NASA claim?
You've lost, markjo; admit it...
Rockets are SHIT & cannot go to 'space'.
Man up, Marine!
& 'Union Man' BJ' F**K OFF.
-
Oh God, you disgust me , markjo...
if the top speed of the SR-71 were only 2,200mph it actually makes it WORSE for NASA; cos the heating problems from air-friction would still be the same, yet the velocities they occur at would be reduced by 30%!
Did you ever notice that the Saturn V looks kinda like a really big pencil while the SR-71 doesn't? The aerodynamics of the two are completely different, therefore the aerodynamic stresses and heating will be different for the two.
Also, how could a plane flying at only 2,200mph be immune to A.A. Rocket interception if rockets were as fast & efficient as you & NASA claim?
Who said that the SR-71 was immune to AA rocket interception? The main reason that the SR-71 was never shot down is because the air is too thin for the aerodynamic control surfaces of most of the Soviet aintiaircraft missiles. If any of those missiles had thrust vectoring, then it may well have been a different story.
-
The aerodynamics of the two are completely different, therefore the aerodynamic stresses and heating will be different for the two.
Agreed.
The aerodynamics of the SR-71 are beautifully designed, with titanium used at the most vulnerable parts of the structure...
Whilst the Saturn V is a hideous, lashed-up aluminium & mild-steel Joke.
Those stepped collars between the stages are NOT in any way correctly streamlined & would create BIG problems from heat-friction.
Especially as they are made from wafer-thin aluminium sheeting...
The V2 was modeled after a 7.92mm boat-tailed Mauser bullet; the most streamlined design known at the time...
But the Saturn V?
NASA just made that shit up; cos they do not give a f**k about Realism.
Really, markjo; go muster your sock-puppet army to save your ass - cos you're getting murdered here on your own.
Serves you right, though, you c**t.
-
The aerodynamics of the two are completely different, therefore the aerodynamic stresses and heating will be different for the two.
Agreed.
The aerodynamics of the SR-71 are beautifully designed, with titanium used at the most vulnerable parts of the structure...
Whilst the Saturn V is a hideous, lashed-up aluminium & mild-steel Joke.
Those stepped collars between the stages are NOT in any way correctly streamlined & would create BIG problems from heat-friction.
Especially as they are made from wafer-thin aluminium sheeting...
The V2 was modeled after a 7.92mm boat-tailed Mauser bullet; the most streamlined design known at the time...
But the Saturn V?
NASA just made that shit up; cos they do not give a f**k about Realism.
Really, markjo; go muster your sock-puppet army to save your ass - cos you're getting murdered here on your own.
Serves you right, though, you c**t.
Missiles look a lot like rockets and they work just fine. In fact: the first space missions were launched on ICBM's. Unless you think that missiles don't exist then you have to accept that the aerodynamics of rockets work. You can't have it both ways.
-
Missiles look a lot like rockets and they work just fine.
LOL!!!
Retard Alert!
How old are you, exactly, retard?
LMFAO!!!
-
Those stepped collars between the stages are NOT in any way correctly streamlined & would create BIG problems from heat-friction.
I'd like to see the details of your analysis that lead you to that conclusion.
-
Why does this black smith keep his hand so far away from the glowing part?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blacksmith_Lebanon_%28Petteri_Sulonen_-_Flickr%29_cca2.0.jpg)
Fake. Photoshopped. Does not even look remotely realistic.
-
Papa - the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity .
So how did it get to the f**king Moon, retard?
WTF is WRONG with you?!?
Please define 'Escape Velocity' for me and you'll see why you just made youself like an ignorant moron.
-
lol, markjo. This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? ::)
(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/bubble-wrap-oven-mitt-2.jpg)
Yet another obviously unreal photograph from Jroa. Do you expect us to believe these laughable and obviously faked images? That oven is clearly stone cold
-
It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
I own a machine that could very easily be used as one, especially if you give me a meteorite. I've used it as such in testing, to confirm that it was robust enough. 2015 may be too soon, but by 2055 you could get your wish.
-
Papa - the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity .
So how did it get to the f**king Moon, retard?
WTF is WRONG with you?!?
Please define 'Escape Velocity' for me and you'll see why you just made youself like an ignorant moron.
LOL!!!
I read that as 'please help me escape the hole I just dug for myself', mainframes.
So No, I will NOT define escape velocity for you...
YOU said 'the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity'; YOU are the one looking like an ignorant moron.
Stay that way, sucker...
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
LOL!!!
I read that as 'please help me escape the hole I just dug for myself', mainframes.
So No, I will NOT define escape velocity for you...
YOU said 'the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity'; YOU are the one looking like an ignorant moron.
Stay that way, sucker...
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
I actually agree with mainframes, and so does google and every rocket scientist who ever lived. If you think they are all wrong then please give us your definition. The think about the definition of a word is that if everyone thinks that it is one way then it is that way.
-
LOL!!!
OF COURSE you agree with mainframes...
You're a sock-puppet & that's what sock-puppets are for ffs!
How old are you again, mikeman?
-
Papa - I'll say this again.
The Saturn V does not reach escape velocity and if you knew the definition you would understand why.
I'll be generous though, to reach orbit around Earth requires a lower velocity than escape velocity.
-
LOL!!!
The Saturn V did not just orbit the earth, retard; it allegedly escaped earth's orbit & went on to orbit the stupid Moon.
& it was still made of aluminium, which melts at 660C & fails in airframe applications at 350-450C...
& weighed 3,000 impossible & lulzy tonnes.
Like you & mikeman, it is a Joke.
Ergo: LMFAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
The Saturn V did not just orbit the earth, retard; it allegedly escaped earth's orbit & went on to orbit the stupid Moon.
& it was still made of aluminium, which melts at 660C & fails in airframe applications at 350-450C...
& weighed 3,000 impossible & lulzy tonnes.
Like you & mikeman, it is a Joke.
Ergo: LMFAO!!!
The moon is still in orbit around the earth and therefore the Satrurn V is still in orbit around Earth as well.
-
How old are you again, mikeman?
As of today I am 18.
-
How old are you again, mikeman?
As of today I am 18.
LOL!!!
Took you a while to dig through all your posts & find out when you said your birthday was, didn't it, sock-puppet?
I do like making you shills work for your corn!
Enjoy your pretend birthday anyway, dingus.
The moon is still in orbit around the earth and therefore the Satrurn V is still in orbit around Earth as well.
LOL!!!
You mean the Saturn V, dyslexia-face?
But the Earth itself is in orbit round the Sun; so really the Saturn V is orbiting that, is it not?
Where will your strange-loop bullshit end?
LMFAO!!!
What a joke you both are...
-
The sun is also in orbit around the galactic core and the Galaxy around the local cluster.
-
The sun is also in orbit around the galactic core and the Galaxy around the local cluster.
Yes; we already know you have created a Strange Loop to hide from your Lies in, mainframes...
Well done; shilling 101!
-
The sun is also in orbit around the galactic core and the Galaxy around the local cluster.
Yes; we already know you have created a Strange Loop to hide from your Lies in, mainframes...
Well done; shilling 101!
Well, since you went there first it makes you the shill, according to yourself.
-
LOL!!!
& the strange loops continue!
Mainframes; Mikeman; Master_b8r; all names beginning with 'M'...
Sock-puppet fiasco!
Listen; mainframes said that the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity.
I wanted to know how, if this is so, it gained enough VELOCITY to ESCAPE Earth orbit & enter Lunar orbit?
Mainframes then said that when in orbit around the Moon, the Saturn V was still in fact in orbit round the Earth.
He is an Idiot & a Liar & this part of the debate is OVER.
Now STFU.
& LOL!!!
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
I will let you try to figure out your mistake yourself... ;)
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
The fact that the object is in orbit actually proves that it hasn't reached escape velocity.....
-
Master_b8r just made THREE useless posts in FIVE minutes on 'flat earth general' alone...
LOL!!!
Spam-bot detected.
Mikeman does the same btw...
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
The fact that the object is in orbit actually proves that it hasn't reached escape velocity.....
I wish you roundies would actually try to learn something about your own theories. Here is the definition of Escape Velocity, straight from NASA's own .gov website. Perhaps you are going to start calling your own space scientists liars now?
escape velocity is, by definition, that velocity required at a given location to establish a parabolic orbit.
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
The fact that the object is in orbit actually proves that it hasn't reached escape velocity.....
I wish you roundies would actually try to learn something about your own theories. Here is the definition of Escape Velocity, straight from NASA's own .gov website. Perhaps you are going to start calling your own space scientists liars now?
escape velocity is, by definition, that velocity required at a given location to establish a parabolic orbit.
Do you know what type of orbit that the moon has?
-
How old are you again, mikeman?
As of today I am 18.
Youy didn't expect Papa to call you out right now, did you. ;D
18 years of age folks. Let's wish Mikeman a happy coming of age birthday; one he nearly forgot about until Papa reminded him . ;D
Anyway...what does Mikeman do on his special birthday. His 18th birthday where the cheese is mature?
He comes to the flat Earth society forum and spends more hours arguing against free thinkers and making sure world indoctrinated so called belief's are adhered to.
Most young mormons are on a missionary mission but Mikeman is on internet forum guard duty, making sure that people who look in are quickly pushed away from thinking for themselves.
Happy eighte......happy twen....happy thirt.....happy fort.....happy fif. ...oh bollocks. Happy birthday for whenever it is and however old you are in reality, Mikeman. ;D
-
Do you know what type of orbit that the moon has?
According to your satanic NASA scientists, it has a tidal locked orbit. Why do you ask?
-
Papa - the moon is in orbit around the earth and so the Saturn V has never left Earth orbit.
You still clearly don't know what escape velocity is.....
Actually, the fact that it was orbiting means that it reached escape velocity.
If an object attains escape velocity, but is not directed straight away from the planet, then it will follow a curved path... this object's speed at any point in the orbit will be equal to the escape velocity at that point
The fact that the object is in orbit actually proves that it hasn't reached escape velocity.....
I wish you roundies would actually try to learn something about your own theories. Here is the definition of Escape Velocity, straight from NASA's own .gov website. Perhaps you are going to start calling your own space scientists liars now?
escape velocity is, by definition, that velocity required at a given location to establish a parabolic orbit.
Apologies. Typically when we talk about an orbit we are describing an orbit with an eccentricity of less than 1 in which the orbiting object will follow an elliptical shaped orbit. It is the orbit that all planets, moons and satellites follow.
A parabolic orbit is rather different as its eccentricity is exactly 1 and this means that the end of the orbital path reaches infinity, meaning the object effectively never returns hence the name escape velocity.
The fact remains that the Saturn V does not reach escape velocity meaning Papas velocity assumption is incorrect. The Saturn V reaches hypersonic velocities at far higher altitudes than the SR-71, with air densities being so low that frictional heating effects do not cause any issues.
-
Do you know what type of orbit that the moon has?
According to your satanic NASA scientists, it has a tidal locked orbit. Why do you ask?
I can tell you that it starts with elliptical and ends with orbit. And I can also tell you it doesn't begin with parabolic.
-
Apologies. Typically when we talk about an orbit we are describing an orbit with an eccentricity of less than 1 in which the orbiting object will follow an elliptical shaped orbit. It is the orbit that all planets, moons and satellites follow.
A parabolic orbit is rather different as its eccentricity is exactly 1 and this means that the end of the orbital path reaches infinity, meaning the object effectively never returns hence the name escape velocity.
The fact remains that the Saturn V does not reach escape velocity meaning Papas velocity assumption is incorrect. The Saturn V reaches hypersonic velocities at far higher altitudes than the SR-71, with air densities being so low that frictional heating effects do not cause any issues.
Perhaps you are confusing escape velocity with escape orbit?
-
No Jroa, unlike you I actually know what I'm talking about.
Escape velocity is the velocity required to establish a parabolic orbit, which will allow an object to reach an infinite distance to earth. At escape velocity the object will have kinetic energy exactly equal and opposite to the gravitational potential energy.
The term orbit used by the layperson is an elliptical orbit.
-
The fact remains that the Saturn V does not reach escape velocity meaning Papas velocity assumption is incorrect. The Saturn V reaches hypersonic velocities at far higher altitudes than the SR-71, with air densities being so low that frictional heating effects do not cause any issues.
Yes, mainframes; YOU'RE right, whilst myself, jroa, wikipedia & even bloody NASA are all WRONG.
Nothing to see here; move along, frantic & demented Thought-Policeman at work!
You have completely lost it today, mainframes; & it is very, very LOL indeed!!!
-
No it's simple as the fact that Jroa and Papa don't understand the difference between the velocity required for a standard orbit and that required to achieve escape velocity.
For example:
Low earth orbit velocity is approx 7km/s
Earth escape velocity is approx 11km/s
-
No it's simple as the fact that Jroa and Papa don't understand the difference between the velocity required for a standard orbit and that required to achieve escape velocity.
For example:
Low earth orbit velocity is approx 7km/s
Earth escape velocity is approx 11km/s
You forgot to list all the other orbital velocities that the lying satanists at NASA claim. This is so funny watching you guys pull your pats up while frothing at the mouth. Have you ever considered that you might have a mental malfunction?
-
Papa Legba and jroa, these links might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8#Parameter_summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumlunar_trajectory
-
Papa Legba and jroa, these links might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8#Parameter_summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumlunar_trajectory
Why, because it makes it true when Grampa say so?
-
No it's simple as the fact that Jroa and Papa don't understand the difference between the velocity required for a standard orbit and that required to achieve escape velocity.
For example:
Low earth orbit velocity is approx 7km/s
Earth escape velocity is approx 11km/s
You forgot to list all the other orbital velocities that the lying satanists at NASA claim. This is so funny watching you guys pull your pats up while frothing at the mouth. Have you ever considered that you might have a mental malfunction?
Says the person who lives so far out from reality that he couldn't recognise fact and truth if they slapped him in the face.
There are a million different types of orbital velocity that could be listed. I chose the two that were pertinent to our conversation to differentiate between escape velocity and what you thought was escape velocity but was in fact low earth orbit velocity.
-
There are a million different types of orbital velocity that could be listed. I chose the two that were pertinent to our conversation to differentiate between escape velocity and what you thought was escape velocity but was in fact low earth orbit velocity.
So; the Saturn V stayed in low earth orbit instead of going to the Moon?
F**king tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist!
-
There are a million different types of orbital velocity that could be listed. I chose the two that were pertinent to our conversation to differentiate between escape velocity and what you thought was escape velocity but was in fact low earth orbit velocity.
So; the Saturn V stayed in low earth orbit instead of going to the Moon?
F**king tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist!
Papa - we were discussing the velocity that a Saturn V would be travelling through the atmosphere to compare to the velocity and altitude of the SR-71. It stands to reason that this velocity would be somewhere between zero and low earth orbit velocity. The whole point was to correct Papa who believed it was between zero and escape velocity. Either way the Saturn V is at a much higher altitude and a far lower air density when travelling at the same speed as the SR-71 and therefore does not suffer from frictional heating.
I never said Saturn V stayed in low earth orbit but the discussion at hand was related to the flight up to earth orbit insertion. The Saturn V is held in this orbit for a period before the burn for trans lunar injection. At this point the velocity through the atmosphere does not matter because the Saturn V had already left the atmosphere.
And if you want to discuss trans lunar injection then the burn simply increases the elliptical orbit such that the loci is at same distance as the lunar orbit radius so the spacecraft intercepts the moon as it travels in orbit around the earth. The space craft still has not achieved escape velocity from earth.
-
No it's simple as the fact that Jroa and Papa don't understand the difference between the velocity required for a standard orbit and that required to achieve escape velocity.
For example:
Low earth orbit velocity is approx 7km/s
Earth escape velocity is approx 11km/s
You forgot to list all the other orbital velocities that the lying satanists at NASA claim. This is so funny watching you guys pull your pats up while frothing at the mouth. Have you ever considered that you might have a mental malfunction?
Says the person who lives so far out from reality that he couldn't recognise fact and truth if they slapped him in the face.
There are a million different types of orbital velocity that could be listed. I chose the two that were pertinent to our conversation to differentiate between escape velocity and what you thought was escape velocity but was in fact low earth orbit velocity.
Oh, so now there are a baggillion of them? I gave up looking it up when your own scientists could not figure out the difference between velocity and speed. They are supposed to be learned, but use the two terms interchangeably, apparently.
-
There are a million different types of orbital velocity that could be listed. I chose the two that were pertinent to our conversation to differentiate between escape velocity and what you thought was escape velocity but was in fact low earth orbit velocity.
So; the Saturn V stayed in low earth orbit instead of going to the Moon?
F**king tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist!
The Moon is in orbit of the Earth, and therefore you never have to leave orbit to get to it. I don't see what's so hard to understand here.
-
The space craft still has not achieved escape velocity from earth.
Well, both wikipedia & NASA disagree with you, so why don't you f**k off & argue the toss with THEM, you pompous, puffed-up Lying toad?
& despite all your disruptive Lies, the Saturn V is STILL a lashed-up mild steel & sheet aluminium farce-machine that would be torn to bits by atmospheric drag & heat-friction/compression, IF it could even get off the launch-pad...
Which it COULDN'T, cos it allegedly weighed 3,000 tonnes ffs & NO rocket, or ANY other kind of flying machine, that heavy can possibly get off the ground.
EVER.
So take your all phantasmagorical sci-fi space-nonsense & give it a 'trans-lunar injection' right up your whacked-out jacksy, crackpot!
LMFAO - at tinfoil-hatted YOU!!!
-
The space craft still has not achieved escape velocity from earth.
Well, both wikipedia & NASA disagree with you, so why don't you f**k off & argue the toss with THEM, you pompous, puffed-up Lying toad?
& despite all your disruptive Lies, the Saturn V is STILL a lashed-up mild steel & sheet aluminium farce-machine that would be torn to bits by atmospheric drag & heat-friction/compression, IF it could even get off the launch-pad...
Which it COULDN'T, cos it allegedly weighed 3,000 tonnes ffs & NO rocket, or ANY other kind of flying machine, that heavy can possibly get off the ground.
EVER.
So take your all phantasmagorical sci-fi space-nonsense & give it a 'trans-lunar injection' right up your whacked-out jacksy, crackpot!
LMFAO - at tinfoil-hatted YOU!!!
Neither Wikipedia or NASA states that Saturn-V has reached escape velocity. Stop lying trolling shill.
-
escape velocity is, by definition, that velocity required at a given location to establish a parabolic orbit.
Wow - master_b8r's going hard-core with the Lying now!
None of this escape-velocity clap-trap affects the Fact that the Saturn V was a lashed-up Fake, incapable of even taking-off, mind...
But as long as you criminals divert from that vital Fact you don't care how deranged you look, do you?
LOL!!!
-
escape velocity is, by definition, that velocity required at a given location to establish a parabolic orbit.
Wow - master_b8r's going hard-core with the Lying now!
None of this escape-velocity clap-trap affects the Fact that the Saturn V was a lashed-up Fake, incapable of even taking-off, mind...
But as long as you criminals divert from that vital Fact you don't care how deranged you look, do you?
LOL!!!
See? Nowhere does it says that Saturn-V reached escape velocity, troll.
-
LOL!!!
But it DOES imply that the Saturn V could not achieve orbit without also achieving escape velocity.
Logic's not your strong suit, is it, criminal?
We've already established that...
Anyhow; this is post 19; just get on with turning the page & trying to close the chapter on the appalling cluster-f**k of lulz & fail you've created here, which you are desperately trying to bluff your way out of with sheer chutzpah...
Just LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
LOL!!!
But it DOES imply that the Saturn V could not achieve orbit without also achieving escape velocity.
Logic's not your strong suit, is it, criminal?
We've already established that...
Anyhow; this is post 19; just get on with turning the page & trying to close the chapter on the appalling cluster-f**k of lulz & fail you've created here, which you are desperately trying to bluff your way out of with sheer chutzpah...
Just LMFAO - at YOU!!!
It does not imply anywhere that Saturn V could not achieve orbit without also achieving escape velocity. You posted the quote yourself and nowhere do I see the name Saturn V.
-
LOL!!!
You've turned the page now, criminal; you can give up on your ritualistic self-humiliation.
Neutrals should take a look at what these crackpots were saying on the previous three pages if they want a good laugh though; mainframes went full retard & it was hilarious!
In the meantime, I shall move serenely on...
I have stated in the threads about the silly fake ISS that the light-in-the-sky the criminals all insist is a manned space-station (lol!) could well be a trackable near-earth object, such as a large meteor or similar naturally-occuring space-debris.
Well; the criminals were strangely silent on the subject, so I did some research & discovered hoax & lols aplenty...
We'll get to them later, but first I must ask; could the light-in-the-sky be a naturally-occuring trackable n.e.o.?
If not, why not?
-
Are we still on this escape velocity thing? I already provided you with evidence from NASA. Well, if you are calling NASA liars, then here is the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
The J-2 engine is reignited to propel the spacecraft into translunar trajectory (speed of 24,500 mph) before finally being discarded.
That works out to 10.95 km/s. So, what is the escape velocity for a rocket?
a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the east requires an initial velocity of about 10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape
::)
-
I just checked out the Encyclopedia Brittanica & that also unambiguously states the phony Saturn V achieved escape velocity...
Okay, jroa; there's clearly plenty of LOLs left in this subject; the silly fake light-in-the-sky ISS can wait for now.
Over to you, tin-foil hatted conspiratards mainframes & master_b8r...
LOL!!!
-
Are we still on this escape velocity thing? I already provided you with evidence from NASA. Well, if you are calling NASA liars, then here is the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
The J-2 engine is reignited to propel the spacecraft into translunar trajectory (speed of 24,500 mph) before finally being discarded.
That works out to 10.95 km/s. So, what is the escape velocity for a rocket?
a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the east requires an initial velocity of about 10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape
::)
You are getting somewhere. But according to wikipedia the velocity the J-2 achieved relative to earth was 10.4 km/s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection[/url]]For the Apollo lunar missions, the restartable J-2 engine in the third (S-IVB) stage of the Saturn V rocket performed TLI. This particular TLI burn lasted approximately 350 seconds, providing 3.05 to 3.25 km/s (10,000 to 10,600 ft/s) of delta-v, at which point the spacecraft was traveling at approximately 10.4 km/s (34150 ft/s) relative to the Earth.
So we have 2 sources that states different velocities.
Therefore, I have found another source that agrees with my source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_1824_Translunar_Injection.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_1824_Translunar_Injection.htm)
And it happens to be a chart of all Apollo (Using Saturn-V) missions' translunar injection profiles. Notice that the velocities are all roughly 34,200 feet per second, which translates to 10.4 km/s.
-
Also, wikipedia states that escape velocity from LEO is roughly 10.9 km/s, and so does a few other sources.
-
You are getting somewhere.
Indeed he is, psychopath...
But YOU aren't; not unless the writers of the Encyclopedia Britanicca are WRONG & you know more about the Saturn V than them, that is...
So; ARE the writers of the Encyclopedia Britanicca WRONG, master_b8r?
& DO you know more about the Saturn V than them?
There is no other Logical Conclusion to be drawn; so either answer honestly or be dismissed.
-
You are getting somewhere.
Indeed he is, psychopath...
But YOU aren't; not unless the writers of the Encyclopedia Britanicca are WRONG & you know more about the Saturn V than them, that is...
So; ARE the writers of the Encyclopedia Britanicca WRONG, master_b8r?
& DO you know more about the Saturn V than them?
There is no other Logical Conclusion to be drawn; so either answer honestly or be dismissed.
Quote please. Maybe YOU are MISUNDERSTANDING or IGNORANT?
-
LOL!!!
Yeah, right; like you can't google 'www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) Saturn V escape velocity'.
Everyone else can, though; & they will all see that you are the 'misunderstanding & ignorant' one.
Deliberately so, too; thus you are dismissed as a Liar.
Goodbye!
-
BTW, if any neutrals are wondering what this is all about, 3 pages ago mainframes made the following ludicrously fallacious comment & he, mikeman & master_b8r have all been desperately trying to justify it since, even though wikipedia, The Smithsonian, Encyclopedia Britannica & even NASA all disagree with them.
Papa - the Saturn V never reaches escape velocity .
They are all clearly Insane, but it's been mighty LOL watching them all squirm.
I must also note that mainframes used the present tense about a machine that has not been in use for over 40 years; he's a hopeless case, really...
LOL!!!
-
Papa - we were clearly talking about the flight from the ground into low earth orbit as we were discussing the velocity profile vs altitude profile to compare the likely frictional heating from the air.
Either way the Saturn V still doesn't reach escape velocity even in the trans lunar injection. How do we know this? Because the TLI was designed to intersect the lunar orbit at locus of the elliptical orbit established by the TLI.
Earth escape velocity from low earth orbit = 10.9 km/s
Trans Lunar Injection velocity post burn = 10.4km/s
And if you are reduced to nitpicking my use of present tense then you really do have no real argument.
-
Also, wikipedia states that escape velocity from LEO is roughly 10.9 km/s, and so does a few other sources.
I just showed a claim by the Smithsonian that the Saturn V reached a speed of 10.95 km/s. Now, you are saying that the escape velocity from LEO is 10.9 km/s. Are you trying to help me? You just stated that it was going fast enough for escape velocity. ;D
-
Also, wikipedia states that escape velocity from LEO is roughly 10.9 km/s, and so does a few other sources.
I just showed a claim by the Smithsonian that the Saturn V reached a speed of 10.95 km/s. Now, you are saying that the escape velocity from LEO is 10.9 km/s. Are you trying to help me? You just stated that it was going fast enough for escape velocity. ;D
the velocity the J-2 achieved relative to earth was 10.4 km/s
Learn to read (AGAIN!)
Another source:
[url]http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm[/url
Also, the LEO escape velocity differs kinda greatly depending on where you are within the LEO parameters.
-
the Saturn V still doesn't reach escape velocity...
So; the Encyclopedia Britannica, wikipedia, the Smithsonian & NASA themselves are all WRONG, whilst you, the Mighty Mainframes, are RIGHT?
LOL!!!
You can keep repeating yourself as long as you like, but you really should bear in mind that every single neutral out there will by now have googled 'Saturn V escape velocity' & be wondering wtf is wrong with your brain, Mr. tin-foil-hat nut-job...
As for me, I've always known you are utterly full of s**t; so all I will add is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Anyhoo; wanna talk about the ISS & naturally-occuring trackable n.e.o's yet?
It's a lulzy subject, I promise...
-
Papa just got the shit kicked out of him. I'm surprised he would even show is face again.
-
LOL!!!
Yeah; me, jroa, the Smithsonian, wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica & NASA: we ALL got our asses kicked bad, didn't we?!?
You are just hilarious, sulky little psycho sock-arul; this subject gets better & better...
ROFLMFAO!!!
Btw; the Saturn V was a total Fake & couldn't possibly function as claimed...
So all this 'escape velocity' bollocks is moot anyway.
Just fyi, criminals...
When you're ready to discuss the ISS & trackable, naturally-occurring n.e.o's let me know.
-
Also, wikipedia states that escape velocity from LEO is roughly 10.9 km/s, and so does a few other sources.
I just showed a claim by the Smithsonian that the Saturn V reached a speed of 10.95 km/s. Now, you are saying that the escape velocity from LEO is 10.9 km/s. Are you trying to help me? You just stated that it was going fast enough for escape velocity. ;D
the velocity the J-2 achieved relative to earth was 10.4 km/s
Learn to read (AGAIN!)
Another source:
[url]http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm[/url
Also, the LEO escape velocity differs kinda greatly depending on where you are within the LEO parameters.
I find it odd that your scientists give so many conflicting statements about what escape velocity is. Do you find it odd? This alone does not help your case any.
In addition, I just found a source claiming that the Saturn V was in fact in LOE for several orbits before firing the last bit of fuel to get to the moon and another source that says the velocity was 10.8 km/s on the way to the moon. Still, another source claims that the Saturn V's velocity was slightly less than escape velocity because the gravity of the moon negated part of the required speed; which means that the escape velocity was lowered by the moon's gravity.
It think it is time for you people to pack it up. Admit defeat and stand straight like a man instead of a crying child stomping his feat. It is the honorable thing to do. :D
-
the Saturn V still doesn't reach escape velocity...
So; the Encyclopedia Britannica, wikipedia, the Smithsonian & NASA themselves are all WRONG, whilst you, the Mighty Mainframes, are RIGHT?
LOL!!!
You can keep repeating yourself as long as you like, but you really should bear in mind that every single neutral out there will by now have googled 'Saturn V escape velocity' & be wondering wtf is wrong with your brain, Mr. tin-foil-hat nut-job...
As for me, I've always known you are utterly full of s**t; so all I will add is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Anyhoo; wanna talk about the ISS & naturally-occuring trackable n.e.o's yet?
It's a lulzy subject, I promise...
From wiki:
For the Apollo lunar missions, the restartable J-2 engine in the third (S-IVB) stage of the Saturn V rocket performed TLI. This particular TLI burn lasted approximately 350 seconds, providing 3.05 to 3.25 km/s (10,000 to 10,600 ft/s) of delta-v, at which point the spacecraft was traveling at approximately 10.4 km/s (34150 ft/s) relative to the Earth.
I'm checking other sources now. The Britannica and Smithsonian sources don't even agree with each other at 24,500 and 25,000mph.
-
LOL!!!
Yeah; me, jroa, the Smithsonian, wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica & NASA: we ALL got our asses kicked bad, didn't we?!?
You are just hilarious, sulky little psycho sock-arul; this subject gets better & better...
ROFLMFAO!!!
Btw; the Saturn V was a total Fake & couldn't possibly function as claimed...
So all this 'escape velocity' bollocks is moot anyway.
Just fyi, criminals...
When you're ready to discuss the ISS & trackable, naturally-occurring n.e.o's let me know.
Lol
The old " I'm not smart enough so it's fake" tactic.
Lol
-
the Saturn V still doesn't reach escape velocity...
So; the Encyclopedia Britannica, wikipedia, the Smithsonian & NASA themselves are all WRONG, whilst you, the Mighty Mainframes, are RIGHT?
LOL!!!
You can keep repeating yourself as long as you like, but you really should bear in mind that every single neutral out there will by now have googled 'Saturn V escape velocity' & be wondering wtf is wrong with your brain, Mr. tin-foil-hat nut-job...
As for me, I've always known you are utterly full of s**t; so all I will add is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Anyhoo; wanna talk about the ISS & naturally-occuring trackable n.e.o's yet?
It's a lulzy subject, I promise...
From wiki:
For the Apollo lunar missions, the restartable J-2 engine in the third (S-IVB) stage of the Saturn V rocket performed TLI. This particular TLI burn lasted approximately 350 seconds, providing 3.05 to 3.25 km/s (10,000 to 10,600 ft/s) of delta-v, at which point the spacecraft was traveling at approximately 10.4 km/s (34150 ft/s) relative to the Earth.
I'm checking other sources now. The Britannica and Smithsonian sources don't even agree with each other at 24,500 and 25,000mph.
"Relative to the Earth" How fast was the Earth spinning back then?
-
Just a quick interjection buts let's clear one thing up right now.
You do not need to reach escape velocity to reach the moon. You are not escaping earths gravity at any point. Escape velocity is what is required to exactly reach infinite distance and describes a parabola. The orbit to reach the moon was an eccentric elliptical orbit.
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
-
The Britannica and Smithsonian sources don't even agree with each other at 24,500 and 25,000mph.
Irrelevant.
www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states that the Saturn V achieved the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravity.
Are THEY wrong, mainframes, or are YOU?
Any evasion will be noted by neutrals; so answer honestly...
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
This is what I am saying. Not quite sure why this concept is foreign to jroa.
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
This is what I am saying. Not quite sure why this concept is foreign to jroa.
Quick lesson for you, sokarul. Don't worry, I will try not to confuse you with tangent and cosine and all those big words. If something is moving, and something else is moving Relative to the first thing, then you do have to take the first thing's velocity into account in order to get the Relative velocity. Are you sure you went to college and your minor was in physics, as you claimed?
-
Well, all NASA sources I find (Those charts) agrees that the velocity achieved was 10.4 km/s. And since the Apollo missions were launched and managed by NASA they'll have the most correct figures, numbers and statistics regarding this. Your sources are secondary, and have either misunderstood NASA's reports or done some wrong. And in either case, escape velocity is not NECESSARY to reach the moon. The moon itself is not on an escape trajectory, so objects that travels to the moon doesn't need an escape trajectory themselves. And the Saturn V does never reach these velocities whilst in the thicker part of the atmosphere.
-
Did you subtract the moon's effects on a space ship traveling to it from Earth to figure the correct escape velocity? Because the sources everyone lists is the escape velocity assuming that no other gravitational forces are present. Perhaps your satanic scientists do not do that either, that is why their calculations for escape velocity are all over the place? You people act like science is an exact, well, an exact science, yet your scientists all give different information. ::)
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
This is what I am saying. Not quite sure why this concept is foreign to jroa.
Sokarul, watch out, jroa is playing semantic games again, the rotation of the earth is actually a factor that is taken into account when choosing launch sites and orbits. That's why launch sites are as close to the equator as practicable. You are of course correct that escape velocity is relative to Earth. And the motion of the earth around the sun doesn't come into it, since our velocities are relative to earth, not the sun.
Just jroa, trying to score cheap points with inane logic, and missing the big picture.
PS. Just to clarify, if you are describing an interplanetary mission, then the velocity of the earth around the sun, does in fact come into the calculations and timing of the launch becomes critical.
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
-
Did you subtract the moon's effects on a space ship traveling to it from Earth to figure the correct escape velocity? Because the sources everyone lists is the escape velocity assuming that no other gravitational forces are present. Perhaps your satanic scientists do not do that either, that is why their calculations for escape velocity are all over the place? You people act like science is an exact, well, an exact science, yet your scientists all give different information. ::)
If the trajectory was not a proper LOI but altered then the moons gravity could be used to help achieve escape velocity through a slingshot maneuver, that is true. But this is not what the Saturn-V did. And as we have said, the Saturn V COULD reach escape velocity if they wanted to, but it is not what they wanted, what they wanted was a transfer trajectory to the moon.
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
It depends on how you interpret it. You do escape earth's gravitational influence and enter the moons gravitational influence, but you do not escape earth's gravity well.
-
You do escape earth's gravitational influence... but you do not escape earth's gravity well.
LOL!!!
Classic Orwellian doublethink...
You are priceless, master_b8r.
Anyhow; mainframes: is the Encyclopedia Britannica wrong, or are you?
Simple choice...
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
The Britannica is using terminology in a simplified manner to describe the process to the layperson. In stating escaped earth gravity what they are implying is that the spacecraft achieved enough velocity to reach the moon despite the effects of the earths gravity. At no point in the entire mission is the spacecraft free of the earths gravity. The proof? The mission reached the moon and stayed at the moon and the moon itself is subject to earths gravity, the moon orbits the Earth, therefore the spacecraft is also still orbiting the Earth.
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
This is what I am saying. Not quite sure why this concept is foreign to jroa.
Quick lesson for you, sokarul. Don't worry, I will try not to confuse you with tangent and cosine and all those big words. If something is moving, and something else is moving Relative to the first thing, then you do have to take the first thing's velocity into account in order to get the Relative velocity. Are you sure you went to college and your minor was in physics, as you claimed?
Where did I say something other than that?
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
The Britannica is using terminology in a simplified manner to describe the process to the layperson. In stating escaped earth gravity what they are implying is that the spacecraft achieved enough velocity to reach the moon despite the effects of the earths gravity. At no point in the entire mission is the spacecraft free of the earths gravity. The proof? The mission reached the moon and stayed at the moon and the moon itself is subject to earths gravity, the moon orbits the Earth, therefore the spacecraft is also still orbiting the Earth.
lol, now you are just trolling. No credible scientist will confirm that you have to escape Earth's gravity in order to reach escape velocity. You really do like to make up your own definitions for scientific things that you do not understand, do you not? This is like a comedy show on TV. ;D
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
The Britannica is using terminology in a simplified manner to describe the process to the layperson. In stating escaped earth gravity what they are implying is that the spacecraft achieved enough velocity to reach the moon despite the effects of the earths gravity. At no point in the entire mission is the spacecraft free of the earths gravity. The proof? The mission reached the moon and stayed at the moon and the moon itself is subject to earths gravity, the moon orbits the Earth, therefore the spacecraft is also still orbiting the Earth.
lol, now you are just trolling. No credible scientist will confirm that you have to escape Earth's gravity in order to reach escape velocity. You really do like to make up your own definitions for scientific things that you do not understand, do you not? This is like a comedy show on TV. ;D
No I'm not. You just still don't understand.
Escape velocity is exactly the velocity required to reach the edge of earths gravitational influence; that being infinity. At infinite distance you would reach a speed of zero and remain there as the gravitational effect would also be zero.
You don't escape earths gravity to reach escape velocity. You reach escape velocity to escape earths gravity. And every credible scientist on the planet will confirm this.
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
The Britannica is using terminology in a simplified manner to describe the process to the layperson. In stating escaped earth gravity what they are implying is that the spacecraft achieved enough velocity to reach the moon despite the effects of the earths gravity. At no point in the entire mission is the spacecraft free of the earths gravity. The proof? The mission reached the moon and stayed at the moon and the moon itself is subject to earths gravity, the moon orbits the Earth, therefore the spacecraft is also still orbiting the Earth.
lol, now you are just trolling. No credible scientist will confirm that you have to escape Earth's gravity in order to reach escape velocity. You really do like to make up your own definitions for scientific things that you do not understand, do you not? This is like a comedy show on TV. ;D
No I'm not. You just still don't understand.
Escape velocity is exactly the velocity required to reach the edge of earths gravitational influence; that being infinity. At infinite distance you would reach a speed of zero and remain there as the gravitational effect would also be zero.
You don't escape earths gravity to reach escape velocity. You reach escape velocity to escape earths gravity. And every credible scientist on the planet will confirm this.
lol, you can reach escape velocity while still being very close to the Earth. Also, even if you were an infinite distance away from the Earth, you would not have escaped the effects of Earth's gravity; the effects of Earth's gravity would simply be very, very tiny, or so says those lying satanists that you bow down to. :D
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Answer, please.
& rayzor; LOL!!!
The Britannica is using terminology in a simplified manner to describe the process to the layperson. In stating escaped earth gravity what they are implying is that the spacecraft achieved enough velocity to reach the moon despite the effects of the earths gravity. At no point in the entire mission is the spacecraft free of the earths gravity. The proof? The mission reached the moon and stayed at the moon and the moon itself is subject to earths gravity, the moon orbits the Earth, therefore the spacecraft is also still orbiting the Earth.
lol, now you are just trolling. No credible scientist will confirm that you have to escape Earth's gravity in order to reach escape velocity. You really do like to make up your own definitions for scientific things that you do not understand, do you not? This is like a comedy show on TV. ;D
No I'm not. You just still don't understand.
Escape velocity is exactly the velocity required to reach the edge of earths gravitational influence; that being infinity. At infinite distance you would reach a speed of zero and remain there as the gravitational effect would also be zero.
You don't escape earths gravity to reach escape velocity. You reach escape velocity to escape earths gravity. And every credible scientist on the planet will confirm this.
lol, you can reach escape velocity while still being very close to the Earth. Also, even if you were an infinite distance away from the Earth, you would not have escaped the effects of Earth's gravity; the effects of Earth's gravity would simply be very, very tiny, or so says those lying satanists that you bow down to. :D
I never said you couldn't reach escape velocity near earth.
At any distance from earth, escape velocity is the velocity required, with no further forces applied other than gravity, to reach infinite distance with no velocity remaining. And actually at infinity, the force of gravity is infinitely small which equates to zero. At any point along the path you now take your velocity will be equal to escape velocity at that point.
-
Infinity small does not equal 0. Roundies say the dumbest things. lol
-
Infinity small does not equal 0. Roundies say the dumbest things. lol
Something that is infinitely small mathematically tends to zero. Any number divided by infinity, other than infinity, is zero mathematically.
-
Then, 1 divided by infinity can not exist, because nothing can be divided by 0. Maybe your are just making up your mathematical laws as you go along? Help me out here. I am trying to understand your flawed logic.
-
Then, 1 divided by infinity can not exist, because nothing can be divided by 0. Maybe your are just making up your mathematical laws as you go along? Help me out here. I am trying to understand your flawed logic.
Your understanding of maths is worthy of an F.
Mainframes never said that infinity=0, he said that x/infinity is basically 0. It will be infinitely close to 0.
-
Relative to earth means setting the earth's velocity to zero. It does not mean add rotational velocity.
Maybe you are right, but the Earth is still moving around the sun according to your satanic NASA scientists, or are you saying it did not do that back in the 60s? Or, maybe you do not understand what the term 'relative speed' means in physics?
Yes, the earth is still moving round the sun. That's why we use the term relative to earth as we are looking at navigating in the earth moon system. It's the same as using the speedometer on your car which is set relative to earth; you don't need to know your velocity relative to the sun to drive your car.
This is what I am saying. Not quite sure why this concept is foreign to jroa.
Quick lesson for you, sokarul. Don't worry, I will try not to confuse you with tangent and cosine and all those big words. If something is moving, and something else is moving Relative to the first thing, then you do have to take the first thing's velocity into account in order to get the Relative velocity. Are you sure you went to college and your minor was in physics, as you claimed?
Where did I say something other than that?
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Are you saying that Britannica is infallible?
http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/)
-
Infinity small does not equal 0. Roundies say the dumbest things. lol
Citation needed.
-
You are not escaping earths gravity at any point.
But www.britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com) explicitly states the Saturn V DOES escape Earth's gravity; so who is wrong, mainframes?
YOU, or THEM?
Are you saying that Britannica is infallible?
http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/)
Indeed Markjo. Brittanica and the Smithsonian have TLI as 24,500mph an 25,000mph when it should be 23,500mph relative to the centre of the earth.
I am very surprised that the Smithsonian article has this bad a mistake.
-
Infinity small does not equal 0. Roundies say the dumbest things. lol
Citation needed.
Oh, I am sorry. You can just substitute 0 for any number in your advanced math classes that require infinity now. And, tell your teacher that you can divide by 0 because the roundies said so. See how that conversation goes over. ::)
Citation needed? How about a math book?
-
Infinity small does not equal 0. Roundies say the dumbest things. lol
Citation needed.
Well, it is true that infinitely small does not equal zero. But it is so close to zero that the difference is neglectible.
-
LOL!!!
So you really DO claim to know more about the space program than Encyclopedia Britannica, wikipedia, The Smithsonian & NASA combined?!?
But where did you get the information from to prove these sources all wrong if not from THESE SAME SOURCES?!?
Do you all have your own, private, space programs going on or something?!?
You are all f**king MENTAL!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
LOL!!!
So you really DO claim to know more about the space program than Encyclopedia Britannica, wikipedia, The Smithsonian & NASA combined?!?
But where did you get the information from to prove these sources all wrong if not from THESE SAME SOURCES?!?
Do you all have your own, private, space programs going on or something?!?
You are all f**king MENTAL!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!
Papa - All NASA data sources state that the TLI was around 10.4 km/s which is below low earth orbit escape velocity of 10.9km/s.
-
Well, in that case the Saturn V could never have escaped Earth orbit in order to enter Lunar orbit.
Ergo; no moon-landing.
Thanks!
Now STFU, fantasising Liar.
-
The Saturn V didn't need to escape earth orbit to reach the moon. It just needed an eccentric enough orbit so that the apogee was slightly further than the moon's orbit. This was so that they wouldn't just go flying out into space forever if they missed the moon.
-
Well, in that case the Saturn V could never have escaped Earth orbit in order to enter Lunar orbit.
Ergo; no moon-landing.
Thanks!
Now STFU, fantasising Liar.
You really are damned stupid.
1) Escape velocity is used to get to an infinite distance.
2) The moon is still in earth orbit and therefore Saturn V is still in Earth orbit.
-
LOL!!!
No it isn't.
& every source available disagrees with you.
Stop creeping me out, tin-foil hat nut-job!
-
LOL!!!
No it isn't.
& every source available disagrees with you.
Stop creeping me out, tin-foil hat nut-job!
Wait, are you claiming that the Moon is not in orbit of Earth? WTF?
He Moon is in orbit, so you don't need to leave orbit to get to it. If you have sources that say otherwise then cite them!
-
You can stop creeping me out too, weirdo.
No reputable source either agrees with mainframes that the Saturn V did not reach escape velocity, nor agrees with him on what escape velocity even is.
Ergo he is a LIAR.
Now F**k off.
-
You can stop creeping me out too, weirdo.
No reputable source either agrees with mainframes that the Saturn V did not reach escape velocity, nor agrees with him on what escape velocity even is.
Ergo he is a LIAR.
Now F**k off.
In that case you should have no trouble providing such a source.
-
I already have, super-troll; or is wikipedia, the Smithsonian, Encyclopedia Britannica & NASA them-f**king-selves too esoteric?
Wtf is WRONG with you?
-
I already have, super-troll; or is wikipedia, the Smithsonian, Encyclopedia Britannica & NASA them-f**king-selves too esoteric?
Wtf is WRONG with you?
Wiki and NASA both state that the TLI was below escape velocity in order to generate an elliptical orbit with a focus at approximately lunar orbit radius.
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
(http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm)
Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.
-
Why do you think you still have a point, preening nutter mainframes?
Do you think Words are Reality?
I don't care what YOU think has happened here; every single neutral reader has already googled 'escape velocity' & knows you are a raging Psycho.
So STFU, ok?
& LOL!!!
-
Why do you think you still have a point, preening nutter mainframes?
Do you think Words are Reality?
I don't care what YOU think has happened here; every single neutral reader has already googled 'escape velocity' & knows you are a raging Psycho.
So STFU, ok?
& LOL!!!
So translated into English that would be "I have no comeback because I've presented with irrefutable data and I still don't understand escape velocity".
I suspect every neutral reader thinks you're a gaseous windbag who has to resort to petulant insults when he is losing an argument.
-
LOL!!!
Do you really think I intend to debate FAKE data with a FAKE persona about a FAKE rocket, you f**king MANIAC?!?
LMFAO!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, PSYCHOPATH?!?
You made a stupid comment, then wasted 5 pages twisting every available Fact from very available Source to try to justify your crass stupidity, then you accuse ME of being a gaseous windbag?!?!?
ROFLMFAO!!!
F**k Off, tin-foil hatter!
-
lol
u mad?
lol
-
One thing I have never understood in this time, is the obsession with writing 'f**k' instead of 'fuck'. We know what 'f**k' means, it means 'fuck', it should be just as vulgar of a word. After all, it is the same word. There's no chance that it could be used to represent any other term: the word fork is not censored.
It's one of your peculiarities. Are the letters 'u' and 'c' especially controversial? I can't understand this.
-
LOL!!!
Do you really think I intend to debate FAKE data with a FAKE persona about a FAKE rocket, you f**king MANIAC?!?
LMFAO!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, PSYCHOPATH?!?
You made a stupid comment, then wasted 5 pages twisting every available Fact from very available Source to try to justify your crass stupidity, then you accuse ME of being a gaseous windbag?!?!?
ROFLMFAO!!!
F**k Off, tin-foil hatter!
So still no evidence based rebuttal then.
You see all of my arguement is fact based and every time you think it is wrong, it is in fat because you have once again misunderstood the science or maths behind it. Major example being your total misunderstanding of newtons third.
Apparently you had loads of ammunition to fire at us. All I've seen so far is a load of blanks....
-
'Fact-based...'
LOL!!!
The Saturn V allegedly weighed 3,000 tonnes, psycho, & was made of aluminium sheeting & mild steel bracing, & propelled by a fuel that was only +20C above absolute f**king zero!
It is a preposterous mass of hoax, fail & LOL that could never, ever, in a million years get off the ground...
Just NEVER.
We've been through this already, Lying Psycho mainframes; & you LOST, remember?
Now; it's been fun watching you foam at the mouth because you could not even decide what 'escape velocity' actually is; but the Real FACTS are that ALL 'space-travel' is a HOAX.
Because rockets are useless & cannot work at all in low-pressure systems anyway...
Everyone knows this, psycho; except you, poor thing.
So come on, psycho; back to Earth now... Fun's over for today.
But still; LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
(http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm)
Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.
Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1. They were not sending the rocket to infinity. However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.
-
Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1. They were not sending the rocket to infinity. However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.
Actually, it's really easy to plot an escape trajectory that does not go anywhere near the Moon. The Moon may speed up the space craft, but it also slows the space craft down the exact same amount when it goes away from the Moon.
-
Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1. They were not sending the rocket to infinity. However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.
Actually, it's really easy to plot an escape trajectory that does not go anywhere near the Moon. The Moon may speed up the space craft, but it also slows the space craft down the exact same amount when it goes away from the Moon.
Naive little boy. It is not easy. You can not just magically make the moon disappear. Even if the moon was on the other side of the Earth from the direction that the space ship is traveling, it is still there and must be accounted for, but in this case its pull would be in the opposite direction. This is why escape velocity is specifically given only assuming that the Earth is only factor.
-
Naive little boy. It is not easy. You can not just magically make the moon disappear. Even if the moon was on the other side of the Earth from the direction that the space ship is traveling, it is still there and must be accounted for, but in this case its pull would be in the opposite direction. This is why escape velocity is specifically given only assuming that the Earth is only factor.
It only effects the escape velocity by a few meters per second, it's negligible in most cases.
-
I notice you've changed your signature, mikeman (lol!).
'Science is not to prove yourself right, it's to become right.'
Creepy! Kinda like 'Get right with God', but replacing 'God' with 'Science'.
Anyway; do you think you've 'become right' through science, mikeman?
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
(http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm)
Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.
Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1. They were not sending the rocket to infinity.
Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.
And just to clarify - escape velocity is essentially a theoretical concept as it assumes no other gravitational effects. Whereas in real life there are many other gravitational effects acting on the rocket in one way or another.
The fact remains that the Saturn did not achieve escape velocity and it was never required. Just an elliptical orbit with a focus near the radius of the moons orbit about 40o ahead of the moon.
Again layperson terminology is not helping. The phrase escape earths gravity is often used to describe any circumstance in which an object can be propelled away from the earth or in which an object reaches gravity source that is locally stronger than the earth. For example, Apollo reaching the point at which it accelerates towards the moon. It still hasn't escaped the earths gravity but the moon just has a stronger influence at that point.
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
(http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm)
Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.
Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1. They were not sending the rocket to infinity.
"Kepler Factor"? It looks like you mean eccentricity here. Why not use the same terminology as everyone else, especially since it was used in the post you're replying to? Are you afraid that doing so might make what you're saying more clear than you want?
However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.
Now you're complaining about conflicting terminology, in the very same post. Oh the irony...
-
I notice you've changed your signature, mikeman (lol!).
'Science is not to prove yourself right, it's to become right.'
Creepy! Kinda like 'Get right with God', but replacing 'God' with 'Science'.
Anyway; do you think you've 'become right' through science, mikeman?
Yes, science us to become right. Any good scientist is not stuck to an idea and they try to avoid bias. It is highly likely that any preconceptions people have are wrong, especially considering how much they tend to conflict. Science is designed specifically to be unaffected with bias and reveal the truth so we can all know how the universe works, and it doesn't work if you are wrong.
The point is: when you use science you have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong because it's highly likely.
-
[The point is: when you use science you have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong...
So how come you never do?
Is it because you've 'become right' through Science & are thus now Infallible?
Kinda weird attitude for a Mormon; would you describe yourself as a Heretic?
-
Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.
LOL!!!
The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!
3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...
-
Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.
LOL!!!
The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!
3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Yes, Saturn V weighed 3,000 tonnes but fortunately the thrust developed by its five engines totals more than this and gives net force upwards. Result? The rocket moves upwards.
-
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.
LOL!!!
Just because you SAY a thing is science does not mean it IS science, Psycho.
The reason I don't understand what you say is NOT because it is SCIENCE; it is because it is NONSENSE.
Learn the difference, Psycho...
-
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.
LOL!!!
Just because you SAY a thing is science does not mean it IS science, Psycho.
The reason I don't understand what you say is NOT because it is SCIENCE; it is because it is NONSENSE.
Learn the difference, Psycho...
That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable. You sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming liar, liar, liar won't change that and just makes you look like fool.
-
Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.
LOL!!!
The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!
3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...
Except that lots of people saw the "imaginary" Saturn V lift offs with their own eyes.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44145000/jpg/_44145742_saturnlaunch_nasa_416.jpg)
By the way, did you know that the weight of the Saturn V dropped at a rate of about 24 tons per second during lift off? Did you know that by the time the first stage engines cutoff, the weight of the Saturn V dropped by around 2200 tons?
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....
Another one with aspergers'.
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....
Another one with aspergers'.
So all you have left is blindly insulting people. Brilliant......
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....
Another one with aspergers'.
So all you have left is blindly insulting people. Brilliant......
Just giving out what you people give out. I'm merely making an observation. You people do it plenty of times.
-
Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?
It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.
Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. ;D
Five of these bad boys ought to do the trick:
(https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/12512/422624/f/4101436-Dan-tries-to-figure-out-how-to-install-a-Saturn-F1-rocket-engine-on-our-Honda-1.jpg)
-
That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable.
O rly?
So go ahead & repeat some of it, then...
Like the bit where a 3,000 tonne rocket magically levitates off the ground, reaches 24,000 mph & travels 500,000 miles through a vacuum to the stupid Moon & back, maybe?
& markjo; care to show us the miraculous fuel-pumps that could somehow deliver 24 tons of fuel per second to your silly fake 'bad boy' engines?
They'll be pretty big, won't they? Cos 24 tons is a very large volume of any material to shift in one second.
LOL!!!
You guys can dress up your science-fiction fantasies any way you want, but that's all they'll ever be; science-fact they are NOT.
-
That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable.
O rly?
So go ahead & repeat some of it, then...
Like the bit where a 3,000 tonne rocket magically levitates off the ground, reaches 24,000 mph & travels 500,000 miles through a vacuum to the stupid Moon & back, maybe?
& markjo; care to show us the miraculous fuel-pumps that could somehow deliver 24 tons of fuel per second to your silly fake 'bad boy' engines?
They'll be pretty big, won't they? Cos 24 tons is a very large volume of any material to shift in one second.
LOL!!!
You guys can dress up your science-fiction fantasies any way you want, but that's all they'll ever be; science-fact they are NOT.
Oh no it's a big number I didn't understand. It can't possibly be true!
24 tonnes per second across five engines equates to about 5 tonnes a second. This is split across two turbo pumps for fuel and oxidiser giving very roughly 2.5 tonnes per second per pump. Even a cursory Google would probably give you industrial pumps that are capable of this flow rate.
That's another blank you've fired from your massive arsenal to fire at us.
Next......
-
2.5 tonnes per second per pump. Even a cursory Google would probably give you industrial pumps that are capable of this flow rate.
Okay, psycho; now show us a schematic of the pumps from the Saturn V.
(Cos I note that markjo didn't...)
Then show us an industrial pump, from 1969, also capable of a 2.5 tonne per second flow-rate.
With size & specs for both, please...
Should be LOL!!!
Also, I forgot to point out this:
That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable.
If the last few pages of your crazed gibberish have proved anything, it is that such bastions of Science as wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, the Smithsonian & NASA cannot even agree on what 'escape velocity' means, let alone the facts & figures involved in the silly fake Apollo missions...
So No, the fake 'science' you quote is NOT well-documented or understood at all, psycho.
But whatever; show me them Pumps, Liar, & don't forget the specs!
-
Just a quick note to correct Markjo's original stat of 24 tonnes per second. It is actually more like 13 tonnes per second.
Mass removed is 2,200 tonnes over around 168 seconds. This gives about 13 tonnes per second.
-
So yet again you can't agree on any of your 'well-documented, well-understood scientific facts'.
LOL!!!
Funny how you're trying to revise them DOWNWARDS, though, ain't it, criminals?
By nearly 50% even...
LMFAO!!!
Now; show me them pumps, shills...
-
No Markjo just got his maths wrong that's all. And in fact the article on the Saturn V confirms this.
From wiki:
A gas-generator was used to drive a turbine which in turn drove separate fuel and oxygen pumps, each feeding the thrust chamber assembly. The turbine was driven at 5,500 RPM by the gas generator, producing 55,000 brake horsepower (41 MW). The fuel pump produced 15,471 US gallons (58,560 litres) of RP-1 per minute while the oxidizer pump delivered 24,811 US gal (93,920 l) of liquid oxygen per minute. Environmentally, the turbopump was required to withstand temperatures ranging from input gas at 1,500 °F (820 °C) to liquid oxygen at −300 °F (−184 °C). Structurally, fuel was used to lubricate and cool the turbine bearings.
Here is a brochure selling turbopumps:
http://idealvac.com/files/brochures/VarianTurboV81-M_1.pdf (http://idealvac.com/files/brochures/VarianTurboV81-M_1.pdf)
Check out the Turbo-V 3K-T
-
Your wiki-spam talks of gallons per minute, NOT tons per second, & your brochure does not show 1969 pumps.
& you still refuse to show us how large the alleged fuel-pumps on the Fake Saturn V actually were.
Your intellectual dishonesty is a shining example to all shills everywhere, ever.
Now; carry on Lying...
-
Further detail:
Each second, a single F-1 burned 5,683 pounds (2,578 kg) of oxidizer and fuel: 3,945 lb (1,789 kg) of liquid oxygen and 1,738 lb (788 kg) of RP-1, generating 1,500,000 lbf (6.7 MN) of thrust. This equated to a flow rate of 671.4 US gal (2,542 l) per second; 413.5 US gal (1,565 l) of LOX and 257.9 US gal (976 l) of RP-1. During their two and a half minutes of operation, the five F-1s propelled the Saturn V vehicle to a height of 42 miles (222,000 ft; 68 km) and a speed of 6,164 mph (9,920 km/h). The combined flow rate of the five F-1s in the Saturn V was 3,357 US gal (12,710 l) per second,[4] or 28,415 lb (12,890 kg). Each F-1 engine had more thrust than three Space Shuttle Main Engines combined.[5]
And I don't have to show you a 1969 catalogue (if there even is one available). All I need to do I show you it is possible for turbopumps to pump that flowrate. Which I have.
-
No you haven't.
As usual, you've just posted a wall of stats in the hope that nobody notices you cannot answer simple questions honestly.
Now f**k off, Liar.
-
No Markjo just got his maths wrong that's all. And in fact the article on the Saturn V confirms this.
Oops. Yes, I did indeed mess up my math. Here is where I got my numbers. I think that I added the total rate with the fuel rate and got too big a number. Should be about 14 tons per second.
Each second, a single F-1 burned 5,683 pounds (2,578 kg) of oxidizer and fuel: 3,945 lb (1,789 kg) of liquid oxygen and 1,738 lb (788 kg) of RP-1, generating 1,500,000 lbf (6.7 MN) of thrust. This equated to a flow rate of 671.4 US gal (2,542 l) per second; 413.5 US gal (1,565 l) of LOX and 257.9 US gal (976 l) of RP-1.
Your wiki-spam talks of gallons per minute, NOT tons per second, & your brochure does not show 1969 pumps.
Mine showed pounds per second and I multiplied by 5 and divided by 2000 to get US tons (not metric tonnes).
& you still refuse to show us how large the alleged fuel-pumps on the Fake Saturn V actually were.
I posted a picture of an F1 rocket engine with a person in front of it for scale. The turbo pump unit is attached to the top half of the engine.
Your intellectual dishonesty is a shining example to all shills everywhere, ever.
Seriously, I don't think that you should be criticizing people about their intellectual integrity.
-
So; you refuse to unequivocally state how many tons of fuel per second the fuel pumps of the Saturn V pumped.
You refuse to produce schematics & stats on the above fuel pumps.
You refuse to produce schematics & stats on any other pumps commercially available in 1969 of similar ability.
Fair enough; the fuel-pumping system of the Saturn V is therefore dismissed as an Unfeasible Fake.
Please do not waste my time on this matter further; you had your chance & blew it.
Goodnight, criminals!
-
So; you refuse to unequivocally state how many tons of fuel per second the fuel pumps of the Saturn V pumped.
Are you Th*rking blind?
Each second, a single F-1 burned 5,683 pounds (2,578 kg) of oxidizer and fuel: 3,945 lb (1,789 kg) of liquid oxygen and 1,738 lb (788 kg) of RP-1, generating 1,500,000 lbf (6.7 MN) of thrust. This equated to a flow rate of 671.4 US gal (2,542 l) per second; 413.5 US gal (1,565 l) of LOX and 257.9 US gal (976 l) of RP-1.
You refuse to produce schematics & stats on the above fuel pumps.
You refuse to produce schematics & stats on any other pumps commercially available in 1969 of similar ability.
Why would you assume that such schematics are readily available, or that they're necessary to prove the existence of those pumps? Do you have the schematics and stats to the fuel pump that goes to your car?
-
LOL!!!
So schematics of the fake fuel pumps are available, markjo?
But without any kind of scale, I note...
So we still don't know how big these fake pumps are, in order to compare their size to similar, non-fake pumps capable of the same performance.
Lots of digression here; strange, as you claim this is all such 'well-documented, well-understood scientific fact'.
-
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf)
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
-
This pump was used on the F-1 liquid fuel rocket engine, the powerplant for the first stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle that took the first astronauts to the Moon for six successful landing missions from 1969 to 1972 in the Project Apollo program. The F-1 produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust.
The first stage was fitted with five F-1's for a total lift-off thrust of 7.5 million pounds. The F-1 used RP-1, a type of kerosene, and liquid oxygen as the propellants. The F-1's 2,500 pound turbopump pumped in the propellants at 42,500 gallons per minute. This pump was donated to the Smithsonian in 1975 by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Transferred from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Country of Origin
United States of America
Manufacturer
Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International Corporation
Type
PROPULSION-Components (Engine Parts)
Materials
Inlets, volutes, and impellers, aluminum alloy casting. Turbine wheels and manifold assemblies, nickel alloy.
Dimensions
Overall: 5 ft. 2 in. tall x 4 ft. wide, 2000 lb. (w/Crate 2,500lb.) (157.48 x 121.92cm, 907.2kg)
[\quote]
-
LOL!!!
So schematics of the fake fuel pumps are available, markjo?
I briefly worked as a drafter, so my definition of a schematic might be a little more specific than some other's.
But without any kind of scale, I note...
Detailed plans for actually making the engine and its components may (or may not) still be proprietary information belonging to Rockedyne (or whoever owns what's left of them).
So we still don't know how big these fake pumps are, in order to compare their size to similar, non-fake pumps capable of the same performance.
*sigh* For the third time, I posted a picture of the F-1 engine with the turbopump assembly attached and a person in the picture for scale.
-
LOL!!!
Stop saying *sigh* as if you've actually answered my questions honestly, markjo.
You have not.
Now: how big was the fake fuel-pump on the silly imaginary Saturn V, & how big was a similarly powerful commercially available pump from 1969?
Simple question.
Note to neutrals; watch closely, as the Evolving Lie that is 'Space-Exploration' mutates yet again...
Just as it did in the whole 'escape velocity' farce earlier.
-
You mean the farce of you demonstrating how you have no clue how orbital mechanics works......
-
No; I mean the farce of you claiming to know more than the entire combined knowledge of wikipedia, the Smithsonian & the Encyclopedia Britannica, Psycho...
Are you another entity that has 'become right' through science & is thus now infallible?
Or is 'orbital mechanics' just a mass of meaningless numbers bearing no relation to reality?
Let neutrals decide.
I'll just LOL!!!
Oh, & this:
Now: how big was the fake fuel-pump on the silly imaginary Saturn V, & how big was a similarly powerful commercially available pump from 1969?
Simple question.
Note to neutrals; watch closely, as the Evolving Lie that is 'Space-Exploration' mutates yet again...
Care to answer, nonce?
-
LOL!!!
Stop saying *sigh* as if you've actually answered my questions honestly, markjo.
You have not.
I'll stop sighing when you stop LOLing as if you've actually refuted my answers.
Now: how big was the fake fuel-pump on the silly imaginary Saturn V, & how big was a similarly powerful commercially available pump from 1969?
Simple question.
No, by calling it a "fake fuel-pump" and a "silly imaginary Saturn V", you're saying that you won't believe anything that anyone says.
Honestly, does it really matter how big the fuel pumps were? I think that it's sufficient to say that they were big enough to deliver kerosene and liquid oxygen fast enough to keep the combustion chamber well fed. I doubt that there were any commercial pumps on the market that were comparable, which is why Rocketdyne spent so much time and effort developing them.
As one group of specialists grappled with injector or thrust chamber problems, another group labored on the problem of pumping hundreds of thousands of liters of propellants out of the S-IC's propellant tanks and into the five F-1 engines. The turbopump absorbed more design effort and time for fabrication than any other component of the engine. [117] The development program began with tests of various models of turbopump evaluating the performance levels and durability of fuel and oxidizer pumps, inducers, and turbines.
Note to neutrals; watch closely, as the Evolving Lie that is 'Space-Exploration' mutates yet again...
Just as it did in the whole 'escape velocity' farce earlier.
What would you know about being neutral? You're about as biased and antagonistic as they get.
-
LOL!!!
So; you don't want to show us the fake fuel-pumps of the fake Saturn V next to a real pump capable of similar flow-rate...
Why?
Because the Real one would be bloody enormous, whilst the Fake one would be tiny.
Now go alter the data & further evolve your lies, criminals; the sooner all info becomes digital the sooner you can cement your fantasies as reality.
-
Would be bloody enormous
And your basis for this statement is?
-
Papa you are blind as well as stupid as I quote the turbopump dimensions in an earlier post:
Dimensions
Overall: 5 ft. 2 in. tall x 4 ft. wide, 2000 lb. (w/Crate 2,500lb.) (157.48 x 121.92cm, 907.2kg)
-
So; you don't want to show us the fake fuel-pumps of the fake Saturn V next to a real pump capable of similar flow-rate...
Why?
Because I doubt that any existed at the time.
Because the Real one would be bloody enormous, whilst the Fake one would be tiny.
That's because size and weight are at a premium when designing anything that flies, doubly so for rockets. The pumps for the F-1 engine had to deliver tons of liquid oxygen and kerosene at the same time using a single drive shaft. How many other fuel pumps of any size do you suppose had similar design requirements back in the 1960s? I'm guessing zero, but feel free to prove me wrong with an example.
-
Mainframes: I already told YOU that a modern turbo-pump is irrelevant, deaf dumb & blind criminal idiot.
Show me one from 1969 or STFU.
Markjo: Of course pumps capable of a similar flow-rate existed at the time, Liar.
But they were so enormous that you are afraid to show us an example of one.
Plus, I note that you STILL refuse to show or tell us the exact weight & dimensions of the silly fake Saturn V pumps...
Funny, that, as you repeatedly insist all this is 'well-documented, well understood scientific fact'.
Now; carry on Lying, or tell me you won't 'spoon feed' me (lol! shill-speak...), or do whatever the hell it is you need to do in order to uphold the childish belief in your ridiculous fraudulent 3,000-tonne 'space-machines'.
I'll just LMFAO!!!
-
I wasn't quoting a modern pump. Here is the information regarding the F1 turbo pump that I posted earlier:
This pump was used on the F-1 liquid fuel rocket engine, the powerplant for the first stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle that took the first astronauts to the Moon for six successful landing missions from 1969 to 1972 in the Project Apollo program. The F-1 produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust.
The first stage was fitted with five F-1's for a total lift-off thrust of 7.5 million pounds. The F-1 used RP-1, a type of kerosene, and liquid oxygen as the propellants. The F-1's 2,500 pound turbopump pumped in the propellants at 42,500 gallons per minute. This pump was donated to the Smithsonian in 1975 by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Transferred from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Country of Origin
United States of America
Manufacturer
Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International Corporation
Type
PROPULSION-Components (Engine Parts)
Materials
Inlets, volutes, and impellers, aluminum alloy casting. Turbine wheels and manifold assemblies, nickel alloy.
Dimensions
Overall: 5 ft. 2 in. tall x 4 ft. wide, 2000 lb. (w/Crate 2,500lb.) (157.48 x 121.92cm, 907.2kg)
[\quote]
-
Markjo: Of course pumps capable of a similar flow-rate existed at the time, Liar.
Then show me one that could deliver similar flow rates of kerosene and liquid oxygen at the same time. You're the one claiming that they existed so it shouldn't be any problem for you to prove it.
But they were so enormous that you are afraid to show us an example of one.
Of course they would have been enormous, that's why RocketDyne had to spend so much time and effort designing new ones that would be small enough and powerful enough to do the job. Obviously you can't grasp the concept that the Saturn V had unique design requirements that required unique solutions to be invented.
Plus, I note that you STILL refuse to show or tell us the exact weight & dimensions of the silly fake Saturn V pumps...
Because I don't think that they're relevant to the discussion.
-
So; according to your figures the fuel-pump on the Saturn F1 was 5 feet x 4 feet, had an aluminium casing yet weighed 2,000lbs, & had a flow-rate of 700 gallons every single second?
& master_b8r's schematic is also correct, yes?
LOL!!!
Just impossible; the pressures involved in pumping such large volumes through such a small area would have torn it apart.
It would have to be truly massive to withstand such forces...
But it wasn't, was it?
Therefore it's Fake.
No wonder markjo wants us to think that these supposedly 'well-understood & well-established scientific facts' are irrelevant to what he calls the 'discussion', though I call it the 'diversion'.
LMFAO!!!
-
So; according to your figures the fuel-pump on the Saturn F1 was 5 feet x 4 feet, had an aluminium casing yet weighed 2,000lbs, & had a flow-rate of 700 gallons every single second?
& master_b8r's schematic is also correct, yes?
LOL!!!
Just impossible; the pressures involved in pumping such large volumes through such a small area would have torn it apart.
It would have to be truly massive to withstand such forces...
But it wasn't, was it?
Therefore it's Fake.
No wonder markjo wants us to think that these supposedly 'well-understood & well-established scientific facts' are irrelevant to what he calls the 'discussion', though I call it the 'diversion'.
LMFAO!!!
Could you show us your calculations showing it was impossible then.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/F-1_rocket_engine.jpg/1013px-F-1_rocket_engine.jpg)
Here you go. If you need pixel measurements for a part, I'll do it for you, don't worry, you don't have to do anything, we'll spoonfeed you all the info you need for some unknown conclusion.
-
So; according to your figures the fuel-pump on the Saturn F1 was 5 feet x 4 feet, had an aluminium casing yet weighed 2,000lbs, & had a flow-rate of 700 gallons every single second?
Actually, they used aluminum alloys for the parts. You do understand that alloys can have much different characteristics than base metals, don't you?
& master_b8r's schematic is also correct, yes?
LOL!!!
Just impossible; the pressures involved in pumping such large volumes through such a small area would have torn it apart.
Just out of curiosity, where did you receive your degree in mechanical engineering?
-
We do you people keep reposting a document that is marked "CONFIDENTIAL"? markjo, I thought you used to be in the military; you should know what confidential means. It is a step below SECRET.
-
Well, I can see why they'd want it kept secret; cos any sane individual who's told that the tiny, useless item in the schematic can drain the best part of 13 big 55-gallon kerosene drums in a single second would laugh their tits off...
-
700 gallons of kerosene fills nearly 13 big, 55-gallon drums.
Or do you deny this?
& all of them have to be pumped through that tiny thing in one second.
Or do you also deny this?
LOL!!!
Impossible, psycho.
But keep spamming maths about 'output pipes' to make it seem feasible; playing with numbers is the closest you'll ever get to 'space', so why let Reality interfere with your mental masturbation?
-
You flapped your hands and said "oh no it's a big number". I've actually looked at it objectively and showed that it isn't an outlandish flow rate at all.
I know you have no knowledge of engineering but this is a 5 foot long gas turbine driven centrifugal pump. They are capable of seriously impressive flow rates.
-
700 gallons a second is about 3,200 litres or 3.2 cubic metres. The output pipe from the pump is approx 25cm giving a csa of about 75cm2. 3.2m3 a second through 75cm2 gives a flow rate of about 5 metres per second.
This is not an extraordinary number.
5 meters per second is not a flow rate; it is the flow velocity. The flow rate would be the 3.2 m^3/s. I did not bother checking all of your numbers, but assuming that the 3.2 m^3/s and the 25 cm diameter are both correct, then I calculate almost 70 m/s.
Also, I am not sure where you came up with 75 m^2 for the area. pi(R^2)?
-
LOL!!!
Mainframe's mathematical mental masturbation is busted...
Not that it mattered anyway; no maths is needed to know that trying to force the contents of 13 big 55-gallon drums through that cramped p.o.s. in one single second is physically impossible.
& I haven't even got to the ridiculous 'engine injector plate' that all this fuel AND oxidiser had to somehow squeeze through in order to reach the 'combustion chamber'; it looks like a glorified colander & is only a little over a metre wide...
Just LMFAO at the total FRAUDULENCE of it all!!!
Now; argue about your 'calculations' with jroa for a few pages, mainframes, you psychotic fantasist.
-
Well, I double checked the rest of his numbers. He did not even get the conversion from gallons right. A flow rate of 700 gallons per second is 2.6 m^3/s. The cross sectional area of a pipe with a 25 cm diameter is 490.87 cm^2. This gives us a flow velocity of 53 m/s. Let me know if you want me to show you my work and list my formulas, Mainframes. :D
-
We do you people keep reposting a document that is marked "CONFIDENTIAL"? markjo, I thought you used to be in the military; you should know what confidential means. It is a step below SECRET.
First of all, I didn't post it.
Secondly, security classifications are reviewed periodically and can be changed as needed. Obviously that document has been reviewed and the confidential classification is no longer considered necessary, hence the work "CONFIDENTIAL" being blackened out.
-
Cheers, jroa, but he'll be back to argue the toss with you, I guarantee it.
Because he is psychotically attached to his 'space-adventures'.
Which is why I never engage him on his monomaniacal mathematical minutiae, preferring to stick to practicalities.
Like how squeezing 700 gallons of kerosene through that tiny pump, & THEN, with an even larger volume of liquid oxygen thrown in, through a 1 metre-wide pimped-up spaghetti-strainer in just one single second is not even vaguely physically possible.
Oh, & hi markjo; adding your usual high-quality Nothing to the debate, I see...
-
We do you people keep reposting a document that is marked "CONFIDENTIAL"? markjo, I thought you used to be in the military; you should know what confidential means. It is a step below SECRET.
First of all, I didn't post it.
Secondly, security classifications are reviewed periodically and can be changed as needed. Obviously that document has been reviewed and the confidential classification is no longer considered necessary, hence the work "CONFIDENTIAL" being blackened out.
Is it blacked out, or highlighted? Blacked out things are done so in order for you to not be able to read them. Or does blacking out words mean something different in "markjo land?"
-
I am sorry, and this will make this thread confusing for people who read it later, but I had a Secret Clearance when I was in the military, and I feel like I need to delete the posts that show a document that clearly displays, "Confidential" on it. I apologize for the inconvenience.
-
markjo, I did not delete your post because yours does not say confidential. However, I moved it to Quarantine because I don't know if it was cropped.
-
LOL!!!
What is WRONG with you, markjo?!?
Stop posting State Secrets, you Goddamn Pinko Assange-faced TRAITOR!!!
Just how LOW are you prepared to stoop in order to prove your space-fantasies real, Ethel Rosenberg?!?
Words fail me...
Except for this one: ROFLMFAO!!!
-
markjo getting moved to quarantine again. Please stop.
-
Guess his obsession with sci-fi space-adventures overcame his Patriotism, jroa...
Sickening stuff; I pity him.
GO BACK TO RUSSIA, MARKJO!!!
-
markjo getting moved to quarantine again. Please stop.
I'm sorry but what part of "DECLASSIFIED" do you not understand?
-
markjo getting moved to quarantine again. Please stop.
I'm sorry but what part of "DECLASSIFIED" do you not understand?
Dummy, it would be declassified if it said it on the document. Don't F**k wi me about classification.
-
markjo getting moved to quarantine again. Please stop.
I'm sorry but what part of "DECLASSIFIED" do you not understand?
Dummy, it would be declassified if it said it on the document.
It does. It says DOWNGRADED TO "UNCLASSIFIED", DATED 11-18-69, right in the middle of the front page.
-
There are many other drawings of the fake fuel pumps of the F1 engine available, markjo; what is so important about this one?
You are hiding something, traitor; I can smell it...
-
There are many other drawings of the fake fuel pumps of the F1 engine available, markjo; what is so important about this one?
That particular declassified document is straight from Rocektdyne. the company that designed and built the "fake" F1 engine.
You are hiding something, traitor; I can smell it...
Right now I'm hiding my contempt for you and jroa being such jerks.
-
There are many other drawings of the fake fuel pumps of the F1 engine available, markjo; what is so important about this one?
You are hiding something, traitor; I can smell it...
Please show us these fake fuel pump drawings then.
-
Well, I double checked the rest of his numbers. He did not even get the conversion from gallons right. A flow rate of 700 gallons per second is 2.6 m^3/s. The cross sectional area of a pipe with a 25 cm diameter is 490.87 cm^2. This gives us a flow velocity of 53 m/s. Let me know if you want me to show you my work and list my formulas, Mainframes. :D
I did get my numbers wrong, mainly because I was half asleep when posting. I used circumference and not area of a circle. The conversion of gallons to litres of 700 gallons to 3.2 cubic metres assumed imperial gallons. Your calculation of 53m/s looks fine.
And metres per second is a flow rate. The flow of fluid can be measured as a velocity but it is still a rate of flow if a cross sectional area is specified. M3/second would be a volumetric flowrate.
-
Liar.
-
Now get to grips with this, about the F1 Injector Plate:
How is squeezing 700 gallons of kerosene through that tiny pump, & THEN, with an even larger volume of liquid oxygen thrown in, through a 1 metre-wide pimped-up spaghetti-strainer, in just one single second, even vaguely physically possible?
-
Now get to grips with this, about the F1 Injector Plate:
How is squeezing 700 gallons of kerosene through that tiny pump, & THEN, with an even larger volume of liquid oxygen thrown in, through a 1 metre-wide pimped-up spaghetti-strainer, in just one single second, even vaguely physically possible?
As long as the liquid is flowing fast enough you could fit literally any volume of liquid through any hole in any given amount of time. It is possible to fit a gallon of water per second through a pin hole if it were going incredibly fast. The calculation of how fast it must go is quite simple. If the speed doubles then twice as much liquid can fit through a hole in a given amount of time.
-
Liar.
About what?
-
Jroa, stop misusing your authority as a moderator. Really, you should have your moderator status removed by now.
-
Well, I double checked the rest of his numbers. He did not even get the conversion from gallons right. A flow rate of 700 gallons per second is 2.6 m^3/s. The cross sectional area of a pipe with a 25 cm diameter is 490.87 cm^2. This gives us a flow velocity of 53 m/s. Let me know if you want me to show you my work and list my formulas, Mainframes. :D
I did get my numbers wrong, mainly because I was half asleep when posting. I used circumference and not area of a circle. The conversion of gallons to litres of 700 gallons to 3.2 cubic metres assumed imperial gallons. Your calculation of 53m/s looks fine.
And metres per second is a flow rate. The flow of fluid can be measured as a velocity but it is still a rate of flow if a cross sectional area is specified. M3/second would be a volumetric flowrate.
We all get it wrong occasionally when punching numbers into a calculator. I can not hold that against you. I just found it odd that every single one of your calculations was grossly in error.
And, no, distance per time is speed, not flow rate. By definition, flow rate is measured in volume per time. Please, look it up.
-
The calculation of how fast it must go is quite simple.
So do the calculation for us, simpleton.
700 gallons of kerosene, plus 2.27 times that volume of liquid oxygen, through a 1-metre-wide colander, in one single second.
Neutrals: if you think the fuel pump of the Saturn F1 engine was lulzy, wait til you see the LOX pumps...
Oh, & this:
I did get my numbers wrong, mainly because I was half asleep when posting.
LOL!!!
Did the dog also eat your homework, space-nonce?
You got your numbers wrong because you were LYING; everybody knows it, criminal.
-
And, no, distance per time is speed, not flow rate. By definition, flow rate is measured in volume per time. Please, look it up.
Volumetric flow rate is volume per time.
Mass flow rate is mass per time.
Flow rate in a defined channel can also be measured in distance per time.
-
LOL!!!
TOLD you mainframes'd be back to argue the mathematical toss, the shameless liar!
Meanwhile, anyone checked out the F1 Injector Plate yet?
It is hilarious; 700 gallons of kerosene, plus over double that volume of LOX, forced through a 1-metre wide spaghetti-strainer every single second...
Fraud-tastic!
-
And, no, distance per time is speed, not flow rate. By definition, flow rate is measured in volume per time. Please, look it up.
Volumetric flow rate is volume per time.
Mass flow rate is mass per time.
Flow rate in a defined channel can also be measured in distance per time.
Yes, the term Flow Rate is a common shortening for Volumetric Flow Rate. It is the only way Flow Rate is used and notice the root Volume in the name. You confusing the term Flow Rate with Flow Velocity is the problem. I can not find any source that says Flow Rate can be measured in distance per time. Every source I have looked at specifies the differences between Flow Rate and Flow Velocity. Perhaps you have access to some super secret credible website that says otherwise and you would like to share this with us?
-
LOL!!!
TOLD you mainframes'd be back to argue the mathematical toss, the shameless liar!
Meanwhile, anyone checked out the F1 Injector Plate yet?
It is hilarious; 700 gallons of kerosene, plus over double that volume of LOX, forced through a 1-metre wide spaghetti-strainer every single second...
Fraud-tastic!
Tell me what engineering training or experience you have?
-
And why do you keep gibbering about a one metre spaghetti strainer....?
-
And why do you keep gibbering about a one metre spaghetti strainer....?
He's yammering about the F-1's fuel injector plate.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
-
And, no, distance per time is speed, not flow rate. By definition, flow rate is measured in volume per time. Please, look it up.
Volumetric flow rate is volume per time.
Mass flow rate is mass per time.
Flow rate in a defined channel can also be measured in distance per time.
Yes, the term Flow Rate is a common shortening for Volumetric Flow Rate. It is the only way Flow Rate is used and notice the root Volume in the name. You confusing the term Flow Rate with Flow Velocity is the problem. I can not find any source that says Flow Rate can be measured in distance per time. Every source I have looked at specifies the differences between Flow Rate and Flow Velocity. Perhaps you have access to some super secret credible website that says otherwise and you would like to share this with us?
Its called linear flow rate and can be used when comparing flow in pipes and other channels. Rivers spring to mind where the volumetric flowrate is constant but the linear flowrate may change as the river channel shape changes.
-
The object in this photo was only 1 metre wide.
Yet it allegedly allowed 700 gallons of kerosene & 2.27 times that volume of LOX to flow through it every single second.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Impossible.
No 'engineering training' needed to see that.
But lots of Lying Training needed to NOT see it...
Off you go!
-
The object in this photo was only 1 metre wide.
Yet it allegedly allowed 700 gallons of kerosene & 2.27 times that volume of LOX to flow through it every single second.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Impossible.
No 'engineering training' needed to see that.
But lots of Lying Training needed to NOT see it...
Off you go!
Can you give a source for the law of physics that doesn't allow 2289 gallons per second to go through a 0.79 m2 area? In fact, my intuition tells me its too low, not too high. It's a linear speed of just 39.7 km/h. It's just intuition, though. Those figures you gave are likelly just injection speeds, not nozzle speeds.
-
Impossible.
Why?
-
LOL!!!
It's a f**king COLANDER, you dicks!
It's more solid than it is holes...
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Behave!!!
Anyhow, this is all 'well-documented, well-understood scientific fact' according to you; so get f**king explaining, criminals...
Shouldn't be hard, should it?
-
LOL!!!
It's a f**king COLANDER, you dicks!
It's more solid than it is holes...
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Behave!!!
Anyhow, this is all 'well-documented, well-understood scientific fact' according to you; so get f**king explaining, criminals...
Shouldn't be hard, should it?
Can you give a source for the law of physics that doesn't allow 2289 gallons per second to go through a 0.79 m2 area? In fact, my intuition tells me its too low, not too high. It's a linear speed of just 39.7 km/h. It's just intuition, though. Those figures you gave are likelly just injection speeds, not nozzle speeds.
-
LOL!!!
It's a f**king COLANDER, you dicks!
It's more solid than it is holes...
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Behave!!!
Anyhow, this is all 'well-documented, well-understood scientific fact' according to you; so get f**king explaining, criminals...
Shouldn't be hard, should it?
lol
you still use your lack of knowledge as evidence
lol
-
No; I'm using YOUR lack of knowledge as evidence, idiot.
-
Papa legba, literally any volume of liquid can pass through any hole no matter how small if it's going fast enough. If it goes through twice as fast then twice the volume passes through every second. There is no theoretical limit to how much liquid can fit through a hole in a given amount of time other then the speed of light.
-
The object in this photo was only 1 metre wide.
Yet it allegedly allowed 700 gallons of kerosene & 2.27 times that volume of LOX to flow through it every single second.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Impossible.
No 'engineering training' needed to see that.
But lots of Lying Training needed to NOT see it...
Off you go!
Can you give a source for the law of physics that doesn't allow 2289 gallons per second to go through a 0.79 m2 area?
But it's NOT a 0.79 m2 area, is it, blind man?
Most of it is SOLID, blind man, which will resist the flow of the 700 gallons of kerosene & 1600 gallons of LOX that are alleged to pass through it every single second.
& I'd love for you to find me a modern pump capable of a 137,340 gallon-per-minute (GPM) flow-rate; that is an ENORMOUS GPM, so I bet it'll be more than a tad bigger than the ones in the silly fake Saturn V...
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Oh, & mikeman: the speed of light?!?! Keep watching Star Trek, dingbat.
-
The object in this photo was only 1 metre wide.
Yet it allegedly allowed 700 gallons of kerosene & 2.27 times that volume of LOX to flow through it every single second.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Impossible.
No 'engineering training' needed to see that.
But lots of Lying Training needed to NOT see it...
Off you go!
Can you give a source for the law of physics that doesn't allow 2289 gallons per second to go through a 0.79 m2 area?
But it's NOT a 0.79 m2 area, is it, blind man?
Most of it is SOLID, blind man, which will resist the flow of the 700 gallons of kerosene & 1600 gallons of LOX that are alleged to pass through it every single second.
& I'd love for you to find me a modern pump capable of a 137,340 gallon-per-minute (GPM) flow-rate; that is an ENORMOUS GPM, so I bet it'll be more than a tad bigger than the ones in the silly fake Saturn V...
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Oh, & mikeman: the speed of light?!?! Keep watching Star Trek, dingbat.
I used the area you gave me: 1m diameter circle=0.79 m2 area. You didn't mention any plates, so I assumed the flow rate was measured after the injector plate. If you have a better source for the area, please, give it.
Also, mikeman is somewhat correct: the only theoretical limit to flow circulation is the speed of light, although of course such near c flows are not feasible with today's technology, due to the forces involved.
-
What a pitiful specimen you are, conker; are you BLIND, that you could not see that the injector plate in the bloody great big photograph I posted was full of holes?
& is 'today's technology' even capable of forcing a 137,340 GPM flow rate through a 0.79 m2 COLANDER, using a pump only 5ft x 4ft square?
No.
No, of course it is not; the whole idea is ridiculous...
Wtf is wrong with you?
Grow up.
-
What a pitiful specimen you are, conker; are you BLIND, that you could not see that the injector plate in the bloody great big photograph I posted was full of holes?
I did. Since you gave me the area after the injector plate, it is natural to assume that the flow was measured at the same place that the diameter was. You holded that information from me. If you have the info needed, I can recalculate.
& is 'today's technology' even capable of forcing a 137,340 GPM flow rate through a 0.79 m2 COLANDER, using a pump only 5ft x 4ft square?
I don't know. Acording to NASA (if your figures are right), yes. Can you give us your source for those flowrates? So I can check.
No.
No, of course it is not; the whole idea is ridiculous...
Why?
-
What a pitiful specimen you are, conker; are you BLIND, that you could not see that the injector plate in the bloody great big photograph I posted was full of holes?
I did. Since you gave me the area after the injector plate, it is natural to assume that the flow was measured at the same place that the diameter was.
So; even though you did see that the Injector plate was full of holes, you went ahead & assumed it wasn't?
In fact, you made your calculations on the assumption it wasn't there at all.
Oookay...
Now I can see why you're NOT a scientist.
-
Papa legba, literally any volume of liquid can pass through any hole no matter how small if it's going fast enough. If it goes through twice as fast then twice the volume passes through every second. There is no theoretical limit to how much liquid can fit through a hole in a given amount of time other then the speed of light.
I think you meant to reference pressure, not speed. Static pressure will cause a liquid to pass through a hole, not the speed it is traveling. The speed is a result of the flow rate and the size of the hole, not the cause.
-
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Do you suppose that using high pressure (say, in excess of 1500 psi) could help increase the flow rates to those claimed?
-
I think you meant to reference pressure, not speed. Static pressure will cause a liquid to pass through a hole, not the speed it is traveling. The speed is a result of the flow rate and the size of the hole, not the cause.
Indeed.
& what kind of pressure would be required to force 2300 gallons of liquid through a 1 metre diameter colander in one single second of time?
More than the tiny, 5ft x 4ft contraption that NASA claims the Saturn F1 used was capable of producing, that's for sure...
No 'engineering training' required to understand THAT.
& markjo; YOU work out the pressure required; it will be a mind-bogglingly implausible number, so I doubt you will...
-
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Do you suppose that using high pressure (say, in excess of 1500 psi) could help increase the flow rates to those claimed?
I thought it was a centrifugal pump, markjo? Centrifugal pumps are known for high flow rate, not pressure. Flow rate is not equivalent to, nor is it a result of pressure. You can have a high flow rate and very little pressure, or a high pressure and very little or no flow rate. The two terms are not synonymous.
-
What a pitiful specimen you are, conker; are you BLIND, that you could not see that the injector plate in the bloody great big photograph I posted was full of holes?
I did. Since you gave me the area after the injector plate, it is natural to assume that the flow was measured at the same place that the diameter was.
So; even though you did see that the Injector plate was full of holes, you went ahead & assumed it wasn't?
No. In order to calculate flow velocity, one needs the area, and the flow rate. You gave us flow rate, and diameter of a round pipe (area). Since you gave no more information, it is assumed those two measurements were made at the same point, thats standard procedure. Of course, such area could only happen after the injector plate. So, now here's my doubt. Either you measured flowrate and area in two different areas (dont do that), or you measured it after the injector plate (so my assumption was right, because past area only affects flow rate via possible compression, and we already have a measurement of flow rate), or you measured it on the injector place (in which case you didnt give us the area). So, either take measurements in the same goddamn place, dont do anything because my calculations are correct, or give us the total area of the holes (which I cannot accuratelly calculate with a picture).
In fact, you made your calculations on the assumption it wasn't there at all.
No. I made my calculations on the assumption that you gave us the correct area. If you give us the wrong area, its not my fault. You said that x gallons per second flowed (actually, you claimed that they couldnt) through a pipe of 1 m of diameter. The area of a 1 m diameter pipe is the one I gave you (up to two modest significative digits, of course).
Oookay...
Now I can see why you're NOT a scientist.
I never said I wasnt. Whether I am or not a scientist is irrelevant, because I dont use myself as an authority. I merelly quote the science, and do 5th grader math, step by step, so everyone can see whether I did a mistake (my fault, Ill correct it), or not.
-
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Do you suppose that using high pressure (say, in excess of 1500 psi) could help increase the flow rates to those claimed?
I thought it was a centrifugal pump, markjo? Centrifugal pumps are known for high flow rate, not pressure.
I'm sure that I wouldn't know, seeing as that information is confidential. ::)
Flow rate is not equivalent to, nor is it a result of pressure. You can have a high flow rate and very little pressure, or a high pressure and very little or no flow rate.
Or, you can have high pressure and high flow rate through a small passage.
-
Have a look at the cross-section of the stupid thing; 700 gallons of kerosene through that, plus 2.27 times that volume of LOX, every single second?
Do you suppose that using high pressure (say, in excess of 1500 psi) could help increase the flow rates to those claimed?
I thought it was a centrifugal pump, markjo? Centrifugal pumps are known for high flow rate, not pressure.
I'm sure that I wouldn't know, seeing as that information is confidential. ::)
Flow rate is not equivalent to, nor is it a result of pressure. You can have a high flow rate and very little pressure, or a high pressure and very little or no flow rate.
Or, you can have high pressure and high flow rate through a small passage.
Yes! I think you are finally starting to figure out that pressure and flow rate are two different things. You are doing good markjo! I think I will give you a gold star for the week!
-
Yes! I think you are finally starting to figure out that pressure and flow rate are two different things. You are doing good markjo! I think I will give you a gold star for the week!
Actually, flow rate and pressure are closely related based on the size of the pipe. Or have you never heard of Bernoulli's principle.
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
No, I said pressure is a static measurement. Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo. Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
No, I said pressure is a static measurement. Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo. Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.
Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
No, I said pressure is a static measurement. Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo. Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.
Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?
Not really. I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack.
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
No, I said pressure is a static measurement. Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo. Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.
Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?
Not really. I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack.
I guess we should all just start dancing.
-
Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement. I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.
So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening? ??? :o
No, I said pressure is a static measurement. Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo. Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.
Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?
Not really. I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack.
Oh, so it's okay for you to be needlessly pedantic with RE'ers but not NASA hoaxers? And here I thought that you were an equal opportunity pain in the ass.
-
jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is dependant upon a few factors including pressure.
Fill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.
-
All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.
-
Oh, so it's okay for you to be needlessly pedantic with RE'ers but not NASA hoaxers?
How am I a 'hoaxer', markjo?
It is NASA who are the 'hoaxers'; for example, by claiming that 2,300 gallons of liquid can be forced through a 1-metre wide colander by a 5ft x 4ft pump designed in the early 1960s in one single second of time.
Now THAT'S major-league Hoaxing!
-
jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.
Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.
Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket. Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment. When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out. If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease. This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase.
To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.
All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.
Technically, you are correct. However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate. Read my example above.
-
jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.
Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.
Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket. Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment. When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out. If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease. This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase.
To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.
All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.
Technically, you are correct. However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate. Read my example above.
There are those children stories by Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren about a girl named Pippi Langstrumpf (Pippi Longstocking in the english version) - it became a TV series and it had a very catchy little song over the titles where one of the line goes "Ich mach' mir die Welt - wie sie mir gefällt", roughly translated it means "I myself create the world - however i like it". Strangely, that's the line that comes to my mind right now.
I am not sure where you got your knowledge of hydraulic systems from, but I would ask for my money back, because they really screwed you on that course.
And just as a general comment ... "hardly measurable" is not a scientific unit. If something is measurable, than it's better be included into your conclusions, no matter how "hardly" you think it is. And if you want to exclude something from your theory, you better give a more qualified reason than that (not that it matters much in your explanation, because that one was wrong on so many levels - maybe you better read up on pressure, flow-rate and cross-section again, because arguing that pushing down on a plastic bottle isn't increasing the flow of liquid from it seems, well, revolutionary).
-
Anyhoo, while you lot all argue about how pumps work, I went out to find a real pump that has a similar flow-rate to the fake Saturn F1 pumps & was even vaguely portable.
I couldn't find any with a 138,000 GPM flow-rate; the best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.
The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com (http://www.aurorapumps.com) & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...
Check out the photos; LULZ!!!
-
Anyhoo, while you lot all argue about how pumps work, I went out to find a real pump that has a similar flow-rate to the fake Saturn F1 pumps & was even vaguely portable.
I couldn't find any with a 138,000 GPM flow-rate; the best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.
The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com (http://www.aurorapumps.com) & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...
Check out the photos; LULZ!!!
Wow, 3000 posts and still going strong, here's a video for Papa, get a cold beer and settle back and learn something about rocket motor pump design.
! No longer available (http://#)
(http://)
-
jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.
Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.
Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket. Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment. When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out. If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease. This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase.
To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.
All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.
Technically, you are correct. However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate. Read my example above.
There are those children stories by Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren about a girl named Pippi Langstrumpf (Pippi Longstocking in the english version) - it became a TV series and it had a very catchy little song over the titles where one of the line goes "Ich mach' mir die Welt - wie sie mir gefällt", roughly translated it means "I myself create the world - however i like it". Strangely, that's the line that comes to my mind right now.
I am not sure where you got your knowledge of hydraulic systems from, but I would ask for my money back, because they really screwed you on that course.
And just as a general comment ... "hardly measurable" is not a scientific unit. If something is measurable, than it's better be included into your conclusions, no matter how "hardly" you think it is. And if you want to exclude something from your theory, you better give a more qualified reason than that (not that it matters much in your explanation, because that one was wrong on so many levels - maybe you better read up on pressure, flow-rate and cross-section again, because arguing that pushing down on a plastic bottle isn't increasing the flow of liquid from it seems, well, revolutionary).
Just to let you know, I taught Industrial Hydraulics classes (the course was called Fluid Power) for 10 years as a part time instructor (2001-2011). I was also, at one time, certified as an IHT (Industrial Hydraulics Technician) through the International Fluid Power Society, although I have not renewed my certification in a while. This is in addition to having almost 19 years of industrial maintenance experience and college courses in the subject.
That being said, what part of my post are you disagreeing with, specifically? Do you disagree that a pump with its inlet and outlet connected together has the maximum flow rate, but very little pressure, and that pressure rises as resistance is added to the circuit? I can assure you that I performed this experiment several times per year for 10 years as a demonstration for the students. I can't remember for sure if it was in the introduction chapter or one of the chapters specifically on pumps in the text book that we taught from, but the text book specifically said, "Pumps do not create pressure, they create flow. The system creates pressure by restricting the flow." And, then the instructor would demonstrate this by connecting the inlet of a pump through an open valve to the outlet of the pump and while it is running, slowly close the valve while the students observed the pressure go from essentially 0 to whatever the pressure relief was set. They would also observe the flow rate and see that even at close to 0 psi, the flow rate would be close to what the pump was rated. I can dig up several editions of the text book from boxes if you want a proper citation if you need me to do so.
Now, if you know more about hydraulics than I do, then calculate the pressure at the nozzle given the cross sectional area and flow rate that I listed earlier. I know I can do it quite easily, but, let us see what you can do without google to tell you how to do it. ::)
Edited to correct typos
-
I think you two are arguing at cross purposes, the combustion chamber pressure in a rocket engine comes from the combustion process, not the pumps.
-
I think you two are arguing at cross purposes, the combustion chamber pressure in a rocket engine comes from the combustion process, not the pumps.
You may be right. I may have jumped the gun with my last post. I am not a rocket scientist, and I would have a hard time calculating the counter force of the combustion without Google's help. I could only calculate the hydraulic pressure at the nozzle. However, my points still stand, and I will be happy to argue them with anyone if they think I am wrong.
-
Jroa, might I ask how you can calculate anything about the F1 engine flow-rate without first knowing the exact specifications of the Injector Plate that is clearly impeding that Flow?
The Injector Plate is not just one layer of colander-like holes btw; it is two, separated by at least a 1 inch gap.
Surely the pressure involved in its impedance of a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a 1-metre diameter outlet would create very considerable engineering problems indeed regarding its mounting, etc, as well as putting excessive strain on the pump & associated mountings, piping etc, itself?
Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:
The best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.
The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com (http://www.aurorapumps.com) & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...
Check out the photos; LULZ!!!
-
Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:
Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it?
Rocket engine fuel pumps are designed for very specific purposes and aren't generally available off the shelf.
-
Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it?
It isn't about gas turbines though, is it markjo: it is about internal volume.
& the F1 pump has nothing like the internal volume of the 1160 series, even though it is allegedly 40% more powerful.
Nor are the F1's inlet & outlet anything like the same size, so the internal stresses would be enormous; & we have already established that the F1 pump was only 5ft x 4ft with an aluminium casing...
Also, the manual of the 1160 is available on the same site; note the massiveness of the mounting necessary; a solid, reinforced concrete base, to which it is very firmly attached by many large anchoring bolts.
Yet the F1 pump seems to merely dangle off the side of the engine nozzle; hardly what I'd call secure or solid...
& all this is before we get to the problem of forcing a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a double-sided 1-metre wide colander, & all the colossal stresses & strains that would produce on the entire structure.
Really, markjo; we are in la-la land here, engineering-wise; this thing, the F1 engine, simply cannot exist as described.
It is a sci-fi fantasy, fit only for the wildest dreams of madmen, idiots & felons, & nothing you can say will dissuade me from that absolute certainty.
But, of course, you will keep on trying...
So; carry on Lying.
-
Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.
-
Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it?
It isn't about gas turbines though, is it markjo: it is about internal volume.
& the F1 pump has nothing like the internal volume of the 1160 series, even though it is allegedly 40% more powerful.
Does the 1160 series operate at pressures in excess of 1500 psi?
-
Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.
No; you do it.
Using your fraudulent maths 'skills' that jroa busted like a pinata, perhaps?
You are the one who claims this all 'well understood, well-established scientific fact'.
Shouldn't be hard then, should it?
Does the 1160 series operate at pressures in excess of 1500 psi?
Does the 1160 pump cryogenically frozen fuels?
No, it does not.
& as we all know what effect cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen have on materials, then I'd expect the Saturn F1 pump to be even more robustly constructed than the 1160...
But it's not, it, markjo?
It's a tiny, ridiculous little p.o.s, anchored to nothing in particular, that allegedly pushes a flow rate in excess of 138,000 GPM through a f**king 1-metre wide COLANDER...
LOL!!!
We're here again, criminals; you're all nagging away, trying to convince me of the existence of a preposterous machine that every single experience of my long life tells me is utterly physically impossible...
Well you can all go take a flying f**k at a doughnut, cos I will never buy what you are selling.
Ever.
Now carry on Lying.
-
Does the 1160 pump cryogenically frozen fuels?
No, it does not.
& as we all know what effect cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen have on materials, then I'd expect the Saturn F1 pump to be even more robustly constructed than the 1160...
But it's not, it, markjo?
It's a tiny, ridiculous little p.o.s, anchored to nothing in particular, that allegedly pushes a flow rate in excess of 138,000 GPM through a f**king 1-metre wide COLANDER...
You still haven't told us where you got your engineering degree. After all, you must e one hell of an engineer to be able to tell what a pump can or can't do just by looking at it.
-
Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.
No; you do it.
Using your fraudulent maths 'skills' that jroa busted like a pinata, perhaps?
You are the one who claims this all 'well understood, well-established scientific fact'.
Shouldn't be hard then, should it?
Nah, I'm happy that the pumps work and have video and historical evidence on my side. You're the one saying they don't work, so it's upto you to prove it.
-
LOL!!!
So, mainframes; you can't do it?
Even though you claim it's 'well-understood, well-established scientific fact'?
Coward.
& markjo; I don't need to show you anything or calculate anything beyond the absolute basics.
Which are: you cannot force 2300 gallons of liquid through a 1-metre wide spaghetti strainer in one single second of time.
It can't be done.
End. Of. Story.
The entire space program is as fake as tits on a bull; & I'll expose how they hoaxed up the start of it soon enough.
It is a tale full of lulz & audacious fraud; neutrals will love it...
You won't, though; but you should all be in jail anyway, so who cares?
-
& markjo; I don't need to show you anything or calculate anything beyond the absolute basics.
Which are: you cannot force 2300 gallons of liquid through a 1-metre wide spaghetti strainer in one single second of time.
It can't be done.
Then please show your calculations proving that it can't be done.
-
'calculations'?
LOL!!!
Like the ones your bum-chum mainframes either refuses to provide, or when he does they are utterly fraudulent?
GTFO, you arrogant shyster!
See this thing in the picture below that looks like a colander?
Well it's under 1 metre wide.
Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.
Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.
Calculations?
LMFAO!!!
The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite; it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!
Are you MENTAL?!?!
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Now stop wasting sane people's time & F**k off back to the psych ward, tinfoil-hatters.
-
'calculations'?
Yes, calculations. You know, the things that separate evidence from opinion.
-
Would you ask for 'calculations' that Santa's Sleigh's not feasible too?
No.
I've provided more evidence on this thread than all you cultists put together, & everyone knows it.
You just ignore the big parts you don't like, pick at the irrelevant bits round the edges, then ask for 'calculations' to round off your lying shit-fest.
So F**k Off, criminal.
-
I've provided more evidence on this thread than all you cultists put together, & everyone knows it.
No, you've provided your opinion, conjecture, ridicule, insults and abuse. None of those count as evidence.
-
Jroa, might I ask how you can calculate anything about the F1 engine flow-rate without first knowing the exact specifications of the Injector Plate that is clearly impeding that Flow?
The Injector Plate is not just one layer of colander-like holes btw; it is two, separated by at least a 1 inch gap.
Surely the pressure involved in its impedance of a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a 1-metre diameter outlet would create very considerable engineering problems indeed regarding its mounting, etc, as well as putting excessive strain on the pump & associated mountings, piping etc, itself?
Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:
The best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.
The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com (http://www.aurorapumps.com) & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...
Check out the photos; LULZ!!!
I would need to know the exact size of the holes and how many of them there are.
-
I would need to know the exact size of the holes and how many of them there are.
That information can be found here: http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-injector.html (http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-injector.html)
-
Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.
Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.
Yep, just goes to show what cubic dollars and a nation wide effort can achieve.
On the other hand, you are aware are you not, that argument from incredibility doesn't help your position. It just make you look like a conspiracy nutter.... Oh wait...
Did you watch the show about the Russian N1 rocket?
-
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.
& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.
As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.
& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.
Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.
-
LOL!!!
YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.
& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.
As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.
& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.
Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.
So everything you profess is a lie, you don't think there is a conspiracy to fake space missions at all, you are just a creepy little troll.
A word to the wise, my little trollish fool, try and learn something about the topic at hand before making yourself look like a fool. Your continued ignorance is comical.
-
LOL!!!
*sigh*
YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.
Actually, you're the conspiracy nutter in that you're a nutter who thinks that NASA is a conspiracy.
& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.
How about the fact that the US isn't the only country who claimed to get a 6 million pound rocket to take off?
As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.
We aren't talking about things that the vast majority of people think are fictional. We are talking about things that the vast majority of people believe to be real.
& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.
I get the feeling that you could get sucked through that turbo pump and still doubt its capabilities.
Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.
I like him a lot better than I like you.
-
LOL!!!
Lots of puffed-up ridicule, evasion & pomposity from the markjo/rayzor double-team, but no answers to this:
See the thing in the picture below that looks like a colander?
Well it's under 1 metre wide.
Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.
Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.
LMFAO!!!
The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite; it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!
Are you MENTAL?!?!
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/f1-.jpg)
Nice try, though, by now beyond blatantly obvious criminal shills...
-
The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite;
No one ever claimed that it was.
it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!
Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?
-
Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?
I thought your bum-chum mainframes was doing that...
Oh, wait, he bottled out of it!
Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real, so I don't need em for the silly fake Saturn F1 engine either...
It's just you, me, & rayzor now, isn't it, criminal shill; I've whittled you down to the bare bones, yet still you are back-pedalling & losing ground...
So; quick! Go jump in a few of your sock-ID's & shout me down...
LMFAO - at YOUR utter Failure!!!
-
Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?
I thought your bum-chum mainframes was doing that...
Oh, wait, he bottled out of it!
Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real, so I don't need em for the silly fake Saturn F1 engine either...
It's just you, me, & rayzor now, isn't it, criminal shill; I've whittled you down to the bare bones, yet still you are back-pedalling & losing ground...
So; quick! Go jump in a few of your sock-ID's & shout me down...
LMFAO - at YOUR utter Failure!!!
I'm not spending the time and effort to do it:
a) because it is a complex calculation
b) because all I will get is some immature response
c) we don't have to prove anything
-
LOL!!!
Coward.
But what lies at the root of your cowardice, mainframes?
Were you bullied?
Or abused, somehow?
-
Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real...
Looks real to me.
(http://images.smh.com.au/2012/12/22/3909880/art-santa-620x349.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
Coward.
But what lies at the root of your cowardice, mainframes?
Were you bullied?
Or abused, somehow?
Well I guess I could do a back of the envelope calculation just to shut you up.
The operating pressure of the pump will be around 20-50 MPa based upon current rocket turbo pump data.
Aluminium alloys have a yield strength of around 200-400 MPa.
So no problems with operating at high enough pressures here.
-
LOL!!!
You calculated NOTHING there...
Just vomited up a couple of wiki-facts.
You Lying, Cowardly Fraud.
-
LOL!!!
You calculated NOTHING there...
Just vomited up a couple of wiki-facts.
You Lying, Cowardly Fraud.
Did I lie about the operating pressure? No.
Did I lie about the yield strength? No.
Did I show operating pressure to be below yield strength? Yes.
No lies here so quit with the pathetic accusations.
-
You said you'd done a 'back of the envelope calculation', yet provided only 2 disconnected & unsubstantiated wiki-factoids, with zero maths...
Big Lies there, so quit with the Lying.
You're finished, aren't you, sad little man?
-
You said you'd done a 'back of the envelope calculation', yet provided only 2 disconnected & unsubstantiated wiki-factoids, with zero maths...
Big Lies there, so quit with the Lying.
You're finished, aren't you, sad little man?
I provided a typical rocket engine operating pressure and the pressure at which a range of aluminium allows fail when subjected to tensile stress and that the operating pressure was below this failure point thus showing that aluminium allow is just fine for the construction of the pump.
-
LOL!!!
'Typical rocket engine operating pressure'.
We're talking about fuel pumps here, psycho...
& what thickness of aluminium are you talking about anyway?
The way you talk, then cooking foil should be 'just fine' for making fuel-pumps out of...
Wtf is WRONG with you?
Oh; I forgot; you're a psycho in a diaper...
Also; 'just fine' is the most over-used shill-phrase ever; learn some new ones, psycho-felon nonce.
-
Yeah meant to say turbo pump. My apologies.
I don't have the thickness of aluminium alloy because we don't have the detailed schematics. I would hazard a guess typo 2cm thick but that's only a guess.
-
here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
(http://)
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.
Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.
-
here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
(http://)
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.
Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.
For all those that are interested; take a look at this video at around 1:48 and observe the lamp post n ear bottom right of the video.
Imagine the power coming out of that rocket exhaust and look how the lamp post just stands firm.
! No longer available (http://#)]
Now take a look at this video below and see what happens when a wind hit lamp posts and bear in mind that we are talking a fraction of what these shuttle engines supposedly give out.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
You do understand that the light post was not in the way of the blast, right?
The test gantry is set up to focus the blast in one direction so that nothing else gets damaged as you describe.
Why would the put a lamp post in the direction of the blast?
To put it simply, if it is not covered by the white condensate and you can see it, then it is on the camera side of the blast area and wont get damaged.
If you are calling ordinary test footage fake, then what makes that other video, or any other video ever (including your baby pictures and videos) real?
-
Page 3 of this paper by NASA contains the pressure inside the turbopump, and other numbers that were being requested, and someone with better flow dynamics knowdlege than me can use: http://www.yang.gatech.edu/publications/Journal/JPP%20(1993,%20Oefelein).pdf (http://www.yang.gatech.edu/publications/Journal/JPP%20(1993,%20Oefelein).pdf)
This data seems pretty solid to me.
-
! No longer available (http://#)
Notice that the ones on the far side of the street only have one lamp on them are not rocking? Notice that the lamp in the rocket video has only one lamp? Maybe, the style with only one lamp on it is less affected by wind than the style with two lamps. Just an observation that you are comparing apples to oranges and not apples to apples.
-
This data seems pretty solid to me.
How would you know?
You're NOT a scientist, remember?
So you're opinion is worth no more than my own, is it?
& my opinion is that the data MUST be fraudulent because no physics can support the existence of a 3,000 tonne rocket capable of travelling 480,000 miles through a vacuum to the moon & back.
This entire thread supports that opinion; I have taken you on one after the other & beat you every single time.
Everyone knows this; so suck them rotten eggs, losers...
-
This data seems pretty solid to me.
How would you know?
Note that I didn't claim to know. I just said it seems pretty solid.
You're NOT a scientist, remember?
I never said that, you keep imagining things.
So you're opinion is worth no more than my own, is it?
Of course not. The difference is that my objection to your opinion isnt an opinion: I have data done by people with far greater expertise than me that I can use to defend my position. You don't.
& my opinion
FINALLY you realized that you are just spouting opinion. Maybe now will you post evidence...
is that the data MUST be fraudulent
Ugh. I knew I shouldnt have spoken so soon.
because no physics can support the existence of a 3,000 tonne rocket capable of travelling 480,000 miles through a vacuum to the moon & back.
Physicists disagree with you, and have data that shows otherwise. The burden of proof is on you.
This entire thread supports that opinion; I have taken you on one after the other & beat you every single time.
You don't have to beat us. We are nobodies. You have to beat the science, and that can only be done via better science. You haven't posted a thing even close to what would count as evidence. Mostly ad-hominem attacks, and outright insults.
-
LOL!!!
I have beat your sorry asses red, liar.
Just the first line you wrote gives your game away; 'seems pretty solid...'
Pure shill-talk.
'seems fine to me...'
'works just fine...'
'seems pretty solid...'
LOL!!!
Well, NOTHING about your space-nonsense seems fine or solid to me; it IS all utterly physically impossible: FACT.
& I have provided copious evidence to support that FACT.
Read this whole thread, neutrals, & decide for yourself...
Your hideous NASA Emperor has no clothes, criminal cultists; a child can see it...
Now f**k off.
-
You showed us
lol
lol
! No longer available (http://#)
lol
-
I said space travel is Fake, retard.
I never said giant fireworks are fake.
So why do you post a youtube of one?
-
He is a retart. Forgive him.
-
here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
(http://)
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.
Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.
For all those that are interested; take a look at this video at around 1:48 and observe the lamp post n ear bottom right of the video.
Imagine the power coming out of that rocket exhaust and look how the lamp post just stands firm.
! No longer available (http://#)]
Now take a look at this video below and see what happens when a wind hit lamp posts and bear in mind that we are talking a fraction of what these shuttle engines supposedly give out.
! No longer available (http://#)
I guess the purpose behind your post was to question what sort of power was actually coming out of the shuttle engine?
Did it not seem as though much thrust was being generated?
Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?
-
Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?
Partly; but their IS a purpose behind all the laughable Sound & Fury of these lashed-up, fire-belching monstrosities.
That is: to fool Joe Public into thinking 'space-travel' is a reality.
Still; good to see you're getting there!
-
I guess the purpose behind your post was to question what sort of power was actually coming out of the shuttle engine?
Did it not seem as though much thrust was being generated?
Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?
Each engine has to be tested before they could install them in the Shuttle. That test shows a test of 1 of the 3 that eventually gets installed in the shuttle. I am not sure if they had to do this before getting it certified for the next launch, but I wont be surprised. The shuttle was stupid. It cost more to launch than the Saturn V and took substantially less up.
-
I guess the purpose behind your post was to question what sort of power was actually coming out of the shuttle engine?
Did it not seem as though much thrust was being generated?
Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?
Each engine has to be tested before they could install them in the Shuttle. That test shows a test of 1 of the 3 that eventually gets installed in the shuttle. I am not sure if they had to do this before getting it certified for the next launch, but I wont be surprised. The shuttle was stupid. It cost more to launch than the Saturn V and took substantially less up.
The shuttle was stupid was it?
It was magnificent when it was going into so called space and dropping segments of the so called space station off, which apparently couldn't be done by the so called rockets that you say can carry more. More or what?
The shuttle was discontinued for a very good reason. That reason was the fact that people were becoming wise to it and technology of cameras and such was getting too close to the bone which would see the real launches in short order, so they shut the so called shuttle down, which wasn't a real thing in the first place, apart from scale models and large museum composites, just like the saturn V and all the rest of the large unusable model eye candy.
-
The shuttle was stupid was it?
It was magnificent when it was going into so called space and dropping segments of the so called space station off, which apparently couldn't be done by the so called rockets that you say can carry more. More or what?
The shuttle was discontinued for a very good reason. That reason was the fact that people were becoming wise to it and technology of cameras and such was getting too close to the bone which would see the real launches in short order, so they shut the so called shuttle down, which wasn't a real thing in the first place, apart from scale models and large museum composites, just like the saturn V and all the rest of the large unusable model eye candy.
It must be tough admiring something that you claim did not go anywhere.
If all it did was go to some unimpressive altitude and land . . . . somewhere in Africa?, then its no more than a badly design aircraft, then there is nothing to admire.
If it went to space then engineering behind it was amazing. My issue with it has to do with the design principles. In short, it was designed by the US congress, and NASA made it work.
Space craft dont need wings.
-
The shuttle was stupid was it?
It was magnificent when it was going into so called space and dropping segments of the so called space station off, which apparently couldn't be done by the so called rockets that you say can carry more. More or what?
The shuttle was discontinued for a very good reason. That reason was the fact that people were becoming wise to it and technology of cameras and such was getting too close to the bone which would see the real launches in short order, so they shut the so called shuttle down, which wasn't a real thing in the first place, apart from scale models and large museum composites, just like the saturn V and all the rest of the large unusable model eye candy.
It must be tough admiring something that you claim did not go anywhere.
If all it did was go to some unimpressive altitude and land . . . . somewhere in Africa?, then its no more than a badly design aircraft, then there is nothing to admire.
If it went to space then engineering behind it was amazing. My issue with it has to do with the design principles. In short, it was designed by the US congress, and NASA made it work.
Space craft dont need wings.
I'm not admiring it. It's you people that did all of that before you changed your minds. That's why I put the words "It was magnificent when it was going into so called space and dropping segments of the so called space station off, which apparently couldn't be done by the so called rockets that you say can carry more. More or what?"
Obviously I forgot about you people being sort of special.
What does "designed by US congress" mean and also, what do you mean, NASA made it work?
;D
-
He means that the Shuttle contained very important concept failures. It was a spacecraft which was designed pretty well, to fit some use criteria, but that criteria was made by political, and not scientific, reasons. The design fitted that use pretty well, but it was not necesary at all, in fact, such attempts to make the shuttle be more economic ended up doing quite the opposite. Until we have SSTO, spacecraft dont need wings.
-
The US Congress approves all NASA missions. NASA cant just build a rocket and inform the President afterwards. The problem is when you have a bunch of politicians that need to approve an item they start thinking like politicians and not engineers. So things like, "how many people will it employ in my state", or "will it out do what the Russians are doing" become more important than engineering and science. NASA had to fit in all the requirements that Congress threw at them, including who and where the parts are made.
The IDEA behind the Space shuttle was for it to be cheap and reusable. Then it went to congress . . . the end of cheap and reusable. It would actually have been cheaper if they rebuilt it every time!
The saturnV stopped being used because it was a really heavy lifter, and the requirements for that much lift was not needed. SaturnV 118 000kg vs 25 000kg.
Overall the SaturnV would cost way more, but the shuttle cost more per Kg.
April/May 2016 will hopefully see the launching of a new rocket that can put double the shuttles payload into space for less than 20% its overall price.
sorry Conker, did not see your reply. But what he said too
-
He means that the Shuttle contained very important concept failures. It was a spacecraft which was designed pretty well, to fit some use criteria, but that criteria was made by political, and not scientific, reasons. The design fitted that use pretty well, but it was not necesary at all, in fact, such attempts to make the shuttle be more economic ended up doing quite the opposite. Until we have SSTO, spacecraft dont need wings.
Of course they need wings if they are fantasy built like the shuttle, because it has to still create and atmospheric glow as it comes back from fantasy space to GLIDE back to the ground at some out of the way air field.
Look how comfortable the fantasy aquanauts were going up into fantasy space and look how comfortable they were when they fantasy glided back to Earth.
And you're telling me that this craft was not very good? This fantasy craft was the bees knees. Flash Gordon would have been quite proud of it.
Here's your space. Now bear with me and read and understand what I'm about to say. Wear safety glasses as well because there's nothing as important as wearing safety glasses.
Anyway, here's the deal.
When you were a kid, your dad came home with a new car, or what was new to you if you were one of those families that could only afford second hand cars, like we were.
Anyway, your dad comes home with a new car and you all run out. " gee pap, the car is space age new..wow."
"Yes son, it's nice and sleek compared to that box car we drove in."..."Gee pap, wait till I tell all my friends."
5 years later.
"Come and have a look at our new car. I traded in the old one for this even sleeker, faster more comfortable car. It costs a bit more in fuel but it's sleek and comfortable and we don't have to be cramped up anymore."
"Gee pap, it seems like we just get better all the time. Better, stronger, faster."
10 years later.
"Pap, what happened to the sleek new models of car you always bought?"
" Ahhh son...It was nice while it lasted but I've decided to buy this car. Remember this car?...it's the same car I bought when you were still in ammonia stinking shorts. I decided that this is the way forward.2
"But pap, people will think you've turned into some kind of eccentric by going back to the old dangerous cars that we all had to cram into."
"Yep...isn't it wonderful."
You see, your so called space travel has went backwards. Now this should open your eyes but it won't. I''m sure it won't....but it should.
You see, a rocket taking off looks like a missile from a distance.
A shuttle taking off , of the size purported would be found out as time went on, due to more and more people becoming suspicious of it all, to the point of some clever dick sussing it out by taking care to analyse it in real time and realising that we've been duped to hell.
The way to alter it is to go back to the old fashioned way of duping the public. rocket take off and a landing in the sea or on deserted ground in the middle of nowhere, far away from prying eyes.
But of course, all this would be just too expensive and all people in on it can't keep this quite.
You watch films every week and the actors and actresses will not tell you the story line if they're told not to. Of course; it's only a film...but then again, your Cady Coleman and Sunny William's character's are also filming in front of a live audience in the studio, as well as good old Chris (guitar man/singer) Hadfield.
Anyone with a brain in their skull can understand that no shuttle of the proportions of the one we are told is sent up into space, can sit on a launchpad on those frigging struts, never mind lift off. Anyone who think's otherwise after checking it all out, is not really worth talking to because it switches from naive to blatant lying from that point.
-
Falcon Heavy launching mid next year will be double the size of the shuttle. The SLS that is being planned will be larger than the SaturnV. So there goes that theory.
SpaceX is planning on landing their 1st stage booster back on ground, FAA has given them approval, although there will still be a few ocean landings due to downrange distances ext.
You can actually go have a look at a launch if you live in the USA!!
-
Falcon Heave launching mid next year will be double the size of the shuttle. The SLS that is being planned will be larger than the SaturnV. So there goes that theory.
SpaceX is planning on landing their 1st stage booster back on ground, FAA has given them approval, although there will still be a few ocean landings due to downrange distances ext.
You can actually go have a look at a launch if you live in the USA!!
I won't be seeing any launch other than a distant small ballistic missile launch into the drink. Neither will you.
If you want to prove me wrong, then go to one. In fact, any one of you people go to a launch and get me clear footage of you and the rocket in stages of lift off that can be seen to be what we are shown on TV.
Even better if you get the aquanauts climbing into it.
Let's see if you can do this, or give me the excuses as to why not.
-
It has been clearly demonstrated that any amount of video footage is discarded by FE advocates as CGI or what not.
I dont live in the USA, but one day I might go see a launch. I can however give you plenty of videos of rockets launching with other people watching. Rockets on the launch pad with people standing around them, and people building those rockets.
But until you physically see them, you will probably not believe they exist. I have spoken to someone that has been in the ISS, so I have as much proof of the ISS existing as I have proof of the USA existing. If everything is a lie, what is the truth?
-
It has been clearly demonstrated that any amount of video footage is discarded by FE advocates as CGI or what not.
I dont live in the USA, but one day I might go see a launch. I can however give you plenty of videos of rockets launching with other people watching. Rockets on the launch pad with people standing around them, and people building those rockets.
But until you physically see them, you will probably not believe they exist. I have spoken to someone that has been in the ISS, so I have as much proof of the ISS existing as I have proof of the USA existing. If everything is a lie, what is the truth?
You people always use this clap trap of, " if everything is a lie" business.
Nobody is saying that everything is a lie and you know this. You and other's simply use this as a defence mechanism when you can't prove something, like space travel, etc.
I always laugh when people like you come out with" Oh yeah, I've met an astronaut" or " oh, my uncle trained to be an astronaut (insert other) but didn't get the chance to go into space."
You know, CRAP like that.
I could counteract it all by lying myself but what's the point? I want the truth and people like you making shit up, only weakens your argument.
Watch the sokarul's/markjo's type jump on this bit. ;D ^^^
I dont live in the USA, but one day I might go see a launch. I can however give you plenty of videos of rockets launching with other people watching. Rockets on the launch pad with people standing around them, and people building those rockets.
Put up the videos of rocket's launching with other people watching and let's examine them.
Also rocket's on the launchpad with people standing around them and we can examine those as well.
-
You people always use this clap trap of, " if everything is a lie" business.
Nobody is saying that everything is a lie and you know this. You and other's simply use this as a defence mechanism when you can't prove something, like space travel, etc.
Before I waste my time, answer this.
What do you consider reliable video/photo evidence?
If the video/photo evidence does not correspond to your beliefs, will you claim the images/videos are fake without reason?
And I have met Mark Shuttleworth where he was promoting some educational thing he does in RSA.
-
Mark Shuttleworth knows how to rip off an OS. I don't see how that makes him an expert in anything other than OSs.
-
Mark Shuttleworth knows how to rip off an OS. I don't see how that makes him an expert in anything other than OSs.
Are you making an argument? Because I just see an unrelated random statement. Or did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?
-
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
There is no established physics or engineering that supports their functioning as claimed.
It's over...
Now; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
-
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
There is no established physics or engineering that supports their functioning as claimed.
It's over...
Now; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
Actually, you haven't destroyed anything at all, unless your simple denial of all the photographic/video evidence is part of your so-called argument/proof.
(https://leiashotfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/space-shuttle-launch-5.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
Read the thread & get back to me, retard; but don't expect me to mistake mere Images - no matter how full of Sound & Fury - for Reality...
What is wrong with you?
Anyhow; if the ISS is NOT what it is claimed to be, how do we then explain the light in the sky that we see pass overhead?
Answers please, criminals...
-
This data seems pretty solid to me.
How would you know?
You're NOT a scientist, remember?
So you're opinion is worth no more than my own, is it?
& my opinion is that the data MUST be fraudulent because no physics can support the existence of a 3,000 tonne rocket capable of travelling 480,000 miles through a vacuum to the moon & back.
This entire thread supports that opinion; I have taken you on one after the other & beat you every single time.
Everyone knows this; so suck them rotten eggs, losers...
More ignorant claptrap from a FEer.
You obviously don't know much about rocket science do you, lol. You actually think the WHOLE rocket went to the moon and back? After leaving earth's orbit, the only part of the whole assembly to make the journey to the moon was the command service module and lunar module (1st picture below). Because they had already achieved escape velocity out of earth's orbit, the CSM/LEM combination was coasting all the way to the moon, without any need to have their engines on. Once they got to the moon, the command service module stayed in lunar orbit, whilst the lunar module descended to the lunar surface. After the lunar exploration part of the mission is complete, the lunar module ascends back into orbit and docks with the command service module. The return journey back to earth is completed with only the command service module and the lunar module is discarded (second picture below). And once they had achieved escape velocity from the lunar orbit, they were once again only coasting back to earth without any need for their engines to be on.
I love putting you FEers back into place - factual information is like Kryptonite to you ignorant fools.
(http://talesofcuriosity.com/v/Apollo/i/comamndandlunar.jpg)
(http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APMa28.JPG)
-
More ignorant claptrap from a FEer.
Your whole argument falls at the first hurdle, Mhtwrone.
Because I am NOT a 'flat earther'; everyone know this.
The rest of your giant shitpost has been answered elsewhere in this thread; again, everyone knows this, too...
SO READ IT, IDIOT.
&, of course, like the good criminal you are, you totally avoided my question, to whit:
If the light in the sky we see is NOT the ISS, what then could it be?
Answers please, criminals...
-
LOL!!!
Read the thread & get back to me, retard; but don't expect me to mistake mere Images - no matter how full of Sound & Fury - for Reality...
What is wrong with you?
Anyhow; if the ISS is NOT what it is claimed to be, how do we then explain the light in the sky that we see pass overhead?
Answers please, criminals...
Anyhow; if the ISS is NOT what it is claimed to be, how do we then explain the light in the sky that we see pass overhead?
What's the point in answering the question, when the question being asked in hypothetical BS.
The ISS is orbiting earth, which obviously means we can see the ISS when it's overhead at the correct time, according to well published and documented schedules. The only people claiming that the light we see pass overhead isn't the ISS are fools such as yourself. Actually, it's possible to photograph the ISS from the earth's surface, as the picture below demonstrates - oh how you people must hate evidence such as this.
Click on the link below for more information about the pictures that can be taken from earth of the ISS.
http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/ (http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/)
(http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk08/o081229a1.jpg)
-
More ignorant claptrap from a FEer.
Your whole argument falls at the first hurdle, Mhtwrone.
Because I am NOT a 'flat earther'; everyone know this.
The rest of your giant shitpost has been answered elsewhere in this thread; again, everyone knows this, too...
SO READ IT, IDIOT.
&, of course, like the good criminal you are, you totally avoided my question, to whit:
If the light in the sky we see is NOT the ISS, what then could it be?
Answers please, criminals...
You seem to think that your ignorant opinion is some sort of argument against the supposed faked NASA missions.
Don't you realise that YOUR ignorant opinion holds no weight in this debate?
You NEVER present any factual information as to why all the pictures/videos are fake, and you expect your ignorant rants to sway people to your way of thinking?
Like I've said previously, YOU ARE JUST AN IGNORANT AND DELUSIONAL FOOL.
-
LOL!!!
Click on the link above for lies, malware & fail.
STFU & answer the question, criminal...
Last chance.
-
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
There is no established physics or engineering that supports their functioning as claimed.
It's over...
lol
Space flight is real.
lol
PooPoo Lolgba is a moranic retart.
lol
I have comprehensively destroyed your argument.
It's over...
-
Stop telling people they cannot read, psychotic thought-police.
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
There are no established physics or engineering that support their functioning as claimed.
It's over...
Now; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
-
Stop telling people they cannot read, psychotic thought-police.
I have comprehensively destroyed the entire concept of powered 'space-vehicles' in this thread.
There are no established physics or engineering that support their functioning as claimed.
It's over...
Now; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
But the light in the sky IS the International Space Station, which makes your 'what is the true nature of that light' question
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
You say you've destroyed the concept of powered space vehicles? Actually, you haven't done anything of the sort.
Your pathetically ignorant rants are just a joke, and have only served to illustrate what an ingnorant fool you are.
If you want some FACTS about powered space vehicles, then click on the following link which explains in great detail how and why the Saturn V rocket was able to lift itself and its payload into earth's orbit - it's a great read, one you should take the time to read too - but of course you won't because it will destroy your mythical NASA conspiracy theory to pieces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V)
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blogs/6a00d8341bf67c53ef017d3d759ecf970c-800wi.jpg)
-
Do you have an Imagination, psychotic thought-policeman?
If so, try using it...
Just to humour me, like!
So; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
-
Do you have an Imagination, psychotic thought-policeman?
If so, try using it...
Just to humour me, like!
So; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
What a beautiful picture of an ACTUAL Saturn V rocket launch - what's fake about this picture? Can't wait for someone to tell us, lol.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y-cv_JJOxGI/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Images are not reality, psycho.
Anyhow; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
[/quote]
-
LOL!!!
Read the thread & get back to me, retard; but don't expect me to mistake mere Images - no matter how full of Sound & Fury - for Reality...
What is wrong with you?
Anyhow; if the ISS is NOT what it is claimed to be, how do we then explain the light in the sky that we see pass overhead?
Answers please, criminals...
Anyhow; if the ISS is NOT what it is claimed to be, how do we then explain the light in the sky that we see pass overhead?
What's the point in answering the question, when the question being asked in hypothetical BS.
The ISS is orbiting earth, which obviously means we can see the ISS when it's overhead at the correct time, according to well published and documented schedules. The only people claiming that the light we see pass overhead isn't the ISS are fools such as yourself. Actually, it's possible to photograph the ISS from the earth's surface, as the picture below demonstrates - oh how you people must hate evidence such as this.
Click on the link below for more information about the pictures that can be taken from earth of the ISS.
http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/ (http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/)
(http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk08/o081229a1.jpg)
-
Images are not reality, psycho.
What are you so scared of?
Anyhow; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
-
lol
Pictures are not reality?
lol
-
Images are not reality, psycho.
What are you so scared of?
Anyhow; you liars claim the ISS is visible through a telescope; I say it is merely a light in the sky...
But if it is not the ISS, what then is the true nature of that light in the sky?
Opinions please, criminals...
Obviously no one is going to give their opinion about a known light in the sky, which they already know is the ISS.
Why don't you share your thoughts about what your opinion is about 'the true nature of that light in the sky?'
-
Obviously no one is going to give their opinion about a known light in the sky,
So; you acknowledge that what you claim to be a manned space-station IS in fact also known to be a light in the sky.
Good; now we're getting somewhere.
So; if the aforementioned light in the sky is NOT in fact the ISS, what else could it be?
Use your imaginations, sci-fi cultists; offer alternative perspectives & hypotheses, if your atrophied brains are capable of such a thing...
-
Obviously no one is going to give their opinion about a known light in the sky,
So; you acknowledge that what you claim to be a manned space-station IS in fact also known to be a light in the sky.
Good; now we're getting somewhere.
So; if the aforementioned light in the sky is NOT in fact the ISS, what else could it be?
Use your imaginations, sci-fi cultists; offer alternative perspectives & hypotheses, if your atrophied brains are capable of such a thing...
The only time I've seen the ISS is after I've looked up the orbiting schedule to confirm when the next opportunity is for viewing. So therefore, what I am looking at IS the ISS.
There is no point in answering your hypothetical question, when the real and only answer is known and obvious.
The picture below shows the ISS orbiting over where I live in New Zealand - what a beautiful country I live in.
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/010/cache/iss_1011_600x450.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
There's a lot of detail in your fake photo for it being allegedly taken from 250 miles away.
& I couldn't give a flying f**k where you claim to live, cowardly lying-machine, so STFU about it.
Anyhow; we've now firmly established that you are a craven dissembler who cannot distinguish Images from Reality, so; anyone else care to offer us an alternative hypothesis on what the now-acknowledged light in the sky that you claim is a manned space-station could be?
Use your Imaginations, sci-fi cultists!
-
LOL!!!
There's a lot of detail in your fake photo for it being allegedly taken from 250 miles away.
& I couldn't give a flying f**k where you claim to live, cowardly lying-machine, so STFU about it.
Anyhow; we've now firmly established that you are a craven dissembler who cannot distinguish Images from Reality, so; anyone else care to offer us an alternative hypothesis on what the now-acknowledged light in the sky that you claim is a manned space-station could be?
Use your Imaginations, sci-fi cultists!
My hypothesis is that the light in the sky is billions of photons hitting the back of our retina, and being processed as a light against the dark sky, after having being produced by the sun and then reflecting off of a football field sized space station built by an international consortium of space agencies.
-
I asked for an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis, criminal space-nonce Mainframes.
Learn to read...
Or learn NOT TO LIE; same difference.
Also; LOL!!!
-
I asked for an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis, criminal space-nonce Mainframes.
Learn to read...
Or learn NOT TO LIE; same difference.
Also; LOL!!!
What other hypothesis would there be?
We have masses of evidence pointing to the 'light in the sky' being the ISS.
-
No you don't; you have a light in the sky & masses of LIES.
Now; carry on brainwashing, Liar.
-
No you don't; you have a light in the sky & masses of LIES.
Now; carry on brainwashing, Liar.
lol
Just because you don't agree with the evidence doesn't mean it's a lie.
lol
Get on our level.
lol
-
Your level?
Never, psycho!
Now; if - as you acknowledge - what you claim to be the ISS is no more than a light in the sky, as seen from the ground, please offer an alternative hypothesis as to what it could be.
Simple question; strangely hard to answer, though...
Well, for professional liars, at any rate.
-
Your level?
Never, psycho!
Now; if - as you acknowledge - what you claim to be the ISS is no more than a light in the sky, as seen from the ground, please offer an alternative hypothesis as to what it could be.
Simple question; strangely hard to answer, though...
Well, for professional liars, at any rate.
We already told you were aren't going to come up with a hypothesis.
But here, it's a giant bowl of dicks. You better go chase it as you seem to always have dicks on your mind.
-
So; you daren't answer.
Sock-arul's cowardice is noted.
Now; anyone else care to hazard aguess: if - as you acknowledge - what you claim to be the ISS is no more than a light in the sky, as seen from the ground, please offer an alternative hypothesis as to what it could actually be.
Simple question; strangely hard to answer, though...
Well, for professional liars like sock-arul, Mthwrone et al, at any rate.
-
Now; anyone else care to hazard aguess: if - as you acknowledge - what you claim to be the ISS is no more than a light in the sky, as seen from the ground, please offer an alternative hypothesis as to what it could actually be.
Why are you asking someone who believes that the ISS is real for an alternative hypothesis? It's like asking a fat person for an alternative hypothesis as to why they're so heavy.
-
It's like asking a fat person for an alternative hypothesis as to why they're so heavy.
Quite, Markjo; many fat people have a problem they will neither acknowledge nor fix for themselves.
Like Mikeman does...
And the same goes for people who believe that what they perceive as a light in the sky is, somehow, a manned space station.
I am trying to CURE these people, markjo; I am providing a SERVICE.
Now; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
Come on - THINK!!!
-
It's like asking a fat person for an alternative hypothesis as to why they're so heavy.
Quite, Markjo; many fat people have a problem they will neither acknowledge nor fix for themselves.
Like Mikeman does...
And the same goes for people who believe that what they perceive as a light in the sky is, somehow, a manned space station.
I am trying to CURE these people, markjo; I am providing a SERVICE.
Now; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
Come on - THINK!!!
The moving light in the sky could be a high flying albatross holding a flash-light in its beak?
Your turn - what's your opinion?
-
Mhtwrone just spammed 3 shitposts in 20 minutes; starting to see a pattern yet, neutrals?
F**k him, though; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
Come on - THINK!!!
-
It's like asking a fat person for an alternative hypothesis as to why they're so heavy.
Quite, Markjo; many fat people have a problem they will neither acknowledge nor fix for themselves.
Yes, like your case of denialism.
And the same goes for people who believe that what they perceive as a light in the sky is, somehow, a manned space station.
Looking through a telescope (or binoculars if you insist on stereo vision) and seeing more than just a blob of light doesn't sound like a problem to me.
I am trying to CURE these people, markjo; I am providing a SERVICE.
Physician, heal thyself.
Now; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
The problem is that there is nothing else that it could be that has the same characteristics that are readily visible to anyone open minded enough to look.
-
LOL!!!
There's a lot of detail in your fake photo for it being allegedly taken from 250 miles away.
& I couldn't give a flying f**k where you claim to live, cowardly lying-machine, so STFU about it.
Anyhow; we've now firmly established that you are a craven dissembler who cannot distinguish Images from Reality, so; anyone else care to offer us an alternative hypothesis on what the now-acknowledged light in the sky that you claim is a manned space-station could be?
Use your Imaginations, sci-fi cultists!
& I couldn't give a flying f**k where you claim to live, cowardly lying-machine, so STFU about it.
Oh dear, seems I've hit a bit of a nerve there, but I can imagine your jealousy about me living in New Zealand - certainly a better country than the one you live in.
There's a lot of detail in your fake photo for it being allegedly taken from 250 miles away.
Not sure what level of detail you would expect to see? Why wouldn't the land mass be defined. The same with the sea - why wouldn't this amount of detail be visible? And the highly reflective clouds - why wouldn't they be visible. If you're going to label the picture as fake, at least explain what's wrong with it?
Oh, and just so we're clear, the picture below of another picture of my country taken from the ISS, is obviously NOT fake either.
(http://sciblogs.co.nz/app/uploads/2012/02/ISS-over-north-island.jpg)
-
LOL!!!
Four posts in fifty minutes from 'chtwrone' on 'flat earth general' alone...
STARTING TO SEE THE PATTERN YET, NEUTRALS?
If not, google 'online persona management software' & see the light...
-
Wow!
For allegedly open-minded, scientific types you are all quite extraordinarily resistant to any kind of free-thinking...
None of the REAL scientists I know are like this; guess it's just FAKE scientists who are such 'happy fascists'.
Nevertheless, let's try again; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
Come on - THINK!!!
-
None of the REAL scientists I know are like this;
How many of those "real scientists" that you "know" believe that rockets work just fine in a vacuum?
-
Wow!
For allegedly open-minded, scientific types you are all quite extraordinarily resistant to any kind of free-thinking...
None of the REAL scientists I know are like this; guess it's just FAKE scientists who are such 'happy fascists'.
Nevertheless, let's try again; use your Imaginations, obese cultists; please try to offer alternative hypotheses as to what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS could, in fact, be.
Come on - THINK!!!
I HAVE offered an alternate hypothesis about the 'light in the sky' - you must have missed my suggestion that it could be a high flying albatross holding a flash light in its beak.
I then asked you to make a suggestion, but as yet, you have offered none.
-
How many of those "real scientists" that you "know" believe that rockets work just fine in a vacuum?
LOL!!!
'work just fine'; yet another phrase straight from the shill handbook.
Just come off-duty from policing the youtube comments section, Troll?
As for the scientists I've met; you jealous, bro?
Plus, I note that chtwrone has just barfed up yet another THREE shitposts inside 20 minutes on 'flat earth general' alone...
STARTING TO SEE THE PATTERN YET, NEUTRALS?
Anyway; the ISS.
We see a light in the sky pass overhead; the psychotic brainwashed scum here insist it is a manned space station.
I do not believe them; & neither should you.
So; what else could that light in the sky actually be?
THINK, cultists; THINK!
-
No you don't; you have a light in the sky & masses of LIES.
Now; carry on brainwashing, Liar.
Let's see, we have:
A light that resolves to an image of the ISS using bio ultra or a telescope.
Multiple website publishing the times of flyby a for your area.
Video from the light in the sky in real time that matches weather patterns as seen from below.
Masses of online material providing information on ISS.
Thousands of witnesses of shuttle launches lifting personnel and materials to build and maintain the ISS.
You:
LA LA LA. Lies. Lol. Lol. Shill.
Pretty cut and dry to me.
-
LOL!!!
Yes, yes; you have plenty of badly-cooked-up Fake data to support your quasi-religious delusions...
We all know that, psycho.
But as I've shown through the course of this thread that space travel as depicted is a physical impossibility, then we must conclude that your ISS is not what it is claimed to be.
Which leaves us with the problem of your light in the sky.
It cannot be a manned space station, so what is it?
For people who've invested their entire existences into concocting & supporting cosmic space-fantasies, your Imaginations are surprisingly sluggish on this issue...
I wonder why?
-
LOL!!!
Yes, yes; you have plenty of badly-cooked-up Fake data to support your quasi-religious delusions...
We all know that, psycho.
But as I've shown through the course of this thread that space travel as depicted is a physical impossibility, then we must conclude that your ISS is not what it is claimed to be.
Which leaves us with the problem of your light in the sky.
It cannot be a manned space station, so what is it?
For people who've invested their entire existences into concocting & supporting cosmic space-fantasies, your Imaginations are surprisingly sluggish on this issue...
I wonder why?
Why do you consider that space travel as depicted is an impossibility? Your notion that a rocket can't operate in the vacuum of space is quite wrong, and for some silly reason you actually think that an atmosphere is required for it to push off. The following link explains why this is not the case at all -
http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/messenger/2011/04/22/propulsion-through-a-vacuum/ (http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/messenger/2011/04/22/propulsion-through-a-vacuum/)
It would be helpful to the discussion if you would convey your thoughts as to why a rocket engine cannot operate in a vacuum, and then maybe we can put each of our cases forward.
The following picture show the ascent stage of the LEM half a second after it has blasted off the moon's surface during the Apollo 17 mission, obviously confirming my stance that rockets CAN and DO operate in the vacuum of space.
(http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/A17LEMMomentofLiftoff.png)
-
LOL!!!
Read the thread, dumbass; you'll find all the proof you need here that rockets rely on an outside mass in order to produce thrust, including simple evidence & experiments you can try at home which support my case.
Also, you just made another THREE shitposts on 'flat earth general', but in 25 minutes this time... Slowing down a bit so it doesn't look too obvious, are you, shill?
THE PATTERN IS CLEAR, NEUTRALS.
Now f**k off, & take your enormous spammed photos of laughably fake space-toys with you, Troll.
Which still leaves us with the problem of your light in the sky.
It cannot be a manned space station, so what is it?
Any ideas?
For people who've invested their entire existences into concocting & supporting cosmic space-fantasies, your Imaginations are surprisingly sluggish on this issue...
I wonder why?
-
We don't need to imagine anything. We are actually capable of looking at evidence and discerning that the light in the sky is the ISS.
And no, rockets do not need an outside mass to push on. They never have and they never will.
-
LOL!!!
You say you are capable looking at evidence, then state that rockets can work in vacuum, despite ALL the evidence & experiments I have provided proving they can not, & you lot providing ZERO evidence & experiments to prove that they could...
You are utterly lost in your psychotic delusions, vile space-nonce mainframes.
Now; if - as the laws of physics demand - the light in the sky we see CAN NOT be the ISS, then offer alternative explanations as to what it in fact is.
Just Try, eh, criminals...?
Btw; this is post 19; next post turns the page so get the 1st word in shills...
LMFAO - at how pathetic you all are!!!
-
LOL!!!
You say you are capable looking at evidence, then state that rockets can work in vacuum, despite ALL the evidence & experiments I have provided proving they can not, & you lot providing ZERO evidence & experiments to prove that they could...
You are utterly lost in your psychotic delusions, vile space-nonce mainframes.
Now; if - as the laws of physics demand - the light in the sky we see CAN NOT be the ISS, then offer alternative explanations as to what it in fact is.
Just Try, eh, criminals...?
Btw; this is post 19; next post turns the page so get the 1st word in shills...
LMFAO - at how pathetic you all are!!!
You haven't produced a single piece of evidence or experiment that shows rockets are impossible in a vacuum.
LMFAO AT HOW STUPID YOU ARE!
-
Yes I have & it's all in this very thread, starting around page 40-ish, psychotic space-nonce.
I beat on all you shills like a set of bongos, & everybody knows it.
Words are Not Reality, mental-case nonce; so stop Lying.
& start explaining what the light in the sky you impossibly claim to be the ISS actually is.
-
Yes I have & it's all in this very thread, starting around page 40-ish, psychotic space-nonce.
I beat on all you shills like a set of bongos, & everybody knows it.
Words are Not Reality, mental-case nonce; so stop Lying.
You proved squat. Unless of course you want an honest debate of course, then feel free to explain again how your experiments and evidence work. I'm all ears and happy to discuss.
& start explaining what the light in the sky you impossibly claim to be the ISS actually is.
It's the ISS.
Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.
-
How many of those "real scientists" that you "know" believe that rockets work just fine in a vacuum?
LOL!!!
'work just fine'; yet another phrase straight from the shill handbook.
Just come off-duty from policing the youtube comments section, Troll?
As for the scientists I've met; you jealous, bro?
Plus, I note that chtwrone has just barfed up yet another THREE shitposts inside 20 minutes on 'flat earth general' alone...
STARTING TO SEE THE PATTERN YET, NEUTRALS?
Yes, that you are exceedingly dismissive, abusive and like to take the long way around when you avoid answering questions.
-
Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.
Do you claim the ISS is on the end of my arm now, psychotic space-nonce?
How low are you prepared to stoop in order to defend your madness?
We already know you have serious psycho-sexual problems connected to this whole 'space' issue; perhaps you would be better occupied seeking therapy for these rather than reinforcing them through your unhealthy participation in this thread?
I'm trying to Help you here, pervert; please accept this Help...
& markjo: would you like me to call the WAAAAAAmbulance for you?
Or would you prefer to just F**k Off?
-
Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.
Do you claim the ISS is on the end of my arm now, psychotic space-nonce?
How low are you prepared to stoop in order to defend your madness?
ANALOGY! It was meant to be an example to show how ridiculous your question was. If you claim the the thing on the end of your arm isn't your hand then what is it?
Of course it's your hand and could only be your hand. In the same way that the light in the sky is definitely the ISS.
We already know you have serious psycho-sexual problems connected to this whole 'space' issue; perhaps you would be better occupied seeking therapy for these rather than reinforcing them through your unhealthy participation in this thread?
What? Psycho-sexual problems? Where do you get that from?
You're the one throwing supposed penis pictures around.......
Anyway. Back to the topic at hand. Please show us again your evidence and experiments again, if you're so confident of them and let's engage in honest discussion. If you don't you're just an idiot talking rubbish and is too gutless to back his claim that all of science is wrong.
-
Of course it's your hand and could only be your hand. In the same way that the light in the sky is definitely the ISS.
So; my hand IS like the ISS?
You are insane.
& no, we won't be rehashing the rockets in a vacuum topic, psychotic space-nonce.
It is all there for neutrals to read, starting around page 40; I beat your asses red & everyone knows it.
No second chances, losers!
Rather, we will talk about what the light in the sky that you impossibly claim to be a manned space station actually is.
You will use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses, or you will f**k off.
Understand?
-
& markjo: would you like me to call the WAAAAAAmbulance for you?
No, I want you to tell me what your "real scientist" buddies think about rockets in a vacuum.
Or would you prefer to just F**k Off?
No, I'd prefer that you stop being such a rude, obnoxious jerk. It adds nothing to the discussion or your credibility.
-
LOL!!!
Read the thread, dumbass; you'll find all the proof you need here that rockets rely on an outside mass in order to produce thrust, including simple evidence & experiments you can try at home which support my case.
Also, you just made another THREE shitposts on 'flat earth general', but in 25 minutes this time... Slowing down a bit so it doesn't look too obvious, are you, shill?
THE PATTERN IS CLEAR, NEUTRALS.
Now f**k off, & take your enormous spammed photos of laughably fake space-toys with you, Troll.
Which still leaves us with the problem of your light in the sky.
It cannot be a manned space station, so what is it?
Any ideas?
For people who've invested their entire existences into concocting & supporting cosmic space-fantasies, your Imaginations are surprisingly sluggish on this issue...
I wonder why?
It's clear that you actually have NO idea at all about how a rocket engine provides thrust. It does NOT require 'an outside mass' at all, whatever that means anyway?
A rocket engine works by throwing huge amounts of mass (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage) out of its engine nozzles, at over 4 km/second. Obviously the rocket is going to be propelled in the opposite direction to that of the ejected burnt fuel.
Take the example of a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that this person now throws a heavy bowling ball outwards as hard as they can. Guess what happens to the person standing on the skateboard - they move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball.
Please don't tell me that the bowling ball is pushing off the atmosphere which is turn forces the person on the skateboard in the opposite direction - that would just be too silly for words, lol.
(http://sirius.ucsc.edu/demoweb/images/mechan/sarah_cart.jpg)
-
Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them. That's how they work in space.
-
Read replies #622 on page 32 & #1569 on page 79 of this thread for a thorough debunking of the man-on-skateboard b.s. that is the ONLY evidential experiment the space-tards have for the ludicrous concept of gas-powered rockets functioning in a vacuum.
Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.
The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.
So; what else could that light in the sky be?
Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.
Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?
-
Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.
The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.
Is that what your "real scientist" buddies told you?
-
No; it is what I have proven on my own throughout this thread, shitposting weirdo & coprophage Markjo.
Back to the ISS...
Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.
The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.
So; what else could that light in the sky be?
Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.
Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?
-
No; it is what I have proven on my own throughout this thread, shitposting weirdo & coprophage Markjo.
Does that mean that your "real scientist" buddies are lying criminals too?
-
No; it means you are a shitposting coprophage.
& a lying criminal too.
Funny how all you shills want me to talk about the ISS & such on other threads, but refuse to respond here, isn't it?
Is that because this thread is becoming too much of a solid body of evidence against 'space-travel', so you want me to disperse my efforts?
Yes, it is.
Now; carry on lying, derailing, denying, diverting & shitposting.
Or f**k off.
I'd prefer the latter...
Everyone else; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.
The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.
So; what else could that light in the sky be?
Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.
Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?
-
The laws of physics do not in any way state that the ISS cannot be true.
And if you want refer back to the earlier discussion we murdered your incoherent babbling on rockets before you changed the subject to something else that we beat you on too.
Rockets work perfectly in a vacuum. All of physics agrees with this.
It's not our fault you're a retard.
-
Well, I have provided in another thread a mathematical equation that can prove that the ISS/light in the sky is in space, and we are pretty sure that it is something manmade, wether it's a balloon, plane or space station, it definitely is in space.
I'll also make a sketch that'll show why rockets don't need atmosphere to work, and that rockets in fact work better the less atmosphere there is.
-
(http://s11.postimg.org/nnnn06efn/14422157801092.png)
Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.
Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.
As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.
If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.
-
[incoherent babble]
But but but the rocket exhaust needs to push on the air to go forward like your arm pushes on a wall to move away
[\incoherent babble]
-
Made the picture work
-
(http://s11.postimg.org/nnnn06efn/14422157801092.png)
Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.
Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.
As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.
If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.
I will correct you and say that the assertion that as long as exhaust pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure the rocket will be propelled forwards assumes that there is no other force acting on the rocket, including, for example, friction (which ought to be if there is pressure at all). And of course, that includes gravity.
-
(http://s11.postimg.org/nnnn06efn/14422157801092.png)
Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.
Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.
As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.
If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.
I will correct you and say that the assertion that as long as exhaust pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure the rocket will be propelled forwards assumes that there is no other force acting on the rocket, including, for example, friction (which ought to be if there is pressure at all). And of course, that includes gravity.
Yes, that's what I mean by propelled forwards. If an object is being propelled forwards other forces can still force it in another direction. But thanks for the correction anyways,a s a clarification.
-
Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them. That's how they work in space.
Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?
A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.
This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.
-
Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them. That's how they work in space.
Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?
A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.
This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.
What he means is that it is the pressure the exhaust/propellant is exerted on the rocket inside the combustion chamber and nozzle that propells the rocket. In order for the propellant to be launched out of the rocket a force is needed, this force comes from that pressure. This pressure is however not connected to the atmospheric pressure in any way.
-
Funny how all you shills want me to talk about the ISS & such on other threads, but refuse to respond here, isn't it?
Funny that you keep demanding straight answers from us but never provide any straight answers of your own.
Is that because this thread is becoming too much of a solid body of evidence against 'space-travel', so you want me to disperse my efforts?
No, we just want straight answers to simple questions that you seem to be afraid to answer, such as: What do your "real scientist" buddies have to say about rockets working in a vacuum? Come now, it's a very simple question. If they agree with you that rockets can't work in a vacuum, then that's evidence that's you're right and we're wrong. Of course if they disagree with you, then that means that they're lying, criminal scumbags too.
-
Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?
A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.
This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.
Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back. This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.
I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.
-
A rocket works anywhere - in air or vacuum - by ejecting mass (fuel) in one direction and accelerating in the other (opposite) direction.
It works as long as the rocket can eject mass (fuel). When there is no more mass (fuel) in the rocket to eject, the rocket cannot accelerate or brake by its own means.
It is similar to a car, e.g. a $100 000 Tesla. When it runs out of fuel after only 500 miles, it stops, and you have to push it to a electric plug to fill it up (with electric charge).
-
Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?
A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.
This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.
Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back. This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.
I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.
LOL!!!
Crank-fest!
None of you space-tards can even agree how rockets work...
Cos you refuse to comprehend Newton 3.
LMFAO!!!
-
Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?
A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.
This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.
Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back. This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.
I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.
LOL!!!
Crank-fest!
None of you space-tards can even agree how rockets work...
Cos you refuse to comprehend Newton 3.
LMFAO!!!
Clearly we need educating.
Please explain to us the mechanics of how rockets work including a detailed description of how Newtons third is used.
-
Already done it, psycho.
Starting at page 32 of this thread.
Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.
Why is that so hard for you?
-
Already done it, psycho.
Starting at page 32 of this thread.
Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.
Why is that so hard for you?
There is no alternative hypothesis. It is the ISS. Why is that so hard for you?
-
Our local Loa is somewhat impressive. He's a very good blend if obnoxious and idiotic: everything he says is wrong, you know he has to be a troll, but he just irritates enough to make you want to respond. I really do recommend blocking.
I think it's possible to agree with a conclusion, while rejecting reasoning: as I do for much of his claims.
That being said, you shouldn't be so opposed to suggesting alternative possibilities: doing so doesn't mean you have to accept them. What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
It could be a painted plane or specifically designed jet engine, or a particularly fast balloon, or... If a conspiracy exists, we would already know that they're scientifically advanced for the time: the fakes they managed originally demonstrates this.
It is of course possible that it genuinely is a space station, and satellites etc, kept up in the same mechanism that moves the Sun, and they're merely mistaken about observation. That shouldn't be discounted, just because many flat earthers tend to favour conspiracy theories.
Of course, I'm not really sure what the point would be in answering the Loa's questions, given that you'll likely be ignored, or misrepresented. His spiel about rockets was quite a laughable example. He repeats the question, and as soon as you pose one in response he decides curses are a valid replacement for science.
Have fun in this thread, all of you. i'm not sure how, but I hope you do have fun.
-
Our local Loa is somewhat impressive. He's a very good blend if obnoxious and idiotic: everything he says is wrong, you know he has to be a troll, but he just irritates enough to make you want to respond. I really do recommend blocking.
I think it's possible to agree with a conclusion, while rejecting reasoning: as I do for much of his claims.
That being said, you shouldn't be so opposed to suggesting alternative possibilities: doing so doesn't mean you have to accept them. What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
It could be a painted plane or specifically designed jet engine, or a particularly fast balloon, or... If a conspiracy exists, we would already know that they're scientifically advanced for the time: the fakes they managed originally demonstrates this.
It is of course possible that it genuinely is a space station, and satellites etc, kept up in the same mechanism that moves the Sun, and they're merely mistaken about observation. That shouldn't be discounted, just because many flat earthers tend to favour conspiracy theories.
Of course, I'm not really sure what the point would be in answering the Loa's questions, given that you'll likely be ignored, or misrepresented. His spiel about rockets was quite a laughable example. He repeats the question, and as soon as you pose one in response he decides curses are a valid replacement for science.
Have fun in this thread, all of you. i'm not sure how, but I hope you do have fun.
Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph
It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).
-
Already done it, psycho.
Starting at page 32 of this thread.
Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.
Why is that so hard for you?
'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'
It becomes apparent when we look at the above statement you made back on page 32 of this thread, that your comprehension of the situation needs rectifying.
You've got it completely wrong when you've attempted to label the various components of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere example.
Firstly, let's look at the case of the cannon and the cannon ball. An explosive charge is ignited and this ejects the cannon ball out of the cannon. Due to Newton's 3rd law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) the cannon is recoiled (forced in the opposite direction) at a proportionate velocity corresponding to the mass and velocity of the cannonball. This reaction takes place regardless of the atmosphere, as the movement (recoil) of the cannon in one direction is the direct result of the cannonball being fired in the opposite direction, and this can also be described as 'conservation of momentum'. It's obvious that the cannon is not being forced in one direction, due to the cannonball pushing off the atmosphere. The mass of the cannon is moved in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the cannonball = conservation of momentum.
(http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys01/expmomen/cannon.gif)
When we look at a rocket and its fuel, it's exactly the same as a cannon and its cannonball. You might disagree, but let's look further.
If we look at a rocket, we have the rocket body itself, and attached to this body is the rocket engine and the nozzle/s. Let's imagine that the nozzles are similar to the cannons barrel. We can now also make a comparison between the cannonball and the rocket's ejected fuel. What we must realise, is that the burnt fuel being continuously ejected out of the rocket engine nozzle/s has considerable weight (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket). Therefore we can make a direct comparison with the cannonball (has mass) and the rocket's ejected burnt fuel (has mass).
Now let's return to your analogy of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere (picture below).
(http://sirius.ucsc.edu/demoweb/images/mechan/eitan_medicine.jpg)
Ok, let's start by looking at how you've labelled the various components, and if this has been done correctly?
You stated that it's the man's arm which is the exhaust? Actually, the man's arm is the 'explosive force' that is propelling the ball, and is exactly the same as the explosive charge that fires the cannonball out of the cannon's barrel. In turn, this is exactly the same as the ignition of the fuel in the rocket's combustion chamber and subsequent ejection out through the engine nozzle/s.
You then state that the 'ball represents an external mass such as the atmosphere'? Well, it's not hard to laugh at this statement.
The ball is the ball. How does the ball suddenly turn into a representation of atmospheric mass? The ball that is being thrown by the man is exactly the same as the cannon ball being 'thrown' by the cannon. This is also exactly the same as the rocket engine 'throwing' fuel out of its nozzle/s. To bring the atmosphere into the equation is nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
So in conclusion, your labelling of the 'man throwing a ball' example is completely wrong.
Let's apply the labels correctly now in relation to the example of a rocket -
1/ The man IS the rocket
2/ The man's arm IS the explosive force - (fuel being ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket) which in turn throws the ball. The man's arm is NOT the exhaust as you incorrectly assert.
3/ The ball IS the burnt fuel (huge mass) being ejected out of the engine nozzle/s.
So in applying Newton's 3rd law to the above situations, we have established that the 3 examples are exactly the same, and the 'recoil' of the cannon, the man and the rocket are the direct consequences of the 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' law, which is COMPLETELY independent of whether there is an atmosphere or not, as it's NOT the atmosphere which is 'pushing' on the cannonball, the ball, or the burnt fuel coming out of the rocket's engine, and forcing the cannon, man or rocket in the opposite direction.
Therefore, because the atmosphere is not even part of the equation/process by which a rocket engine produces thrust forces, there is no reason what so ever why a rocket engine cannot produce thrust (movement force) in a vacuum, as the laws of conservation of momentum hold true regardless of the medium through which an object is travelling.
-
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.
Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph
It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.
Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
-
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.
Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph
It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.
Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
I think the 'wasted effort' was on your part, as I did not make the quoted statement.
Please refer to the correct person, thanks.
Modification pending I assume?
-
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.
Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph
It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.
Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
I can tell by your post that you just skimmed through my post.
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too.
I have no idea what this hypothesis is. Your original post:
What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
Doesn't explain what it is, at all.
An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.
If you read my post thoroughly, you would have read this:
and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed.
Also, it has to be moving outside of any type of dense medium in order to maintain it's speed, which would have to be roughly 16,600mph or so at ground level. So it has to be moving in a vacuum.
A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
It would burn up if it tried to fly in dense atmosphere, and the fuel required to keep it flying would not fit, and would not be able to follow with the vessel.
And what sounds more plausible - There exists a super-advanced alien-like technology that let's a completely non-aerodynamic large heavy object fly through somewhat dense air at 17,000mph that only requires a boost every x months or so to maintain it's speed, or that rockets exist and works completely how we expect them to, and that they put parts in space that was assembled into something, wether it be a space-station or something else?
-
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too.
I have no idea what this hypothesis is. Your original post:
What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
Doesn't explain what it is, at all.
Divine intervention and trickery with a tongue-in-cheek name. It is entirely possible all space travel is a trickster deity running every organization and putting illusions in space just for laughs.
Likely? No, I'm not proposing it as a serious hypothesis, just pointing out the problem in the outright refusal to acknowledge alternatives. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely.
An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.
If you read my post thoroughly, you would have read this:
and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed.
This would be why I specifically asked how you verified this. Appealing to an 'equation' without offering any explanation or context, or even what the equation is, is not an answer. If I was to say I had an equation which showed the Earth was flat, you would justifiably want to at least know what the equation was. Hence my question, how were you able to verify this height without relying on measurements that would be inaccurate if the world were flat?
What is your equation?
Also, it has to be moving outside of any type of dense medium in order to maintain it's speed, which would have to be roughly 16,600mph or so at ground level. So it has to be moving in a vacuum.
...
It would burn up if it tried to fly in dense atmosphere, and the fuel required to keep it flying would not fit, and would not be able to follow with the vessel.
And what sounds more plausible - There exists a super-advanced alien-like technology that let's a completely non-aerodynamic large heavy object fly through somewhat dense air at 17,000mph that only requires a boost every x months or so to maintain it's speed, or that rockets exist and works completely how we expect them to, and that they put parts in space that was assembled into something, wether it be a space-station or something else?
There is quite a lot of ground between "Dense, ground-level atmosphere," and "Vacuum," and you don't take into account, for example, a streamlined shape reducing the resistance. Don't forget how hard it is to view the ISS in any detail, and how what we observe may not be all there is.
Certainly, I do think it is more likely space travel is genuine, I just don't believe the evidence is quite as overwhelming as many of you seem to.
I think the 'wasted effort' was on your part, as I did not make the quoted statement.
Please refer to the correct person, thanks.
Modification pending I assume?
I am aware: that is why it says 'Master Evar', and why I'm talking to him. I was talking about your rather lengthy address to our local Loa.
-
Divine intervention and trickery with a tongue-in-cheek name. It is entirely possible all space travel is a trickster deity running every organization and putting illusions in space just for laughs.
Likely? No, I'm not proposing it as a serious hypothesis, just pointing out the problem in the outright refusal to acknowledge alternatives. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely.
I didn't deny or propose any theories, I only posted some irrefutable facts.
This would be why I specifically asked how you verified this. Appealing to an 'equation' without offering any explanation or context, or even what the equation is, is not an answer. If I was to say I had an equation which showed the Earth was flat, you would justifiably want to at least know what the equation was. Hence my question, how were you able to verify this height without relying on measurements that would be inaccurate if the world were flat?
What is your equation?
I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20° of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.
The equation is not very exact, but you'll know if the ISS is in space or not.
There is quite a lot of ground between "Dense, ground-level atmosphere," and "Vacuum," and you don't take into account, for example, a streamlined shape reducing the resistance. Don't forget how hard it is to view the ISS in any detail, and how what we observe may not be all there is.
Certainly, I do think it is more likely space travel is genuine, I just don't believe the evidence is quite as overwhelming as many of you seem to.
With dense I mean anywhere between at least 0-60km height. Space officially starts at 100km height. Even at just below 100km almost continuous propulsion would be needed to keep an object in orbit.
a streamlined shape
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.
I know you think space travel is genuine. But everything you propose it could be otherwise has no scientific ground to it. There DEFINITELY is some sort of man-made object in space travelling at roughly 17,000mph in earth orbit. That is my point.
-
But, I'll still give you the original equation :
D(ISS Orbit)=2H+8000miles
O(ISS Orbit)=[pi](2H+8000)miles
D(Earth)= 8000miles
H(ISS height over earth)=H
t(Time spent in 20° of your field of view straight overhead) (variable) (in seconds)
T(Time for ISS to make one full lap in orbit)=5400s
S(Length ISS travel along 20° of your field of view straight overhead)=2*H*tan(10°)miles (Using trigonometry, since this is only an approxmation and the arc is pretty small)=0.3527Hmiles (roughly)
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit) -> ts/5400s=0.3527Hmiles/[pi](2H+8000)miles (equability)
t/5400=0.3527H/[pi](2H+8000)
t=0.3527H*5400/[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H/[pi](2H+8000)
t[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H
t[pi]2H+t[pi]8000=1904.3H
1904.3H-t[pi]2H=t[pi]8000
H(1904.3-2t[pi])=t[pi]8000
H=t[pi]8000/(1904.3-2t[pi])
Actually, it seems likesomething went wrong when I posted the equation in the earlier post, as it seems to be missing a number 2. I will edit that one quickly. This equation will only give you an approximation, as you can only approximate 20° of your FOV, approximate the time it travels and because it is doesn't take the curvature into account. But it is close enough to calculate if it is in space or not.
EDIT:
Almost forgot:
D=Diameter
H=Height
S=Straight
t/T=Time
The equation, with the step-by-step solution.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
I have seen it several times passing above my terrasse from NW to SE just after sunset. It is lit up by the setting Sun. Always same speed and altitude and appearance. It is easy to photograph it. It is just a bright blob = a balloon.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
I have seen it several times passing above my terrasse from NW to SE just after sunset. It is lit up by the setting Sun. Always same speed and altitude and appearance. It is easy to photograph it. It is just a bright blob = a balloon.
(http://www.wolaver.org/Space/ISS-Ewers.jpg)
Yeah, cause that looks like a balloon right?
Tell me the magic that let's a balloon that's far far denser than the medium (=vacuum) it's in float. You said it yourself, at 100km and above basically no air exists. There's nothing to float in. And why use a balloon when the thing has already reached orbit? That's the stupidest most ignorant claim I've read so far. If you believe it is at 370 000m altitude and travels at 7 500m/s then why don't you think it can be a space station? If you believe it is in fact in space and in orbit then why do you believe it can't be a space station but instead a completely useless balloon? A space station would be more useful than a balloon. Are you so desperate to try to convince us that it is not a space station?
-
I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20° of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.
You may believe it, but you'd want to see it first, that was all I was saying.
Thanks for the maths. From what I can see the basic idea is to note the distance it travels, the circumference of its orbit in terms of the altitude, gauge how long it would take, and solve for H. The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.
Give me a little time, I'll see what I can figure out if we assume an altitude of 100miles/160km.
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.
Again, that assumes you can make out every detail with binoculars. if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.
-
I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20° of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.
You may believe it, but you'd want to see it first, that was all I was saying.
Thanks for the maths. From what I can see the basic idea is to note the distance it travels, the circumference of its orbit in terms of the altitude, gauge how long it would take, and solve for H. The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.
Give me a little time, I'll see what I can figure out if we assume an altitude of 100miles/160km.
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.
Again, that assumes you can make out every detail with binoculars. if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.
The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.
It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.
if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As it passes the moon:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2010/12/legault_iss_moon_zoom.jpg)
No hidden elements, no streamlined shape.
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.
For electricity, yes. For propulsion, no. All propulsion in space for now requires newtonian thrust (a propellant is shot in the opposite direction to cause forwards propulsion).
-
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point:
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit)
Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
Comparatively small issue, just worth pointing out.
(Let me know if you want me to add a diagram, it's always a pain to express that kind of thing in words).
It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.
-
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point:
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit)
Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
Comparatively small issue, just worth pointing out.
(Let me know if you want me to add a diagram, it's always a pain to express that kind of thing in words).
It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point
Yes, thank you.
Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
No, tan is definitely better. I might have to make a sketch to show you why. That'll come tomorrow. Please add a diagram, it would help.
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.
If you have two circles with D=12,400miles and 8,500miles then the one with D=12,400 miles is obviously going to have a larger circumference. And because of:
t/T=S/O(ISS Orbit) (Fixed the D for an O)
If O gets larger then S also has to be larger, as t and T should be constant (Same on both flat and round earth).
-
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.
The easiest way I can see is simply to use speed. We determine how long it takes for the ISS to cross our observed section: we'll use sine, for now, it'll be easy to change.
Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:
d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles
Clearly the speed of the ISS, S, is, where t is the time to cross the 20 arc from your PoV:
S = d/t
And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:
O = 5400S = 187540/t
We just need to know the time t in order to calculate. Then it's easy to determine if this is a feasible number (though it would be easier with an FE map, this will be either in a grey area, or clearly beyond possibility), and we can see if the ISS must exist, or could be faked.
Also, thank you for your photo of the ISS going past the moon.
Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):
(http://i.imgur.com/4qvebx4.jpg)
Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.
-
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.
The easiest way I can see is simply to use speed. We determine how long it takes for the ISS to cross our observed section: we'll use sine, for now, it'll be easy to change.
Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:
d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles
Clearly the speed of the ISS, S, is, where t is the time to cross the 20 arc from your PoV:
S = d/t
And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:
O = 5400S = 187540/t
We just need to know the time t in order to calculate. Then it's easy to determine if this is a feasible number (though it would be easier with an FE map, this will be either in a grey area, or clearly beyond possibility), and we can see if the ISS must exist, or could be faked.
Also, thank you for your photo of the ISS going past the moon.
Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):
(http://i.imgur.com/4qvebx4.jpg)
Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.
a/ Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body. The orbit of ISS should be more or less circular. We are obviously assuming that no random undiscovered unexplained and unobserved orbital law or mechanic is introduced into this.
b/ True, but as I pointed out the height would be even greater on a flat earth, it would be even higher in space, and the speed would also be even higher.
Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:
d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:
O = 5400S = 187540/t
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):
(http://i.imgur.com/4qvebx4.jpg)
Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.
This is why sin is not good to use - H will no longer be the distance ABOVE the observer, and therefore won't be the distance ABOVE the ground, but it will be distance away from the observer when it is 10° below straight above the observer. You'll have to add extra calculations for that. H may be off by 10-20 miles if we don't account for that. The middle length is the actual height, which is what we want to calculate, that is the point of this calculation.
-
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).
Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:
O = 190433 miles/t
Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/ (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.
-
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).
Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:
O = 190433 miles/t
Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/ (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.
I see why it's 200.
It's late here, I'll check the rest tomorrow.
-
Already done it, psycho.
Starting at page 32 of this thread.
Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.
Why is that so hard for you?
'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'
It becomes apparent when we look at the above statement you made back on page 32 of this thread, that your comprehension of the situation needs rectifying.
You've got it completely wrong when you've attempted to label the various components of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere example.
Firstly, let's look at the case of the cannon and the cannon ball. An explosive charge is ignited and this ejects the cannon ball out of the cannon. Due to Newton's 3rd law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) the cannon is recoiled (forced in the opposite direction) at a proportionate velocity corresponding to the mass and velocity of the cannonball. This reaction takes place regardless of the atmosphere, as the movement (recoil) of the cannon in one direction is the direct result of the cannonball being fired in the opposite direction, and this can also be described as 'conservation of momentum'. It's obvious that the cannon is not being forced in one direction, due to the cannonball pushing off the atmosphere. The mass of the cannon is moved in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the cannonball = conservation of momentum.
(http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys01/expmomen/cannon.gif)
When we look at a rocket and its fuel, it's exactly the same as a cannon and its cannonball. You might disagree, but let's look further.
If we look at a rocket, we have the rocket body itself, and attached to this body is the rocket engine and the nozzle/s. Let's imagine that the nozzles are similar to the cannons barrel. We can now also make a comparison between the cannonball and the rocket's ejected fuel. What we must realise, is that the burnt fuel being continuously ejected out of the rocket engine nozzle/s has considerable weight (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket). Therefore we can make a direct comparison with the cannonball (has mass) and the rocket's ejected burnt fuel (has mass).
Now let's return to your analogy of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere (picture below).
(http://sirius.ucsc.edu/demoweb/images/mechan/eitan_medicine.jpg)
Ok, let's start by looking at how you've labelled the various components, and if this has been done correctly?
You stated that it's the man's arm which is the exhaust? Actually, the man's arm is the 'explosive force' that is propelling the ball, and is exactly the same as the explosive charge that fires the cannonball out of the cannon's barrel. In turn, this is exactly the same as the ignition of the fuel in the rocket's combustion chamber and subsequent ejection out through the engine nozzle/s.
You then state that the 'ball represents an external mass such as the atmosphere'? Well, it's not hard to laugh at this statement.
The ball is the ball. How does the ball suddenly turn into a representation of atmospheric mass? The ball that is being thrown by the man is exactly the same as the cannon ball being 'thrown' by the cannon. This is also exactly the same as the rocket engine 'throwing' fuel out of its nozzle/s. To bring the atmosphere into the equation is nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
So in conclusion, your labelling of the 'man throwing a ball' example is completely wrong.
Let's apply the labels correctly now in relation to the example of a rocket -
1/ The man IS the rocket
2/ The man's arm IS the explosive force - (fuel being ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket) which in turn throws the ball. The man's arm is NOT the exhaust as you incorrectly assert.
3/ The ball IS the burnt fuel (huge mass) being ejected out of the engine nozzle/s.
So in applying Newton's 3rd law to the above situations, we have established that the 3 examples are exactly the same, and the 'recoil' of the cannon, the man and the rocket are the direct consequences of the 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' law, which is COMPLETELY independent of whether there is an atmosphere or not, as it's NOT the atmosphere which is 'pushing' on the cannonball, the ball, or the burnt fuel coming out of the rocket's engine, and forcing the cannon, man or rocket in the opposite direction.
Therefore, because the atmosphere is not even part of the equation/process by which a rocket engine produces thrust forces, there is no reason what so ever why a rocket engine cannot produce thrust (movement force) in a vacuum, as the laws of conservation of momentum hold true regardless of the medium through which an object is travelling.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you know what the sentence "You can check for yourself" even means? Because everyone who denies the ISS seems to have this inability to comprehend that.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
-
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).
Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:
O = 190433 miles/t
Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/ (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.
Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.
So O=5400*2H*tan(10°)/t => O=1904.3H/t
But this equation does require you to know two of the variables.
My equation for ISS height on a flat earth:
ts/5400s=2H*tan(10°)miles/39000miles (12400miles*[pi]=39000miles, roughly)
39000t/5400=2H*tan(10°)
39000t/1904.3=H
H=39000t/1904.3
If we compare them:
Round earth: H=25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)
Flat earth: H=38956t/1904.3
The flat earth one will give a greater H when t is low, I'll calculate the t:
25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)=38956t/1904.3
38956t*(1904.3-[tau]*t)=25133t*1904.3
47860772t=74183911t-244768t^2
47860772=74183911-244768t
244768t=74183911-47860772=26323139
t=26323139/244768=107.5
So as long as t is smaller than 107.5 the ISS will be higher up on a flat earth than on a round earth.
At t=107.5, H=2,200 miles.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?
No, as I say they are just white blots on a black background and stored among many other pictures somewhere on some external hard disc. But why don't try yourself to take a photo of the ISS? With your intelligence it should be easy as 1, 2, 3.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?
No, as I say they are just white blots on a black background and stored among many other pictures somewhere on some external hard disc. But why don't try yourself to take a photo of the ISS? With your intelligence it should be easy as 1, 2, 3.
If I find some time I might do it. But I don't need to, because others already has. Not one has posted an enhanced picture of the ISS where it is still only a large white blob. That's why I'd like to see it from you. But you're lying of course, otherwise you'd just have posted those pictures and laughed in my face.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
What do I think?
I think that your predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories blinkers your thinking, about anything that in your opinion seems to be out of the ordinary.
Obviously, to capture a detailed picture of the ISS is going to require the use of precision equipment (high powered telescope with camera attachment), the likes of which was obviously not at your disposal when you took your pictures (it seems the only equipment you used was a simple digital camera, which is entirely inadequate). If all you could capture was a 'white shining blot' then no amount of enlarging is going to make it look any different - it will still look like a 'white shining blot', but larger.
You then laughably attempt to draw a ridiculous comparison between perceived 'dodgy' pictures taken on 9/11, and photographers taking pictures of the ISS? Your whole premise is flawed I'm afraid, so it is accordingly treated with the contempt that it deserves.
-
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure.
Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.
At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.
I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?
I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?
Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS? Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?
So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast. But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it? But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.
Try using an autotracking telescope, and using a bright object to get a silluette if your telescope simply has a resolution too low for it. Aparently, it has an angular size of around 40 arcseconds. Use this website http://calgary.rasc.ca/iss_transits.htm (http://calgary.rasc.ca/iss_transits.htm) and the well known https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=25544 (https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=25544) to get the best time for a transit. IIRC, it can help with calculating moon transits.
Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot.
If you just took a picture of a small dot, you will get no better resolution by making an interpolation (zoom). Get a better telescope, and even you can do it.
I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.
Actually, photographing the ISS is a well known amateur astronomer project. The hard thing is not to get a clear picture, but to get a non blurred picture, like the one in the transits website. It just goes so fast.
They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY.
Keep the 9/11 spam out of the upper fora.
According my famous
Sure
, reliable
Sure
, scientific analysis
Eh...
and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) )
Somehow, the conference you submitted your abstract to disagrees.
Finally, it is important to point out that, contrarily to what is stated in your website, the EMI 2013 conference organization
(1) did not peer review any full paper containing the material discussed in the aforementioned website (the EMI 2013 conference does not feature full-paper proceedings) ;
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Gianluca Cusatis
EMI 2013 Conference Chair
If your peers say you didnt underwent peer review by them, how can you claim so? Its like saying I received the Nobel Prize for my biology discoveries last week of "how much codeine I need in my body before I actually stop feeling so ill", and when the Nobel Prize comitee claims that's not true, I make a blog, and whine.
such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).
What do you think?
I think you should stop spamming 9/11 crap on a forum about the Flat Earth Hypothesis.
-
Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.
I did change that for the final value I gave.
O = 190433 miles/t
While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.
I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path. If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.
if not, I'll wait until my FE map is complete, and sketch out the path the ISS takes over it: that should give us a rough gauge of O, and we can use t to determine H.
-
Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.
I did change that for the final value I gave.
O = 190433 miles/t
While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.
I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path. If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.
if not, I'll wait until my FE map is complete, and sketch out the path the ISS takes over it: that should give us a rough gauge of O, and we can use t to determine H.
While I assume H=100, that's a good border figure. it's far past the RE Karman line, so if that low an altitude is impossible then the ISS being faked definitely is. This is a test to disprove that.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.
I don't like assuming the shape of the path it takes, which is my problem with how you appear to assume an elliptical path.
Well, as I said earlier we should assume that official orbital mechanics are used and that nor unknown elements are introduced. And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical, and if it doesn't change altitude (or distance to the center of the orbit) too much it will be more or less spherical. In the case of the ISS this means it should be more or less spherical on both round and flat earth.
(http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/ISS_Path.gif)
This picture shows the path of the ISS over land (It changes because of earth's rotation). The ISS spends half of it's orbit north of the equator and the other half south of it. If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth. Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.
If your claim is correct and the ISS must be in space, then this formula could be capable of disproving it.
Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.
-
Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.
100 miles is far above the Karman Line: if the ISS is faked by in-atmosphere means, it would more than likely be below that point. If, however, it turns out 100 miles is too low an altitude for a reasonable length orbit, then it follows that a lower altitude is just as impossible.
And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical,
We're not really dealing with an orbit, though. if it's faked then it would just be travelling out a path above a flat surface. 'Orbit' is convenient shorthand, but not strictly accurate.
If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth.
In my experience, the azimuthal projection is intended as a filler in lieu of an accurate map. Those that accept it tend to be conspiracy theorists with no reasoning beyond the fact it's the UN logo. I think we can agree that, even if the world is flat, that map is very unlikely: for example, the equator being a concentric circle at exactly halfway seems very unlikely.
Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.
I'd add a caveat to this; as we're testing the FE model, we should acknowledge that other laws would necessarily be at play (without which the model will fail). However, I am happy to disregard, for example, light bending enough to give a significantly altered result, simply because there is no reason to assume the effect would be anything but negligible on the scale we're concerned with.
Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.
This would be accurate if what we were doing was intended to be an accurate description of the ISS: first however we need to determine if it is possible. To do this, assuming a value for H above the Karman line will give us a predicted length for the ISS' orbit once we measure t. This will, at the very least, let us see if the order of magnitude (for example) is even close to what we expect. To prove or disprove, it is not always necessary to have every number: sometimes all you'll need is an approximate field of possibilities for one of the three.
If it turns out this is possible, then the step is to wait for the map to be finished. After all, from this we can draw the path of the ISS: confirm or deny that it's circular, and gain a decent prediction for O.
-
Sorry, I'm a bit confused over what you're trying to say here.
100 miles is far above the Karman Line: if the ISS is faked by in-atmosphere means, it would more than likely be below that point. If, however, it turns out 100 miles is too low an altitude for a reasonable length orbit, then it follows that a lower altitude is just as impossible.
And according to official orbital mechanics, a stable orbit not changing parent body should be elliptical,
We're not really dealing with an orbit, though. if it's faked then it would just be travelling out a path above a flat surface. 'Orbit' is convenient shorthand, but not strictly accurate.
If we assume the azimuthal projection of the earth as the flat earth (as it is the most common one) then the orbit of the ISS would be more or less a circle over it, like the sun's assumed orbit over flat earth.
In my experience, the azimuthal projection is intended as a filler in lieu of an accurate map. Those that accept it tend to be conspiracy theorists with no reasoning beyond the fact it's the UN logo. I think we can agree that, even if the world is flat, that map is very unlikely: for example, the equator being a concentric circle at exactly halfway seems very unlikely.
Sure, there could be some weird undiscovered law we don't know of, but that's about as scientific as saying that cucumbers come to life during night when the hosts are asleep and starts partys that we don't know about. We will only care about observed phenomenon and facts, any hypothesis should have basis in some sort of observation before being suggested.
I'd add a caveat to this; as we're testing the FE model, we should acknowledge that other laws would necessarily be at play (without which the model will fail). However, I am happy to disregard, for example, light bending enough to give a significantly altered result, simply because there is no reason to assume the effect would be anything but negligible on the scale we're concerned with.
Only if we know 2 of the 3 variables. One can be measured, the other 2 can be calculated using my equations. Equations based on assumptions such as an assumed value of a variable when the variable well could be twice or thrice or half the assumed value are not very good at all for scientific testing. And my equations can also disprove my statement that the ISS is on space. Input t and get H. If H is below the Karman line the ISS is not in space.
This would be accurate if what we were doing was intended to be an accurate description of the ISS: first however we need to determine if it is possible. To do this, assuming a value for H above the Karman line will give us a predicted length for the ISS' orbit once we measure t. This will, at the very least, let us see if the order of magnitude (for example) is even close to what we expect. To prove or disprove, it is not always necessary to have every number: sometimes all you'll need is an approximate field of possibilities for one of the three.
If it turns out this is possible, then the step is to wait for the map to be finished. After all, from this we can draw the path of the ISS: confirm or deny that it's circular, and gain a decent prediction for O.
Sure. But I'd still say that the orbit (or path) is more or less circular. I'd use my equations primarily though - my equations don't actually rely on a circular orbit, but any shaped path as long as it doesn't change. Then we can input the H into your equation for confirming.
-
Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.
But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.
We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.
As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
John Milton is, himself, an extremely interesting subject, & Paradise Lost is also proto-typical sci-fi propaganda; I will expand on this further at some point, for it is lulzy...
In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...
Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...
Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?
Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...
-
Lol
Pipe dream
Lol
-
Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?
Running out of irony meters, yet another one has exploded.....
-
Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.
But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate
We did?
, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.
We did, but you told us not to give any evidence for the ISS being the ISS. So we ignored you.
We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.
As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
Joke is, in Paradise Lost, Satan is portrayed (somewhat) as the good guy. He is a being that rebels against the tyranny of God, fails, but is nevertheless able to get a democratic society (Pandemonium) working. He's even able to make fun of God by corrupting its creation.
Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?
In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...
Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...
Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?
Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...
I would hate to be what you pretend to be, Papa. Impervious to proof. It would be fun, yeah, but also kinda sad.
-
Well, thanks for all the pseudo-scientific nonsense, cultists.
But you already lost the 'rockets in vacuum' debate, & have still provided no proof whatsoever that the light in the sky we see pootling overhead is a manned space station full of happy-clappy weirdos playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever.
We'll get back to that light in the sky later, though; for now I have a different, more fundamental question.
As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
John Milton is, himself, an extremely interesting subject, & Paradise Lost is also proto-typical sci-fi propaganda; I will expand on this further at some point, for it is lulzy...
In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...
Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...
Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?
Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...
You didn't start this thread.
-
Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?
No I don't; & it's still you lot who are the cultists.
Rather,I'd say that it's Satanists (or Luciferians, if you prefer) who think that Satan is a real being...
You know; like the ones at NASA, plus all the others infesting the history of astronomy.
Still, as you are incapable of distinguishing artillery ballistics from rocket functioning, believe that a light in the sky is a can full of people in perpetual motion, & that looking through a telescope is the answer to everything, it is unsurprising that you are also incapable of comprehending either this, or anything else that I write.
Speaking of telescopes, did you know that Galileo & his telescope are mentioned five times in Paradise Lost? Strangely, he is the only contemporary of Milton to receive such an accolade.
Galileo is also mentioned three times in Milton's Areopagitica; an anti-censorship propaganda essay that was written a mere year before Milton took a job as State Censor for Cromwell's 'Republic'.
Hypocrisy, much?
Indeed, Milton actually met Galileo, during one of his visits to Italy; as a Protestant Heretic who promoted regicide, you'd expect Milton to be unwelcome there, but no; he was even allowed to visit the Vatican library.
So; Milton may have looked through Galileo's famous 'optic glass'...
But was this telescope any good?
No; seems it was not: check out www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/) for the lowdown on this 'revolutionary' instrument - fact is that it was useless.
So; are we to believe that Milton, a Propagandist hypocrite, just decided out of nowhere to promote Galileo & his fraudulently conceived heliocentric ideas as much as possible?
Yeah; right... Pull the other one!
Oh; & did you know that Paradise Lost is based on an egregrious mistranslation in the King James Bible?
There was no entity named Satan in the original Bible; the passage in question refers to the fall of a very earthly king.
So why did Milton, a Bible scholar, choose to base his greatest work on a crude mistranslation, that he could not be unaware of?
Starting to smell something fishy yet, cultists?
Satan; Lucifer; Heliocentricity... Sun-Worship perhaps?
But of course you won't see that - you never see anything outside your tiny cell of scientism.
Maybe if you got a bigger telescope it'd help?
Galileo's got a used one for sale; one careful science-fraud owner!
As ever: LOL!!!
-
Wow. What a rambling noodle soup of a post.
On the rocket subject, you haven't even come vaguely close to beating us given you can't even apply newtons 3rd properly, yet alone understanding thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics.
-
LOL!!!
You cannot refute a word of what I wrote, mainframes.
Good thing I wasn't writing it for you, then.
I was writing it for all those who - unlike yourself - have not yet been completely suckered & brainwashed into the cult of Scientism.
As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists; for it knows full well that unless I kick a ball it will not move.
You lot seem to believe that a ball can somehow kick itself...
Into Space, even!
'Space'; LOL!!!
Satan's Neologism...
It couldn't be more in your face how fraudulent it all is.
But keep Polishing your Telescopes & Enjoying the pretty Lights; one day NASA will announce they've discovered the Origins of Life out there & won't you all be Happy about that!
But you won't for a single moment consider WHY you're Happy about it, will you?
The brainwashing runs too deep for that...
-
They couldn't handle you last time and had you banned, Papa. They can't grasp what you're saying because they are (as you rightly said) far too brainwashed to dare to grasp it.
They argue with you in numbers because they believe that this will wear you down enough to stop posting. Keep up the good work.
There's reason's why the big telescopes are up mountains and in inaccessible places which appear to be all owned by N.A.S.A or what is perceived to be them. (Government).
Space does not exist.
Rockets are high jumping fireworks, basically.
Space rockets are a figment of the imagination or gimmicks.
It's all eye trickery and brainwashing mind trickery.
Your stuff is spot on, Papa and these people know it. If they thought you were of no significance, they wouldn't be swarming all over your posts.
They pretended to ignore you for a while hoping you would disappear. Now that you are posting up again, their machine roars into motion. ;D
-
LOL!!!
You cannot refute a word of what I wrote, mainframes.
Good thing I wasn't writing it for you, then.
I was writing it for all those who - unlike yourself - have not yet been completely suckered & brainwashed into the cult of Scientism.
As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists; for it knows full well that unless I kick a ball it will not move.
You lot seem to believe that a ball can somehow kick itself...
Into Space, even!
'Space'; LOL!!!
Satan's Neologism...
It couldn't be more in your face how fraudulent it all is.
But keep Polishing your Telescopes & Enjoying the pretty Lights; one day NASA will announce they've discovered the Origins of Life out there & won't you all be Happy about that!
But you won't for a single moment consider WHY you're Happy about it, will you?
The brainwashing runs too deep for that...
The quote below is a statement you made much earlier in this thread -
'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'
In reference to your recent boast - 'As for Newton's 3rd, even my dog understands it better than you Satanic space-cultists', it's obviously YOU who has no idea what parts of a 'system' are what.
In your example of the man throwing a ball, you've got it completely wrong by labelling the man's arm as the exhaust.
In actual fact, the man's arm is the thrust or explosion that is imparting momentum to the ball.
Incredibly, you then label the ball as an external mass, such as the atmosphere?
Actually, the ball in the exhaust.
So to conclude, if you can't even correctly label the elements of the 'man throwing a ball' system, then obviously your understanding of Newton's 3rd law is non-existent.
This is how a rocket works, by igniting fuel in a controlled explosion and throwing it out of its engines at a huge speed. What you don't seem to realise, is that the exhaust out of a rocket contains a huge amount of mass. The expelled burnt fuel isn't just weightless smoke and flame. The 1st stage of the Saturn V rocket for example, threw out 15 tons of burnt fuel every second at hypersonic speeds. This is why, according to the laws of conservation of momentum, the rocket was propelled in the opposite direction to the huge mass of burnt fuel going the other way.
To use another example, let's look at a cannon and a cannonball. We all know that when a cannonball is shot out of the cannon's barrel, the cannon is recoiled in the opposite direction. This is exactly the same reason why a rocket is propelled, because it is shooting large amounts of mass (burnt fuel) out of its engine nozzles at hypersonic speeds.
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
But remarkably, there are some idiots who still think that a rocket is propelled by pushing off the atmosphere, lol.
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
-
So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?
You want to divide ONE explosion into TWO things?!?
LOL!!!
But enough of your gibberish; the whole analogy is representative of the recoil of a gun, NOT the thrust of a rocket, & is therefore a worthless irrelevance.
I already explained this, in post #1569, page 79 of this thread; but somehow you missed that part, didn't you?
Whatever; this debate is over & you lost.
Goodbye!
-
So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?
You want to divide ONE explosion into TWO things?!?
LOL!!!
But enough of your gibberish; the whole analogy is representative of the recoil of a gun, NOT the thrust of a rocket, & is therefore a worthless irrelevance.
I already explained this, in post #1569, page 79 of this thread; but somehow you missed that part, didn't you?
Whatever; this debate is over & you lost.
Goodbye!
So, chtwroney-baloney; according to you both the man's arm AND the ball are the Exhaust?
You obviously didn't read my post very well.
The man's arm is the thrust, or explosive force that gives momentum to the ball.
In your statement, you've said that the man's arm is the exhaust - clearly that is wrong.
The ball is obviously the exhaust, but in your statement, you've labelled the ball as the 'outside mass such as the atmosphere'? It's obvious from this alone, that you have no idea what you're talking about.
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.
Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?
Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?
-
Chtwrone: start a thread on rockets in the vacuum if you are so insistent; we've already done it to death here.
I'm more interested in your responses to this now...
Anyway, it is you who thinks Satan is a real being. Who's the cultist now?
No I don't; & it's still you lot who are the cultists.
Rather, I'd say that it's Satanists (or Luciferians, if you prefer) who think that Satan is a real being...
You know; like the ones at NASA, plus all the others infesting the history of astronomy.
Did you know that Galileo & his telescope are mentioned five times in Paradise Lost? Strangely, he is the only contemporary of Milton to receive such an accolade.
Galileo is also mentioned three times in Milton's Areopagitica; an anti-censorship propaganda essay that was written a mere year before Milton took a job as State Censor for Cromwell's 'Republic'.
Hypocrisy, much?
Indeed, Milton actually met Galileo, during one of his visits to Italy; as a Protestant Heretic who promoted regicide, you'd expect Milton to be unwelcome there, but no; he was even allowed to visit the Vatican library.
So; Milton may have looked through Galileo's famous 'optic glass'...
But was this telescope any good?
No; seems it was not: check out www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/) for the lowdown on this 'revolutionary' instrument - fact is that it was useless.
So; are we to believe that Milton, a Propagandist hypocrite, just decided out of nowhere to promote Galileo & his fraudulently conceived heliocentric ideas as much as possible?
Yeah; right... Pull the other one!
Oh; & did you know that Paradise Lost is based on an egregrious mistranslation in the King James Bible?
There was no entity named Satan in the original Bible; the passage in question refers to the fall of a very earthly king.
So why did Milton, a Bible scholar, choose to base his greatest work on a crude mistranslation, that he could not be unaware of?
Starting to smell something fishy yet, cultists?
Satan; Lucifer; Heliocentricity... Sun-Worship perhaps?
But of course you won't see that - you never see anything outside your tiny cell of scientism.
Maybe if you got a bigger telescope it'd help?
Galileo's got a used one for sale; one careful science-fraud owner!
As ever: LOL!!!
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.
Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?
Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?
The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.
The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.
The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.
Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?
Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?
The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.
The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.
The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.
We understand perfectly well what's going on. It's you and your cronies that are oblivious to the reality and prefer to wallow in fantasy.
Anyway leave it at that because this topic is moving in another direction.
-
Nah. Lets keep it right here because this is the fundamental problem that FE's have with space travel and therefore with satellites and the ISS.
You think that if you can shoot down space travel you can then ignore all the evidence taken from orbit and further out that show Earth is a sphere.
The problem of course is that you think rockets don't work in a vacuum because you don't understand Newton's 3rd. Ironic really, given that Newton's 3rd was actually the inspiration behind trying to get rockets to reach space in the first place.
-
Mainframes: we've done this already, starting from page 32 of this thread.
It's over & you lost the debate.
You lost the debate because needing something extrinsic to push on is the totality of Newton's 3rd, yet you took the indefensible position of arguing for a force being created with nothing extrinsic to push against.
If you wish to restart this lost debate, then create a new thread on the subject.
Now; refute this: as you may recall, with embarrassment, I began my contributions to this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
-
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
-
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
LOL!!!
& what is a 'force'?
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.
Do you not see how you just contradicted yourself?
You made a total fool of yourself earlier in the thread & now you are doing so again.
Please, stop this madness & go create a thread on the subject where you can howl at the moon to your heart's content.
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.
Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?
Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?
The cannonball example is a perfect example on demonstrating how rockets work.
The type of metals that the cannon and rocket are built from will simply affect the acceleration due to mass difference.
The only problem here is that you and Papa still don't understand Newton's 3rd.
We understand perfectly well what's going on. It's you and your cronies that are oblivious to the reality and prefer to wallow in fantasy.
Anyway leave it at that because this topic is moving in another direction.
lol
Sure you do
lol
-
How is thrust in a vacuum still not understood? Are we still in the 1600's
Here (http://) <--- thrust in a vacuum
Repeat the test and get no thrust to prove the world wrong.
-
How is thrust in a vacuum still not understood? Are we still in the 1600's
Here (http://) <--- thrust in a vacuum
Repeat the test and get no thrust to prove the world wrong.
Put this in the other topic what Papa kindly started for you and I'll answer this.
-
I believe the thread is Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship So as far as I can see from what the others are saying, I am on topic.
I have Papa blocked, so I dont see his direct comments, only quoted text from others.
Has he started to communicate like a human yet?
Or is it all still
insult insult
lol
-
How is thrust in a vacuum still not understood? Are we still in the 1600's
Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...
For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/)
Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?
Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?
Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?
Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?
These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.
Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...
So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?
LOL!!!
I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.
Enter; Do Not Enter...
The Choice is yours.
In the End, though, Believe What You Want.
-
I have seen the Moon's of Jupiter with my own eyes using my telescope. Flawed instruments and flawed science doesn't produce correct conclusions, so why are the conclusions correct?
-
Flawed instruments and flawed science doesn't produce correct conclusions, so why are the conclusions correct?
Good question!
We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?
I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?
Now; an Even Better Question!
Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?
Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?
You know what's coming next, don't you?
That's right: LOL!!!
P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?
-
Good question!
We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?
I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?
Now; an Even Better Question!
Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?
Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?
You know what's coming next, don't you?
That's right: LOL!!!
P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?
I am replying to you because I noticed that there were no obvious insults in your post. I am prepared to give you a second chance, but if you blow it like the last time then I will make it my goal to get you banned.
I believe that Galeleo made correct conclusions because he was right. It's quite obvious really.
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
-
Good question!
We know Galileo's instruments & science were both flawed, so how did he obtain valid data in the first place, let alone arrive at any kind of 'conclusion', correct or incorrect?
I know how; but let's watch you all flounder for a bit eh?
Now; an Even Better Question!
Why are you responding to me at all when you made such a huge fuss about my posts, even playing the suicide card, begged to get me banned & vowed you'd ignore me forever?
Been taking lessons in Hypocrisy from Milton, have you?
You know what's coming next, don't you?
That's right: LOL!!!
P.s: just for interest, what magnification is your telescope?
I am replying to you because I noticed that there were no obvious insults in your post. I am prepared to give you a second chance, but if you blow it like the last time then I will make it my goal to get you banned.
I believe that Galeleo made correct conclusions because he was right. It's quite obvious really.
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
I'm getting a bit sick of you and this ban crap, Mikey boy. One minute you're 18. The next you're a mormon and the next you go on like a middle aged person that appears to have all the answers.
You are in no position to give anyone a chance unless you are part of this forum in terms of admin or something.
Anyway let's have some more proof of who you are mikey boy, just so I can get my head around the way you act.
How about you show us a video of you, live whilst viewing this forum. From there, I will ask you a few questions and ask you to type into this forum. Basically just follow my instructions. Are you game?
-
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.
Have you actually read the link I provided yet?
Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?
LOL!!!
He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...
Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...
-
Good luck having a 15 ton recoil action kicking your rocket up it's own arse. Wake up for crying out loud. Your sleeping in days are gone if you've left school. Time to add a little bit of coffee to the cup instead of warm milk.
Ok Sceptimatic, just to see what your level of understanding actually is, please consider the following question -
When a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, why does the cannon move (recoil) in the opposite direction? Also, if a heavier cannonball is shot out of the cannon at the same speed, will the cannon be recoiled at a greater speed?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
Let me try and help you along.
A "SPACE" rocket is not a CANNON.
A space rocket is not built with the metal that a cannon is built with. Guess the metal of the cannon and guess the metal of the "space" rocket.
Do you notice any problems here?
Do you understand what would happen should a huge rocket explode off the ground with the recoil that you people pretend is being exerted onto it to kick it's arse into the air?
Do you understand or are you just going to go into simpleton mode whilst banging your head off the desk?
'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'
Regards the above statement that you made earlier in the thread, would you please explain how the man's arm can represent the exhaust? Surely the man's arm represents the explosive force that gives momentum to the ball?
And one last question that you've previously avoided answering, in the cannon/cannonball 'system', what causes the cannon to recoil when the cannonball is shot out of the barrel?
These are easy questions to answer, or maybe they are too hard for you?
(http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/121/cannonmo.gif)
-
LOL!!!
-
Answer me!
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.
Have you actually read the link I provided yet?
Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?
LOL!!!
He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...
Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...
Oh, & btw 'chtwrone' has been PM-ing me to abuse/taunt me on the subject of rockets in a vacuum.
Of course, I ignored it, but I thought I'd best warn any other free-thinkers here what to expect.
-
Answer me!
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.
Have you actually read the link I provided yet?
Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?
LOL!!!
He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...
Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...
(http://img.sparknotes.com/content/testprep/bookimgs/sat2/physics/0003/cannon.gif)
'The reason a cannon is recoiled in one direction, is because the cannonball is pushing off the atmosphere in the other direction.'
Do you agree with the above statement?
If not, please give your reason as to why the cannon moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball?
-
Why are you sending me abusive PMs?
Why are you not posting in the correct thread?
-
Why are you sending me abusive PMs?
Why are you not posting in the correct thread?
Please quote my PM that I sent to you, and label the 'abusive' bits.
Thanks.
-
LOL!!!
You know what you did.
Anyhow; I have created a thread for you to expound on your rocketry theories; please use it & leave us alone.
Everyone else, answer this:
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.
Have you actually read the link I provided yet?
Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?
LOL!!!
He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...
Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...
-
Oh, & this:
Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...
For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/)
Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?
Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?
Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?
Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?
These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.
Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...
So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?
LOL!!!
I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.
Enter; Do Not Enter...
The Choice is yours.
In the End, though, Believe What You Want.
-
I'm getting a bit sick of you and this ban crap, Mikey boy. One minute you're 18. The next you're a mormon and the next you go on like a middle aged person that appears to have all the answers.
You are in no position to give anyone a chance unless you are part of this forum in terms of admin or something.
Anyway let's have some more proof of who you are mikey boy, just so I can get my head around the way you act.
How about you show us a video of you, live whilst viewing this forum. From there, I will ask you a few questions and ask you to type into this forum. Basically just follow my instructions. Are you game?
Why can't I be an 18 year old Mormon stereotype breaker? If you think that stereotypes apply to everybody then you don't have very much experience with people, and you are hearing this from someone who doesn't have much of a social life so that's really saying something.
I am indeed willing to do what you request, and I will try to leave no doubt that I am who I say I am.
-
LOL!!!
You know what you did.
Anyhow; I have created a thread for you to expound on your rocketry theories; please use it & leave us alone.
Everyone else, answer this:
My telescope has roughly 60x magnification by the way.
Interesting; because Galileo's telescope had only 8-20x magnification at best & the lenses were both badly-made & badly-matched.
Have you actually read the link I provided yet?
Do you honestly still think that science-fraud legend Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter through such a rickety contraption?
LOL!!!
He couldn't even see his next-door neighbour's goddamn cat through that p.o.s...
Now; carry on ignoring me/not ignoring me/making shit up as you go along...
You and Sceptimatic seem to think that a rocket is propelled because its exhaust is pushing off the atmosphere?
Ok, if we look at a similar example, you must also think that the man on the skateboard is propelled in one direction because the ball he is throwing is also pushing off the atmosphere? Really?
(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b3865e24e6b85b56521f8a05848d0615?convert_to_webp=true)
-
Stick to the correct thread, psycho-stalker weird PM sending thing chtwrone...
Everyone else; THIS is what the space-cultists DON'T want you to read; do so & research it.
Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...
For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/)
Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?
Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?
Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?
Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?
These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.
Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...
So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?
LOL!!!
I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.
Enter; Do Not Enter...
The Choice is yours.
In the End, though, Believe What You Want.
-
Stick to the correct thread, psycho-stalker weird PM sending thing chtwrone...
Everyone else; THIS is what the space-cultists DON'T want you to read; do so & research it.
Science Fraud was a well-established practice even back in the 1600s...
For example: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/)
Are we to believe that such a flawed device enabled Galileo to clearly discern the 'moons' of Jupiter?
Any of you telescope-fetishist Satanic space-cultists care to comment on this very interesting article?
Or on why the arch-propagandist Milton chose to promote Galileo so heavily?
Or what induced him to put the first utterance of the word 'space' in the English language into the mouth of his suspiciously non-Biblically inspired Satan?
These are very interesting questions indeed; but as the answers cannot be found on NASA fact-sheets or wikipedia it is no surprise that you Cultists avoid them.
Others will not, though; in fact many neutral readers will be researching them as I write...
So quick - change the subject! Back to rockets in a vacuum, perhaps..?
LOL!!!
I have told you, repeatedly, that I am here to Open Doorways.
Enter; Do Not Enter...
The Choice is yours.
In the End, though, Believe What You Want.
Just a personal question.
Do you actually have a job? If you do, I can't imagine that it's anything too challenging - department store shelf stacker perhaps - that would be your limit I think?
-
Please post your opinion on what I do for a living in the correct thread, weirdo PM-sending stalker chtwrone.
Everyone else:
As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began my contributions to this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
You Cultists REALLY hate this subject, don't you?
-
Papa - you can see the moons of Jupiter in a pair of binoculars at 9x magnification so what is wrong with Galileo using 20x mag?
-
Please post your opinion on what I do for a living in the correct thread, weirdo PM-sending stalker chtwrone.
Everyone else:
As you may recall, with embarrassment, I began my contributions to this thread by asking if any of you had actually been to 'space', thus giving you unambiguous, empirical, first-hand evidence of what it is like.
&, of course, none of you had.
Now, I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
You Cultists REALLY hate this subject, don't you?
What's with your stanisim obsession? Almost every single one of your posts contains "Satan" for no good reason.
-
Anyway stop detailing, this is a thread about spacecraft.
Have you worked out how to apply newtons 3rd yet or do you still think rockets have to push off the atmosphere?
-
Papa - you can see the moons of Jupiter in a pair of binoculars at 9x magnification so what is wrong with Galileo using 20x mag?
Really?
So why do astronomy sites suggest 32x magnification is needed?
& mikeman already stated that his telescope was 60x magnification...
Plus, Galileo's first telescope was only 8x mag & had far more roughly-ground lenses than any modern device, which were not even matched correctly...
Again; please actually read the link I provided.
Here it is: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/)
Do try not to lie too much in your next reply; or at least try to reply in the correct thread...
It's getting boring for all of us.
-
Plus, Galileo's first telescope was only 8x mag & had far more roughly-ground lenses than any modern device, which were not even matched correctly...
Are you suggesting that Galileo only ever made one telescope or that any subsequent telescopes would not have been any better than his first?
-
No; I am not suggesting that.
You really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?
I'm suggesting that you read this: www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/ (http://www.scitechantiques.com/Galileo-Telescope-Anomalies-optics/) then explain how Galileo could make the observations he claimed through such poorly-performing devices.
Just to bring you up to speed, I am also wondering why Milton, the greatest propagandist of the English revolution, chose to propagandise Galileo so vigorously, & why he also chose to put the first use of the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, into the mouth of a Satan that was not inspired by any true Biblical reference but was more akin to Prometheus or even Hermes of legend...
It's interesting stuff - I look forward to your non-contributions to the debate!
-
Papa - quote from the website you suggested we read:
The images really turn out to be very disappointing to most first time viewers'. It takes practice to get to become a good observer with a Galilean telescope but when one acquires the skill the images are more than satisfactory for making the discoveries that Galileo made. [\quote]
Oh dear. Just undermined your own arguement there.
Anyway. This is a thread about spacecraft.
If you want to talk about Galileo and his telescopes start a new thread.
-
I am aware of that quote.
& I do not believe it.
For the writers had no choice but to include it, did they?
How are 'practice & skill' necessary for looking through a telescope?
One either sees things through it or one does not.
The text & diagrams make it clear that the telescope barely magnifies anything at all & somehow relies on the observer's retinas enlarging in order to function.
Go back to the article &, instead of quote-hunting, actually try to comprehend what is written.
Also; stop trying to control what I choose to post here.
How is the nature of 'space' itself, & its conceptual origins in the English language, not relevant to a debate on 'space' travel?
Maths is not the Language of the Universe, Cultists; Maths is the Maths of the Universe.
Language is the Language of the Universe & thus how Words are created & employed is of Primal Significance.
& if I wish to explore that Significance, then I shall.
Unlike yourselves, with your dismal NASA fact-sheets & fascistic wiki-spam, I do not know where my research will take me; nor is it pre-ordained what conclusions I, or any neutral readers, must draw from it.
All are free to believe what they want.
I open doorways & offer choices; You, miserably, are mere Lurkers at the Threshold...
& that is a choice you made yourselves; will you ever ask yourselves: Why?
-
I am aware of that quote.
& I do not believe it.
For the writers had no choice but to include it, did they?
So you point us to an article and then complain when we actually read it and find the article contradicts your own argument.
How are 'practice & skill' necessary for looking through a telescope?
One either sees things through it or one does not.
The text & diagrams make it clear that the telescope barely magnifies anything at all & somehow relies on the observer's retinas enlarging in order to function.
It is actually well known that looking through a telescope requires practise to pick out detail. I own a telescope myself and it takes many nights of observation to improve the images that your brain can interpret. It is not simply a case of just seeing it.
Also, if you actually read the website it states that the pupil dilates not the retina enlarging. This is a standard response to a dark environment and allows the eye to collect more light. Just like enlarging the aperture setting on a camera.
The website goes on at length discussing that the telescope wasn't designed for astronomy but rather for terrestrial use but with practise it was more than capable of allowing Galileo of picking up the detail he required to make his observations.
-
I am aware of that quote.
& I do not believe it.
Then why did you link to an article who's conclusion contradicts your own?
For the writers had no choice but to include it, did they?
Of course they had a choice. Why wouldn't they?
How are 'practice & skill' necessary for looking through a telescope?
If you've ever looked through a telescope, then you would already know the answer to that question.
One either sees things through it or one does not.
Sometimes it takes a while to be able to interpret what you're seeing, especially if the quality isn't very high and it's something that no one in the history of the world has ever seen before.
-
LOL!!!
Like I said; read the article.
The writers give all the facts necessary to demonstrate that Galileo's telescope was horribly flawed, even providing photographs demonstrating that it magnifies basically nothing, then go on to draw an illogical & incorrect conclusion from their data...
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Science-Fraud!
Because That's How it's Done, folks... Galileo led the way.
It's the same thing you Satanic space-cultists have been doing with Newton's 3rd & Free Expansion regarding rocketry; so thanks for all your support in proving me right.
Anyhow; at least one of the 'moons' of Jupiter had been observed with the naked eye 2,000 years before Galileo's 'discovery'; could it be that Galileo was already working from known data?
It's not like the Vatican has a small library, is it?
& they wouldn't want the Great Unwashed to start using their own, genuinely functional, telescopes & thinking for themselves, would they?
So best take charge of the debate before it even starts, with lots of contrived Drama to make it look real, & help push their Heliocentric, Sun-Worshiping, Luciferian agenda...
Galileo; Milton; Newton; you can draw a direct line between all three, straight as an arrow from Orion's bow.
Hermeticists; gotta love their crazy schtick!
'As Above; so Below'; LOL!!!
There are Pretty yet Benign lights in the sky, cultists; that is ALL they are.
No more, no less.
To construct a vast, all-encompassing mythos from them to explain away our entire human existence is to attain the true pinnacle of insanity.
Enjoy your conquering of Mount Madness, satanic cultists who don't even know they're satanic cultists; plant a Satanic flag that you don't even know is a Satanic flag for us all!
-
So your arguement relies on part of the article being taken out of context by ignoring the final conclusions. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty and shows your bias.
Yes, the telescope had many flaws and wasn't very good but that is not to say it didn't work at at all. It was the first telescope, of course it was a poor instrument but not useless.
And either way, what does it matter? The Galilean moons are still there and can be seen quite easily with a steady hand and a reasonable pair of binoculars. They also look fabulous through a decent telescope and can be imaged readily. Watch them over a period of nights and you can track them orbit Jupiter an casting shadows on its surface.
Who cares if Miltin mentions space in Paradise Lost (a work of fiction....), space is still there and still has the same properties.
I really actually feel some pity for you Papa. There are two main possibilities I see:
1) you genuinely believe all this rubbish you write and therefore live in a strange little world with no wonder and discovery
Or
2) you are a troll and a rather da pathetic one at that, whose petty life revolves around talking bollocks to get a rise out of people.
Anyway, we owned you in the rocket debate and we are owning you in this.
-
& they wouldn't want the Great Unwashed to start using their own, genuinely functional, telescopes & thinking for themselves, would they?
So best take charge of the debate before it even starts, with lots of contrived Drama to make it look real, & help push their Heliocentric, Sun-Worshiping, Luciferian agenda...
You seem to forget that Galileo was arrested by the Church for his heliocentric ideas and forced to recant them. Wasn't a great way Galileo to move his agenda forward, was it?
-
LOL!!!
Like I said; read the article.
The writers give all the facts necessary to demonstrate that Galileo's telescope was horribly flawed, even providing photographs demonstrating that it magnifies basically nothing, then go on to draw an illogical & incorrect conclusion from their data...
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Science-Fraud!
Because That's How it's Done, folks... Galileo led the way.
It's the same thing you Satanic space-cultists have been doing with Newton's 3rd & Free Expansion regarding rocketry; so thanks for all your support in proving me right.
Anyhow; at least one of the 'moons' of Jupiter had been observed with the naked eye 2,000 years before Galileo's 'discovery'; could it be that Galileo was already working from known data?
It's not like the Vatican has a small library, is it?
& they wouldn't want the Great Unwashed to start using their own, genuinely functional, telescopes & thinking for themselves, would they?
So best take charge of the debate before it even starts, with lots of contrived Drama to make it look real, & help push their Heliocentric, Sun-Worshiping, Luciferian agenda...
Galileo; Milton; Newton; you can draw a direct line between all three, straight as an arrow from Orion's bow.
Hermeticists; gotta love their crazy schtick!
'As Above; so Below'; LOL!!!
There are Pretty yet Benign lights in the sky, cultists; that is ALL they are.
No more, no less.
To construct a vast, all-encompassing mythos from them to explain away our entire human existence is to attain the true pinnacle of insanity.
Enjoy your conquering of Mount Madness, satanic cultists who don't even know they're satanic cultists; plant a Satanic flag that you don't even know is a Satanic flag for us all!
One simple question, with a yes or no answer - shouldn't be too hard.
Is the following statement correct -
The cannon is recoiled in one direction because of the mass of the cannonball going in the opposite direction?
(http://img.sparknotes.com/content/testprep/bookimgs/sat2/physics/0003/cannon.gif)
-
You are all mistaking me for someone who cares about your opinions; please desist in this belief.
Now; in the interest of research, I watched a film called 'Europa Report' last night.
The plot ran thus:
*Commercial company decides to go find life on Jupiter's moon for no good reason.
*Astronaut A sacrifices his life to save astronaut B.
*Astronaut B sacrifices his life to save astronaut C.
*Astronaut C sacrifices her life to send pictures of space-octopus back to Earth.
*Lulz!!!
Now, that's a lot of meaningless sacrifice (& seriously bad acting) to sit through just for a fleeting glimpse of a space-octopus, but maybe i just don't 'get' this whole 'space-exploration' thing like you satanic cultists do...
So, here's my question to you: would any three of you be likewise willing & prepared to sacrifice your lives in order to show me a space-octopus from the moons of Jupiter?
I await your replies with keen indifference!
-
Maybe you should watch some educational videos instead. That way you don't have to continually run away from chtwrone's easy question.
-
Chtwrone is trying to compare a cannon to a rocket in the vacuum of space; his question is irrelevant & deserves no answer.
However, if he were to remove the cannonball from his system he might understand the matter more clearly in purely Newtonian terms.
Whatever; as he sent me an abusive PM he will be ignored from now on...
Now, answer this: would any three of you be willing to sacrifice your lives in order to show me photos of a space-octopus from the moon of Jupiter?
You talk the talk, space-cultists, but are you prepared to walk the walk?
-
Lol
You have a problem with him comparing a cannon to a rocket, but then you want to compare a movie to real life?
Lol
-
The movie posits a scenario wherein three people sacrifice their lives in order to transmit images of a space-octopus back to Earth from 'Europa', one of the imaginary moons of the light in the sky that Satanic space-cultists claim is a 'planet' called Jupiter.
I agree with you completely that all of the above is total fantasy, yet you cultists - as well as your deity NASA - seem to consider such a scenario not only possible, but likely.
Thus, I am asking you: would any three of you be similarly willing to sacrifice your own lives in order to show me photos of a space-octopus from the moons of Jupiter?
It is a valid question & - if you have the courage of your satanic space-convictions - one which I expect a positive answer to...
So; come on - let's have it!
-
Chtwrone is trying to compare a cannon to a rocket in the vacuum of space; his question is irrelevant & deserves no answer.
However, if he were to remove the cannonball from his system he might understand the matter more clearly in purely Newtonian terms.
Why should he remove the cannon ball from the system? Are you suggesting that the exhaust gasses from a rocket have no mass?
Thus, I am asking you: would any three of you be similarly willing to sacrifice your own lives in order to show me photos of a space-octopus from the moons of Jupiter?
It is a valid question & - if you have the courage of your satanic space-convictions - one which I expect a positive answer to...
No, the question is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss a movie, then start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
-
You're right; he shouldn't just remove the cannonball from the system; he should then place the system, minus cannonball, in a vacuum.
Then it may be a valid comparison, in Newtonian terms, to a rocket in a vacuum.
But everyone knows that already, markjo, & nobody cares what you think anyway.
They're far more interested in this; the movie 'Europa Project' posits a scenario wherein three people sacrifice their lives in order to transmit images of a space-octopus back to Earth from 'Europa', one of the imaginary moons of the light in the sky that Satanic space-cultists claim is a 'planet' called Jupiter.
I agree with sock-arul completely that all of the above is total fantasy, yet you cultists - as well as your deity NASA - seem to consider such a scenario not only possible, but likely.
Thus, I am asking you: would any three of you be similarly willing to sacrifice your own lives in order to show me photos of a space-octopus from the moons of Jupiter?
It is a valid question & - if you have the courage of your satanic space-convictions - one which I expect a positive answer to...
So; come on - let's have it!
-
You're right; he shouldn't just remove the cannonball from the system; he should then place the system, minus cannonball, in a vacuum.
Then it may be a valid comparison, in Newtonian terms, to a rocket in a vacuum.
How would putting the cannon in vacuum change anything?
But everyone knows that already, markjo, & nobody cares what you think anyway.
What makes you think that anyone cares what you think?
They're far more interested in this; the movie 'Europa Project' posits a scenario wherein three people sacrifice their lives in order to transmit images of a space-octopus back to Earth from 'Europa', one of the imaginary moons of the light in the sky that Satanic space-cultists claim is a 'planet' called Jupiter.
Then perhaps you should start a new thread to discuss that instead of shitting up this thread.
-
Perhaps you should stop thinking you are a mod, control-freak markjo?
Is this the Round Earth society now, & you its Head Censor?
The movie 'Europa Report' is about space exploration, which is very much pertinent to this thread; what's more, NASA were heavily involved in consultations to ensure it was as 'realistic' as possible...
Even Neil De Grasse Tyson appeared in it.
Further, NASA plans to send an unmanned probe to Europa to attempt to find signs of life...
Just like in the movie; oh what a co-incidence!
Now; I call 'Europa Report' Propaganda, or Predictive Programming; you satanic space-cultists, however, will call it Prescient, or Visionary.
So, if you believe that what it posits is not only possible, but likely, I will ask you all once again: would any three of you space-cultists be similarly willing to sacrifice your lives in order to send me photos of a space-octopus from the moons of Jupiter?
Are you mice? Or men?
Oh, one last thing; the concept of 'three sacrifices' is present in many religious or occult traditions...
Including, of course, the Hermetic/Alchemical teachings.
& the tag-line on the poster for Europa Project reads 'Fear. Sacrifice. Contact.'
Which doesn't sound in the least like basic instructions for a Satanic/Occult Ritual Invocation, does it?
LOL !!!
Oh yes it does... & I mean REALLY does; cos Papa Legba knows voodoo when he sees it!
Anyhow; space-octopus - yes or no?
-
Chtwrone is trying to compare a cannon to a rocket in the vacuum of space; his question is irrelevant & deserves no answer.
However, if he were to remove the cannonball from his system he might understand the matter more clearly in purely Newtonian terms.
Whatever; as he sent me an abusive PM he will be ignored from now on...
Now, answer this: would any three of you be willing to sacrifice your lives in order to show me photos of a space-octopus from the moon of Jupiter?
You talk the talk, space-cultists, but are you prepared to walk the walk?
'Whatever; as he sent me an abusive PM he will be ignored from now on...'
Oh dear, the thin-skinned flat earther is offended by some innocuous PM - your need to harden up and grow a pair - pathetic, but the sort of weakness displayed by his sort.
And the funny thing is, he actually thinks a man's arm, in the 'man throwing ball' system, represents the exhaust, when comparing it to a rocket system.
That's his level of understanding about Newton's laws of motion - non-existent, lol.
-
LOL!!!
Gr8 b8 m8; I r8 8/8.
Now; 'co-incidence theorists' may dismiss the fact that the phrase: 'Fear, Sacrifice. Contact.' EXACTLY describes the necessary prerequisites for any Magickal/Occult Invocation Ritual to achieve its aims.
But others will not.
& they will be very perplexed & unhappy indeed that a NASA-approved movie, helping promote a fake NASA 'space' mission to find life on the imaginary moons of the light in the sky that satanic space cultists claim is a 'planet' named Jupiter, uses such obviously occult language to lure them into watching it...
I know that you REALLY hate me talking about this, & are desperate to change the subject at any cost...
But it's not going to happen.
Now; the true nature of 'Magick', & the purpose of occult/esoteric systems & societies, is another matter; one that has far more mundane & sordid origins...
& I'll get into that later, too, if I so choose.
For I am here to open doorways, not lurk at thresholds & gatekeep them.
Now; about that space-octopus..?
-
It's a work of fiction Papa you half wit. No one cares what the storyline is as it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Now, stop derailing the thread. This thread is about spacecraft.
Now please explain how rockets push of the atmosphere.
-
LOL!!!
'Just a story...'
Can Predictive Programming & Propaganda, as well as many kinds of Symbolic Imprinting not be promoted through the medium of 'Stories', especially an audio-visual medium such as Film?
I suggest to you that it is in fact the best way to do so.
And do you deny that NASA themselves are planning to send an unmanned mission to Europa for the very same purpose of searching for extra-terrestrial 'life'?
Thus, the film Europa Report - which was made in close consultation with NASA 'experts' - sets the scene for them 'succeeding' in that search, does it not?
Seeds the Idea in the minds of the public, yes?
As for me 'derailing' the thread concerning a subject that I, myself, first brought up, on page 32, & which concluded in defeat for yourselves many tedious pages later: LMFAO!!!
This thread is about why you are nowhere near owning a 'spaceship'; thus, the nature of 'space' itself, its etymological origins & the history of 'space-travel' in science-fiction are all most decidedly ON-topic.
So stop trying to control what I write about them.
Now; the three-fold sacrificial offering, made in order to invoke a space-octopus, depicted in the movie Europa Report; would any three of the Satanic space-cultists on this forum be willing to do the same?
Very important question... So; would you?
-
Perhaps you should stop thinking you are a mod, control-freak markjo?
Why are you so afraid of staying on topic? Why are you so afraid of answering even the most simple questions about Newtons's third law?
-
LOL!!!
Why are YOU so afraid of answering even the most simple question about sacrificing your lives in order to invoke a space-octopus?
Do stay on-topic!
Anyhow; this is post 19; now you or one of your cronies can turn the page & get the top post in on the next one.
Cos that's the kinda thing you seem to care about most.
Off you go, satanic space-cultists...
-
The Cannon recoils because the cannon ball is pushing against the air pressure in the muzzle. Without air you have no recoil. Without air you have no explosion. Without air you have nothing for the rocket to push against.
This video proves why rockets can't work in space:
(http://)
-
LOL!!!
*sigh*
Why are YOU so afraid of answering even the most simple question about sacrificing your lives in order to invoke a space-octopus?
Because it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Do stay on-topic!
Stop trying to change the topic.
-
The Cannon recoils because the cannon ball is pushing against the air pressure in the muzzle. Without air you have no recoil. Without air you have no explosion. Without air you have nothing for the rocket to push against.
This video proves why rockets can't work in space:
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=734&v=Gzz-yiAX3EQ#)
You know that the gunpowder creates it's own "air".
In the same way rockets create their own "air".
-
lol....
What about the fact that when the fuel valves opened in a vacuum, the fuel would get sucked out into the vacuum of space?
-
lol....
What about the fact that when the fuel valves opened in a vacuum, the fuel would get sucked out into the vacuum of space?
It's not sucked out. It's pushed out by the pressure from the fuel behind it. And this actually creates thrust.
Was there any problem you wanted to point out?
-
The Cannon recoils because the cannon ball is pushing against the air pressure in the muzzle. Without air you have no recoil. Without air you have no explosion. Without air you have nothing for the rocket to push against.
This video proves why rockets can't work in space:
(http://)
In the example below of a women sitting on a skateboard, when she throws the medicine ball to the left, what causes her to move to the right? If she threw a tennis ball at the same speed, would she move to the right at the same speed? If not, why not?
(http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/introgeo/interactive/examples/_1185845655.jpg)
-
Air pressure...
-
We can't discount air pressure as the cause quite easily.
Firstly why do you only get pushed backwards when you release the ball?
Secondly, preform the experiment with two balls of the same size but different weights such as a beach ball and a medicine ball. You will get pushed backwards faster by the medicine ball. If it was air pressure causing the push then the two balls would create the same velocity as they would push the same amount of air due to their size.
-
Air pressure...
Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that air pressure acting on the thrown medicine ball is causing the woman on the skateboard to move to the right?
So therefore, it's the air pressure acting on the surface of the medicine ball that is causing the woman to be forced in the other direction - correct?
Imagine if another ball the same size as the 1st is thrown at the same speed by the woman, but it is half the weight of the original ball. Would the woman be forced to the right at a different speed or at the same speed as in the 1st throw?
-
LOL!!!
Are you all competing to see who can be the most incorrect?
Whatever; been there, done that, starting from page 32; you lost.
Now; the terrible Predictive Programming/Occult reference-stuffed sci-fi movie Europa Report did contain at least one 'realistic' scene; that was the take-off of the rocket at the beginning.
It looked so much like the footage NASA, ESA, SpaceX et al release that, if you cultists were told it was 'real' footage of a 'real' rocket launch, you would defend it to the death as being so, like good little brainwashed cultists...
So what was the budget for Europa Report?
It was less than $10 million. For the entire movie. So I can't imagine the rocket take-off sequence cost more than a tiny fraction of that.
Certainly far less than the $100 million that, say, Arianespace charges per 'satellite' launch, anyway...
LOL!!!
No wonder Heiwa's Arianespace shares are so profitable!
Anyhow; carry on with your gross misinterpretations of an irrelevant analogy & bone-headed misapplications of Newton's laws; I shall return to the subject of the Satanic/Occult nature & origins of 'space-travel' & 'astronomy' soon.
Because the simple fact that you are all so desperately trying to prevent me from doing so tells me - & all intelligent neutrals - that I am onto an important lead...
Oh, & markjo; thanks!
-
Papa - no one cares about the your film. Its fictional.....
I see you are evading questions on the actual thread regard Newtons 3rd because you cant actually back up your claim that rockets push off the atmosphere.
-
LOL!!!
Note that in the post below alone I asked FIVE questions, all of which YOU ignored.
Yet you accuse ME of evading questions when I have already answered them, repeatedly?
LMFAO!!!
You are both Brainwashed & a Brainwasher; pitiful!
LOL!!!
'Just a story...'
Can Predictive Programming & Propaganda, as well as many kinds of Symbolic Imprinting not be promoted through the medium of 'Stories', especially an audio-visual medium such as Film?
I suggest to you that it is in fact the best way to do so.
And do you deny that NASA themselves are planning to send an unmanned mission to Europa for the very same purpose of searching for extra-terrestrial 'life'?
Thus, the film Europa Report - which was made in close consultation with NASA 'experts' - sets the scene for them 'succeeding' in that search, does it not?
Seeds the Idea in the minds of the public, yes?
As for me 'derailing' the thread concerning a subject that I, myself, first brought up, on page 32, & which concluded in defeat for yourselves many tedious pages later: LMFAO!!!
This thread is about why you are nowhere near owning a 'spaceship'; thus, the nature of 'space' itself, its etymological origins & the history of 'space-travel' in science-fiction are all most decidedly ON-topic.
So stop trying to control what I write about them.
Now; the three-fold sacrificial offering, made in order to invoke a space-octopus, depicted in the movie Europa Report; would any three of the Satanic space-cultists on this forum be willing to do the same?
Very important question...
Really; you & your deceitful satanic space-cult brethren's frantic attempts to avoid my inquiries only incriminate you all the more...
Believe me, every neutral reading this thread will see your sorry little game & be disgusted by it.
So; keep it up, then!
-
LOL!!!
Note that in the post below alone I asked FIVE questions, all of which YOU ignored.
Yet you accuse ME of evading questions when I have already answered them, repeatedly?
LMFAO!!!
You are both Brainwashed & a Brainwasher; pitiful!
LOL!!!
'Just a story...'
Can Predictive Programming & Propaganda, as well as many kinds of Symbolic Imprinting not be promoted through the medium of 'Stories', especially an audio-visual medium such as Film?
I suggest to you that it is in fact the best way to do so.
And do you deny that NASA themselves are planning to send an unmanned mission to Europa for the very same purpose of searching for extra-terrestrial 'life'?
Thus, the film Europa Report - which was made in close consultation with NASA 'experts' - sets the scene for them 'succeeding' in that search, does it not?
Seeds the Idea in the minds of the public, yes?
As for me 'derailing' the thread concerning a subject that I, myself, first brought up, on page 32, & which concluded in defeat for yourselves many tedious pages later: LMFAO!!!
This thread is about why you are nowhere near owning a 'spaceship'; thus, the nature of 'space' itself, its etymological origins & the history of 'space-travel' in science-fiction are all most decidedly ON-topic.
So stop trying to control what I write about them.
Now; the three-fold sacrificial offering, made in order to invoke a space-octopus, depicted in the movie Europa Report; would any three of the Satanic space-cultists on this forum be willing to do the same?
Very important question...
Really; you & your deceitful satanic space-cult brethren's frantic attempts to avoid my inquiries only incriminate you all the more...
Believe me, every neutral reading this thread will see your sorry little game & be disgusted by it.
So; keep it up, then!
Papa - no one cares about the your film. Its fictional.....
I see you are evading questions on the actual thread regard Newtons 3rd because you cant actually back up your claim that rockets push off the atmosphere.
-
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
Thus, mainframes utterly contradicts himself in the most crass & ignorant manner; he is unworthy of further response.
Also, chtwrone sent me an insolent PM; I will have nothing to do with him either, especially after you lot so hypocritically got me banned for 'personal insults'.
I told you already; this debate is OVER & you LOST.
But let us consider, before moving on, what 'Magick' actually is.
A concise summation of the purpose of Magick is 'Will made Manifest'; or, to put it simply, 'believing in something so hard you make it become true'.
The advice given to magickal adepts as to how best achieve this is 'Invoke Often'; which sounds very much like the Operant Conditioning mantra 'Reinforce Often', does it not?
Starting to get the picture yet?
it is all cheap psychological tricks; Lies, Brainwashing & crude Manipulation.
Which is EXACTLY what YOU are all trying to do here, sad satanic space-cultists; to blindly repeat that I am wrong, over & over & over again, no matter what, until it becomes TRUTH.
LMFAO!!!
You are pathetic.
Now; bring it on, Losers...
-
You are trying taking two different ideas as one idea. Stop.
He said you do not need something to push off of to move. This is correct for how he is using it. A rocket would "push off" it's exhaust, not the atmosphere. Newton agrees.
-
He said you do not need something to push off of to move. This is correct for how he is using it.
LOL!!!
No, it is not 'correct'.
It is an INSANE concept that violates Newton's laws in every way imaginable.
WTF is WRONG with you, mainframes... sorry, I mean SOCK-arul?
LMFAO!!!
Remember what I said about Magick; Invoke Often?
Well, just keep repeating what you wrote for long enough & maybe you'll eventually brainwash/brow-beat/hypnotise some weak-willed sucker into believing you...
It won't be me, though; Papa Legba sees ALL voodoo, ALL the time.
A rag-bag of cheap tricks & shabby props, wielded by a cowering charlatan...
As the Wizard of Oz said: 'Take no notice of that Man behind the curtain!'
ROFLMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
Space rockets are fantasy and work by the magic that the fantasists filled them up with. Space rockets do not use atmosphere to work because it's not required in fantasy stories and TV shows.
Space rockets work by igniting magic all the way to space.
Fantasy space is where you can float or throw a ball to fly forever through space. Fantasy space is where rockets can move around in any direction by simply squirting compressed air into nothing.
Now all you fantasy people can live on that and go about your life. Leave the reality to those that have the sense and brains to see it, and stop trying to alter rational people's mind's with your frenzied fantasy bullshit.
-
Space rockets work by igniting magic all the way to space.
Yup; that sums up the cultist's beliefs in a nutshell...
Scientism at its best!
& I ain't finished with all this occult stuff yet; there's a reason all their spooky nonsense is shrouded behind 'secret societies' & 'levels of initiation' & it ain't pretty, not at all...
It's just another machine; but a machine for producing WHAT, exactly?
Think on it, neutrals; it ain't hard to work out...
-
Rockets work by transfer of momentum from an exhaust to the rocket. The fuel/oxidiser mixture ignites which propels the exhaust from the rocket. The act of expelling the exhaust transfers momentum to the rocket.
It does not need to use the atmosphere to push against. It is the exhaust that pushes the rocket and the opposite reaction is the rocket pushing the exhaust out of the nozzle.
Please explain why an atmosphere would be needed.
-
He said you do not need something to push off of to move. This is correct for how he is using it.
LOL!!!
No, it is not 'correct'.
It is an INSANE concept that violates Newton's laws in every way imaginable.
Newton's third law violates newton's laws? A rocket works like we said, newton's third law. As exhaust is ejected an equal and opposite force is created to propel the rocket.
WTF is WRONG with you, mainframes... sorry, I mean SOCK-arul?
LMFAO!!!
Remember what I said about Magick; Invoke Often?
Well, just keep repeating what you wrote for long enough & maybe you'll eventually brainwash/brow-beat/hypnotise some weak-willed sucker into believing you...
It won't be me, though; Papa Legba sees ALL voodoo, ALL the time.
A rag-bag of cheap tricks & shabby props, wielded by a cowering charlatan...
As the Wizard of Oz said: 'Take no notice of that Man behind the curtain!'
ROFLMFAO - at YOU!!!
Do you own a drill? Equal and opposite reaction is easy to see with a drill, preferably a cordless drill. Just keep your wrist loose and turn the drill on, the torque from the drill will try and rotate your write in the opposite direction.
-
Space rockets are fantasy and work by the magic that the fantasists filled them up with. Space rockets do not use atmosphere to work because it's not required in fantasy stories and TV shows.
Space rockets work by igniting magic all the way to space.
Fantasy space is where you can float or throw a ball to fly forever through space. Fantasy space is where rockets can move around in any direction by simply squirting compressed air into nothing.
Now all you fantasy people can live on that and go about your life. Leave the reality to those that have the sense and brains to see it, and stop trying to alter rational people's mind's with your frenzied fantasy bullshit.
In the example below, of a woman on a skateboard throwing a medicine ball, is it the pressure of the atmosphere acting on the ball that forces the woman to move to the right, or the mass of the ball?
(http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/introgeo/interactive/examples/_1185845655.jpg)
-
Please explain why an atmosphere would be needed.
Please explain why you cannot understand the Newtonian definition of a force, thus:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
Because it's difficult to explain anything to someone who does not understand even the most basic terminology involved in the explanation.
LULZ!!!
As for the irrelevant & misleading man-on-skateboard schtick - is that still the best you can do?
Strawman much?
Read my reply #1569 on page 79 for a thorough dismantling of this nonsense.
Now; try answering at least one of the five questions I posit below:
Can Predictive Programming & Propaganda, as well as many kinds of Symbolic Imprinting not be promoted through the medium of 'Stories', especially an audio-visual medium such as Film?
Because I suggest to you that it is in fact the best way to do so.
And do you deny that NASA themselves are planning to send an unmanned mission to Europa for the very same purpose of searching for extra-terrestrial 'life'?
Thus, the film Europa Report - which was made in close consultation with NASA 'experts' - sets the scene for them 'succeeding' in that search, does it not?
Seeds the Idea in the minds of the public, yes?
About the three-fold sacrificial offering, made in order to invoke a space-octopus, depicted in the propaganda movie Europa Report; would any three of the Satanic space-cultists on this forum be willing to do the same?
Or don't answer them & keep up your barrage of brainwashing...
Because every time you openly avoid answering my questions, whilst oppressively insisting I answer yours, you will revolt neutral readers even more, thus undermining your aims here.
Which reminds me; one last question: Is Control controlled by the need to control?
LOL!!!
Now THAT'S something you control-freak cultists really should ponder...
Toodle-pip, psychopaths!
-
Please explain why an atmosphere would be needed.
Please explain why you cannot understand the Newtonian definition of a force, thus:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
Because it's difficult to explain anything to someone who does not understand even the most basic terminology involved in the explanation.
LULZ!!!
As for the irrelevant & misleading man-on-skateboard schtick - is that still the best you can do?
Strawman much?
Read my reply #1569 on page 79 for a thorough dismantling of this nonsense.
Now; try answering at least one of the five questions I posit below:
Can Predictive Programming & Propaganda, as well as many kinds of Symbolic Imprinting not be promoted through the medium of 'Stories', especially an audio-visual medium such as Film?
Because I suggest to you that it is in fact the best way to do so.
And do you deny that NASA themselves are planning to send an unmanned mission to Europa for the very same purpose of searching for extra-terrestrial 'life'?
Thus, the film Europa Report - which was made in close consultation with NASA 'experts' - sets the scene for them 'succeeding' in that search, does it not?
Seeds the Idea in the minds of the public, yes?
About the three-fold sacrificial offering, made in order to invoke a space-octopus, depicted in the propaganda movie Europa Report; would any three of the Satanic space-cultists on this forum be willing to do the same?
Or don't answer them & keep up your barrage of brainwashing...
Because every time you openly avoid answering my questions, whilst oppressively insisting I answer yours, you will revolt neutral readers even more, thus undermining your aims here.
Which reminds me; one last question: Is Control controlled by the need to control?
LOL!!!
Now THAT'S something you control-freak cultists really should ponder...
Toodle-pip, psychopaths!
Thanks for directing me to message #1569 on page 79, which is your explanation of the rocket/skateboard/cannon/rocket analogy.
The following is a portion of that explanation -
'A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).'
After reading the above, it is now perfectly clear to me where you have gone wrong in your thought processes, and it relates to the 'skateboard'.
Unfortunately, you've misunderstood the function of the skateboard in the momentum experiment. The skateboard is only there to simulate a frictionless state, whereby the action of the 'ball throwing' makes the movement in the opposite direction more pronounced.
In your explanation you've stated that the skateboard represents the gun? Actually, the skateboard does not represent the gun at all, as its only function in the experiment is to simulate a frictionless platform on which to place the man and the ball.
At least in the description of your analogy, you have correctly allocated the ball as the 'projectile', but unfortunately, your belief that the skateboard represents the gun is clearly wrong, as I've just explained above.
The correct labelling of the components in your analogy should be as follows -
The ball is the projectile.
The man is the rifle.
The man's arm is the explosive force/propulsive charge.
How you could possibly label the skateboard as the rifle/gun is plainly ridiculous, and points directly at your complete lack of understanding about its purpose/function in the momentum experiment.
Further to your quote, you've stated that a rocket and its exhaust move together, and therefore can't be Object A and Object B in Newton's 3rd law?
Actually, a rocket and its exhaust DON'T move together, as they plainly go in opposite directions, the rocket one way and the exhaust the other. How you can say that the rocket and its exhaust move together is clearly wrong.
You've also stated that the combusting gases stay with the rocket at all times. Clearly this is also wrong, as the only thing that 'stays' with the rocket, is the unburnt fuel which is remaining in the fuel tanks. The ignited fuel is expelled out of the engine nozzles, and obviously doesn't 'stay' with the rocket at all.
To say 'that they both move together & are part of the same thing' is another incorrect statement of yours.
-
Space rockets are fantasy and work by the magic that the fantasists filled them up with. Space rockets do not use atmosphere to work because it's not required in fantasy stories and TV shows.
Space rockets work by igniting magic all the way to space.
Fantasy space is where you can float or throw a ball to fly forever through space. Fantasy space is where rockets can move around in any direction by simply squirting compressed air into nothing.
Now all you fantasy people can live on that and go about your life. Leave the reality to those that have the sense and brains to see it, and stop trying to alter rational people's mind's with your frenzied fantasy bullshit.
In the example below, of a woman on a skateboard throwing a medicine ball, is it the pressure of the atmosphere acting on the ball that forces the woman to move to the right, or the mass of the ball?
(http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/introgeo/interactive/examples/_1185845655.jpg)
Its the connection to the ground through the wheels. She is pushing off the ground. Take away the wheels so she floats, then try it.
-
Attention, satanic space-cultists: To have a comparison between a man on a skateboard & a rocket in a vacuum as your best & only experimental evidence for the feasibility of space-flight is to admit defeat before you've even started.
No amount of reductio ad absurdum nit-picking & circular reasoning can change that.
Anyhow; remember how I pointed out that the word 'space' was a Neologism coined by Satan himself, in the propagandist & state censor John Milton's poem Paradise Lost?
Here is Satan's quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption: thither, or elsewhere...'
Now; does the above speech remind you of something?
This perhaps: 'Space; the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, its five-year mission to seek out new life & new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has been before...'
Star f**king Trek now...
Is there no end to all these Satanic references?
Answer: No.
-
Attention, satanic space-cultists: To have a comparison between a man on a skateboard & a rocket in a vacuum as your best & only experimental evidence for the feasibility of space-flight is to admit defeat before you've even started.
No amount of reductio ad absurdum nit-picking & circular reasoning can change that.
Anyhow; remember how I pointed out that the word 'space' was a Neologism coined by Satan himself, in the propagandist & state censor John Milton's poem Paradise Lost?
Here is Satan's quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption: thither, or elsewhere...'
Now; does the above speech remind you of something?
This perhaps: 'Space; the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, its five-year mission to seek out new life & new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has been before...'
Star f**king Trek now...
Is there no end to all these Satanic references?
Answer: No.
'Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).'
I've just exposed the above statement of yours, as TOTAL BS, yet you naively dismiss this as 'nit-picking'?
Actually, as you obviously still hold onto the belief that the skateboard represents the gun in the momentum experiment, it is plain to see for everyone, that your thoughts/opinions/beliefs are worthless.
The skateboard's only purpose in the momentum experiment is as a platform on which to place the man and ball on a simulated frictionless surface.
Imagine if you can, that the man and ball are suspended motionless in a vacuum. If the man throws the ball to the right, is the man going to remain motionless whilst the ball travels to the right, or is the man going to be move to the left as a consequence of throwing the ball? Please remember the laws governing the conservation of momentum, before you answer too quickly.
-
You've exposed nothing, except yourself as a Fool.
And anyone else who argues for a force being created by pushing against Nothing is likewise a Fool.
But then again, creating Something from Nothing is one of the central tenets of the modern religion-that-doesn't-even-know-it's-a-religion of Scientism, isn't it?
In fact, your beloved 'Big Bang Theory' posits the ridiculous notion that Everything is created out of Nothing; so the fact that you'll fall for any old baloney when it comes to 'space' is no surprise...
Of course, Satan is traditionally known for his desire to make everything humanity believes a Lie; but I am sure there are some very real humans who would also benefit from such a program of Total Deception...
Like I said; the Magickal mantras 'Will made Manifest' & 'Invoke Often' can be simplified to 'repeating a Lie so often that it becomes the Truth'.
Brainwashing, in other words.
So; carry on Invoking Often in order to Make your Will Manifest & create Something from Nothing, satanic space-cultists...
Papa Legba, being immune to all voodoo, will sit patiently at the crossroads, laughing at you.
-
These global clowns have had enough explanations to see that their space rockets are bogus and also nothing working in their so called space like they are told. They know it's bullshit but will never accept it because they are in a clique with the following of mainstream science schooling.
It's a waste of time explaining anything to these people. It's pointless.
As soon as this place starts to gain more genuine people who are willing to use their brains against their indoctrination, then it's not worth explaining.
My advice is to blank the globalists who clearly have an agenda or are simply too weak to dare to see the truth.
The people that are worth talking to are those that actually take the opportunity to think about what's being said rather than immediately go into denial of it, sometimes within seconds of a post.
All you free thinkers out there. Blank these globalists. Don't give them any of your time directly. Just keep posting your thoughts.
-
These global clowns have had enough explanations to see that their space rockets are bogus and also nothing working in their so called space like they are told. They know it's bullshit but will never accept it because they are in a clique with the following of mainstream science schooling.
It's a waste of time explaining anything to these people. It's pointless.
As soon as this place starts to gain more genuine people who are willing to use their brains against their indoctrination, then it's not worth explaining.
My advice is to blank the globalists who clearly have an agenda or are simply too weak to dare to see the truth.
The people that are worth talking to are those that actually take the opportunity to think about what's being said rather than immediately go into denial of it, sometimes within seconds of a post.
All you free thinkers out there. Blank these globalists. Don't give them any of your time directly. Just keep posting your thoughts.
'It's a waste of time explaining anything to these people. It's pointless.'
Yes indeed, the above statement CERTAINLY applies to the flat earth community.
And you probably think the skateboard represents the rocket in Papas analogy too?
What a laugh, that neither of you actually realise that the skateboard is just the platform upon which the momentum experiment is placed.
Object A is the man
Object B is the ball
This is very simple, but even you two can't get it, which reflects very poorly on your intellect.
-
Gr8 b8 m8; I r8 8/8.
The insulting PM didn't work either.
You do remember I created a thread for you to expound your tin-foil hat 'rocketry theory' in, don't you?
Well off you go & use it; adults are talking here...
Also, this: remember how I pointed out that the word 'space' was a Neologism coined by Satan himself, in the propagandist & state censor John Milton's poem Paradise Lost?
Here is Satan's quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption: thither, or elsewhere...'
Now; does the above speech remind you of something?
This perhaps: 'Space; the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, its five-year mission to seek out new life & new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has been before...'
Star f**king Trek now...
Is there no end to all these Satanic space-references?
Answer: No.
-
You've exposed nothing, except yourself as a Fool.
And anyone else who argues for a force being created by pushing against Nothing is likewise a Fool.
But the man isn't pushing against nothing, he's pushing against the ball.
-
LOL!!!
Keep Invoking Often, markjo; make that mighty Will of yours Manifest...
Now; the terrible Predictive Programming/Occult reference-stuffed sci-fi movie Europa Report did contain at least one 'realistic' scene; that was the take-off of the rocket at the beginning.
It looked so much like the footage NASA, ESA, SpaceX et al release that, if you cultists were told it was 'real' footage of a 'real' rocket launch, you would defend it to the death as being so, like good little brainwashed cultists...
So what was the budget for Europa Report?
It was less than $10 million. For the entire movie. So I can't imagine the rocket take-off sequence cost more than a tiny fraction of that.
Certainly far less than the $100 million that, say, Arianespace charges per 'satellite' launch, anyway...
LOL!!!
No wonder Heiwa's Arianespace shares are so profitable!
Anyhow; carry on with your gross misinterpretations of an irrelevant analogy & bone-headed misapplications of Newton's laws; I shall return to the subject of the Satanic/Occult nature & origins of 'space-travel' & 'astronomy' soon.
Because the simple fact that you are all so desperately trying to prevent me from doing so tells me - & all intelligent neutrals - that I am onto an important lead...
-
Space rockets are fantasy and work by the magic that the fantasists filled them up with. Space rockets do not use atmosphere to work because it's not required in fantasy stories and TV shows.
Space rockets work by igniting magic all the way to space.
Fantasy space is where you can float or throw a ball to fly forever through space. Fantasy space is where rockets can move around in any direction by simply squirting compressed air into nothing.
Now all you fantasy people can live on that and go about your life. Leave the reality to those that have the sense and brains to see it, and stop trying to alter rational people's mind's with your frenzied fantasy bullshit.
In the example below, of a woman on a skateboard throwing a medicine ball, is it the pressure of the atmosphere acting on the ball that forces the woman to move to the right, or the mass of the ball?
(http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/introgeo/interactive/examples/_1185845655.jpg)
Its the connection to the ground through the wheels. She is pushing off the ground. Take away the wheels so she floats, then try it.
Hahahahahaha
-
Let's enjoy Poko's fanfic love-letter to markjo again, whilst everyone else wastes our time poring over the minutiae of a blatantly misleading analogy that bears no relation whatsoever to how a rocket would function in a vacuum:
markjo: Humans have little rocks in their mouths called teeth.
Papa: LOL! tiny rocks in your mouths, that's a good one. Keep up your cultist lies!
markjo: Well, teeth are clearly visible, all you have to do it look.
Papa: How can I look in my own mouth, idiot? You people are so deluded that you think you can look inside your own mouths!
markjo: You can have somebody else look in your mouth an confirm that your teeth are there.
Papa: anybody who says they have seen another person's teeth are just deluded. They have been brainwashed since birth that teeth exist, so they lie to themselves. Teeth are a conspiracy by Big Dental to sell toothbrushes.
markjo: You can see your own teeth if you open your mouth and look in a mirror.
Papa: Mirrors reflect images, dumbass! No image from a mirror will ever be trustworthy because the image will be flipped! You idiots are so deluded that you think we have rocks in our mouths! If we had rocks in our mouths, why aren't we shitting out rocks all the time?
markjo: *headdesk*
LULZ!!!
-
LOL!!!
Keep Invoking Often, markjo; make that mighty Will of yours Manifest...
I'm sorry but what part of a man pushing against the ball with a force and the ball pushing back with an equal and opposite force do you disagree with?
-
See; this is how it's gonna work from now, not-a-mod-but-thinks-he-is markjo: you cultists all stopped responding to MY questions pages ago.
So, I'm gonna stop responding to YOURS.
Fair, no?
Now; let's look at another recent sci-fi movie: 'Prometheus'.
Well, the title's a bit of a give-away, as Prometheus is a prototype for Milton's faux-biblical Satan & is interchangeable with Lucifer & Hermes in many traditions...
As he is with Thoth; but we'll get to HIM later...
So; does it contain 'alien origin for life on earth' propaganda? Oh, yes; in fact its entire premise is built on that Insane Lie.
Does it contain a three-fold sacrifice? Yep; at the end, the three remaining astronauts crash their ship into the escaping alien's ship to 'save humanity'... LOL!!!
Does it contain a space-octopus? OH HELL YES - GIANT SPACE-OCTOPUS CONFIRMED!!!
What else does it contain? Well, a terrible mish-mash of many occult/religious references, really, as well as vague transhumanist waffle, a vast amount of pseudo-science & cod-philosophy, plus some direct connections to good old Paradise Lost...
But I think we're getting the picture by now, aren't we?
Sci-Fi = Satanic Propaganda, all the way.
& Ridley Scott's next film? 'The Martian'; at a screen near you now!
Bet that sucks Satanic dick, too.
-
See; this is how it's gonna work from now, not-a-mod-but-thinks-he-is markjo: you cultists all stopped responding to MY questions pages ago.
So, I'm gonna stop responding to YOURS.
Fair, no?
No. My questions are on topic (having to do with how rockets work). Your questions are not (discussing science fiction movies).
Now; let's look at another recent sci-fi movie: 'Prometheus'.
No, let's stay on topic. Why do you hate Newton so much that you can't understand the simple concept of action/reaction as it applies to rockets?
-
LOL!!!
You really are NOT a mod, okay, control-freak markjo?
& if you can repeat yourself endlessly, then so shall I, thus:
Now; let's DO look at another recent sci-fi movie: Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus'.
Well, the title's a bit of a give-away, as Prometheus is a prototype for Milton's faux-biblical Satan & is interchangeable with Lucifer & Hermes in many traditions...
As he is with Thoth; but we'll get to HIM later...
So; does it contain 'alien origin for life on earth' propaganda? Oh, yes; in fact its entire premise is built on that Insane Satanic Deception.
Does it contain a three-fold sacrifice? Yep; at the end, the three remaining astronauts crash their ship into the escaping alien's ship to 'save humanity'... LOL!!!
Does it contain a space-octopus? OH HELL YES - GIANT SPACE-OCTOPUS CONFIRMED!!!
What else does it contain? Well, a terrible mish-mash of many occult/religious references, really, as well as vague transhumanist waffle, a vast amount of pseudo-science & cod-philosophy, plus some direct connections to good old Paradise Lost...
But I think we're getting the picture by now, aren't we?
Sci-Fi = Satanic Propaganda, all the way.
& Ridley Scott's next film? 'The Martian'; at a screen near you now!
Bet that sucks Satanic dick, too.
Welcome to the Future, cultists...
LOL!!!
-
Papa - the fact that you can't seem to separate fiction from reality is very telling.
-
OOps!
-
Papa - the fact that you can't seem to separate fiction from reality is very telling.
The whole point of this thread is that - when it comes to the 'space-travel' hoax - Fiction & Reality are indistinguishable.
Do you really not understand that yet?
LOL!!!
-
Papa - the fact that you can't seem to separate fiction from reality is very telling.
The whole point of this thread is that - when it comes to the 'space-travel' hoax - Fiction & Reality are indistinguishable.
Do you really not understand that yet?
LOL!!!
The skateboard in the conservation of momentum experiment is just a platform on which the experiment sits.
For you to state that the skateboard represents the rocket in the experiment is so laughable, when its only purpose is to represent a frictionless surface so to make the movement of the man and ball in opposite directions more noticeable. It could also be conducted on an ice rink, with a man throwing the ball, therefore pushing him along the ice in the opposite direction to the ball. But to extrapolate your logic of the experiment, you would now label the ice skates that the man is wearing as the rocket as well?
To take your stance to the ultimate level of stupidity, let's remove the skateboard all together, so that we are left with just the man and ball. According to you, because the man is now standing on the ground, then the ground must now represent the rocket in your analogy, lol.
Are you starting to see how ridiculous your stance is on this subject - you actually have no idea how to label Objects A and B in the applicable Newtonian law.
My god, in a previous post you've even labelled the man's arm as the exhaust in the rocket analogy - that just about says it all concerning your complete lack of understanding about Newtonian laws.
-
You really are NOT a mod, okay, control-freak markjo?
Neither are you. What's your point? Am I not allowed to ask you to stay on topic?
& if you can repeat yourself endlessly, then so shall I, thus:
You can endlessly avoid answering on topic questions, but that doesn't do the discussion any good, does it?
Now; let's DO look at another recent sci-fi movie: Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus'.
Why should we? What does Prometheus have to do with whether or not rockets work in a vacuum?
Papa - the fact that you can't seem to separate fiction from reality is very telling.
The whole point of this thread is that - when it comes to the 'space-travel' hoax - Fiction & Reality are indistinguishable.
Do you really not understand that yet?
Actually, they are quite distinguishable. Well, maybe not to you, but to many of us it is. In fact, there are a number of web sites that like to point out not just bad space travel physics, but bad physics in general.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/)
-
Chtwrone: I have no idea what you are raving on about; have you been drinking?
Are you rayzor?
Markjo: stop pretending to be a mod.
Nobody reads your boring posts anyway; have you really not grasped that yet?
But, as repeating ourselves ad nauseum seems to be the order of the day, let's look at another recent sci-fi movie: Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus'.
Well, the title's a bit of a give-away, as Prometheus was the prototype for Milton's faux-biblical Satan & is interchangeable with Lucifer & Hermes in many traditions...
As he is with Thoth; but we'll get to HIM later, as he will be very important to our narrative...
So; does 'Prometheus' contain 'alien origin for life on earth' propaganda? Oh, yes; in fact its entire premise is built on that Insane Satanic Deception.
Does it contain a three-fold sacrifice? Yep; at the end, the three remaining astronauts crash their ship into the escaping alien's ship to 'save humanity'... LOL!!!
Does it contain a space-octopus? OH HELL YES - GIANT SPACE-OCTOPUS CONFIRMED!!!
What else does it contain? Well, a terrible mish-mash of many occult/religious references, really, as well as vague transhumanist waffle, a vast amount of pseudo-science & cod-philosophy, plus some direct connections to good old Paradise Lost...
But I think we're getting the picture by now, aren't we?
Sci-Fi = Satanic Propaganda, all the way from the very start.
& Ridley Scott's next film? 'The Martian'; at a screen near you now!
Bet that sucks Satanic dick, too.
-
Chtwrone: I have no idea what you are raving on about; have you been drinking?
Are you rayzor?
Markjo: stop pretending to be a mod.
Nobody reads your boring posts anyway; have you really not grasped that yet?
But, as repeating ourselves ad nauseum seems to be the order of the day, let's look at another recent sci-fi movie: Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus'.
Well, the title's a bit of a give-away, as Prometheus was the prototype for Milton's faux-biblical Satan & is interchangeable with Lucifer & Hermes in many traditions...
As he is with Thoth; but we'll get to HIM later, as he will be very important to our narrative...
So; does 'Prometheus' contain 'alien origin for life on earth' propaganda? Oh, yes; in fact its entire premise is built on that Insane Satanic Deception.
Does it contain a three-fold sacrifice? Yep; at the end, the three remaining astronauts crash their ship into the escaping alien's ship to 'save humanity'... LOL!!!
Does it contain a space-octopus? OH HELL YES - GIANT SPACE-OCTOPUS CONFIRMED!!!
What else does it contain? Well, a terrible mish-mash of many occult/religious references, really, as well as vague transhumanist waffle, a vast amount of pseudo-science & cod-philosophy, plus some direct connections to good old Paradise Lost...
But I think we're getting the picture by now, aren't we?
Sci-Fi = Satanic Propaganda, all the way from the very start.
& Ridley Scott's next film? 'The Martian'; at a screen near you now!
Bet that sucks Satanic dick, too.
So you still don't realise that the skateboard is just the platform on which the conservation of momentum experiments sits? But you are still happy to suggest that it's the rocket in your analogy - OMG.
Why am I not surprised that you still don't know you've made a HUGE mistake in your labelling of Objects A and B.
It now becomes apparent that to believe in the stupid flat earth model, first you must be stupid yourself, and this is certainly true in your case.
What do you actually do for a job? I'm thinking it certainly doesn't involve too much brain power - something you obviously don't have too much of at your disposal.
-
Papa was defeated so long ago he is just stuck on repeat.
-
I do actually wonder if Papa has now had some sort of mental breakdown.
Using fictional films as a basis or proving space travel is impossible...? Wired
Hope he doesn't watch 'Event Horizon'.....
-
& what contributions did your above three crudely stitched-together posts make to the 'discussion' you all seem to so earnestly desire we engage in?
None.
Hypocrisy much?
The fact is that the history of science-fiction & the history of fake 'space-exploration' are so inter-twined as to be indistinguishable from one another; where the former leads, the latter follows.
So, investigating current sci-fi trends will give us a good idea where fake 'space-exploration' may be heading next.
& the whole 'alien origin for human life' deception is a BIG theme in sci-fi right now.
Oh, look; NASA claimed to have found water on Mars this week, didn't they?
Just in time for the release of Ridley Scott's 'The Martian', which NASA had a big hand in 'consulting' on...
WHAT a surprise!
Here's an interesting quote from Ridley Scott: 'NASA & the Vatican agree that it's almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are without there being a little help along the way...'
For the Satanists at NASA to endorse such insanity is par for the course; but the Vatican too? Yikes!
& 'almost mathematically impossible'? LOL!!!
I'd like to see those 'maths'!
Anyhow, I won't interrupt you cultist's brainwashing duties further with my bringing of fresh information to the table...
As you were, then.
-
Markjo: stop pretending to be a mod.
Since there are no mods trying to keep this tread on topic, it seems that someone needs step up.
Nobody reads your boring posts anyway; have you really not grasped that yet?
Since you respond to my posts, that must mean that you read them. I guess that makes you a nobody.
But, as repeating ourselves ad nauseum seems to be the order of the day, let's look at another recent sci-fi movie: Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus'.
Since going off topic seems to be the order of the day, why don't you watch a nice science documentary, like this one:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
*Yawn!*
Yes, markjo; you are such a reasonable person...
Here is the kind of 'reasonable' contribution you add to the 'debate':
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
What's more, your documentary is no such thing; it is science-fiction.
Watch the pathetic, sub-Thunderbirds 'rocket blast-off' at 19:40 for example - LULZ!!!
To conclude; you are still not a mod & have nothing worthwhile to say...
Yet still you say it; WHY?
-
Again; watch the rocket 'blasting-off' at 19:42 - worst special effects evar!!!
! No longer available (http://#)
Thank you, markjo; you've made my day!
P.s. I ain't finished with the satanic sci-fi/NASA connection yet; this is more fun for now though...
-
Again; watch the rocket 'blasting-off' at 19:42 - worst special effects evar!!!
! No longer available (http://#)
What's wrong with the "special effects"?
-
What's wrong with the "special effects"?
I just KNEW you'd defend this p.o.s: LULZ!!!
Watch the spaysze-rokkit 'blasting-off' at 19:42... Thunderbirds Are Go!
! No longer available (http://#)
Damn! It's even funnier than when you said this:
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
But it's not as funny as when you got caught sock-puppeting as mikeman; that was ACE!
Thinks-he's-a-mod-but-is-instead-a-laughing-stock...
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
Again; watch the rocket 'blasting-off' at 19:42 - worst special effects evar!!!
! No longer available (http://#)
Thank you, markjo; you've made my day!
P.s. I ain't finished with the satanic sci-fi/NASA connection yet; this is more fun for now though...
I'm pissing myself laughing at that lift off on 19:42. ;D
How far do N.A.S.A have to go in taking the piss out of these people with this crap, before they wake up?
How frigging comatose are they. ;D
-
I'm pissing myself laughing at that lift off on 19:42. ;D
How far do N.A.S.A have to go in taking the piss out of these people with this crap, before they wake up?
How frigging comatose are they. ;D
You know that all rocket launches are public events that anyone can watch, right? You can't personally observe something that never happened, so why would they fake footage of something that really did happen?
-
LOL!!!
The NASA Fire-Brigade's arrived - next come the Thought-Police & the WAAAAAmbulance!
If you think the rocket 'blast-off' at 19:42 in this video is real, then God help you...
! No longer available (http://#)
Of course, mikeman wasn't there himself, nor does he know anyone who was, nor does he in fact know anything about this event at all bar what wikipedia & NASA.gov sources dictate...
But still he can tell us, with absolute authority, that it REALLY DID HAPPEN & THAT REALLY IS GENUINE NON-FAKE FOOTAGE OF IT REALLY HAPPENING!
LULZ!!!
Anyhow, markjo; thread now back 'on-topic'; you pleased?
LMFAO!!!
-
Can you actually provide us with some considered insight as to why the lift off at 19:42 isn't real?
-
What's wrong with the "special effects"?
I just KNEW you'd defend this p.o.s: LULZ!!!
And I just KNEW that you wouldn't answer my question. I guess that we've both become predictable. ::)
Watch the spaysze-rokkit 'blasting-off' at 19:42... Thunderbirds Are Go!
I watched it and I'm still waiting for you to make your point.
-
Can you actually provide us with some considered insight as to why the lift off at 19:42 isn't real?
LOL!!!
Can YOU provide some as to why it IS?
I already told you, Mainframes/Markjo damage-control combo; I ain't answering to you lot any more - you've ignored every single damn question I've asked for pages now, so don't expect me to answer yours.
Make your own minds up, neutrals... 19:42: Thunderbirds Are Go!
! No longer available (http://#)
LULZ!!!
-
Can you actually provide us with some considered insight as to why the lift off at 19:42 isn't real?
LOL!!!
Can YOU provide some as to why it IS?
I believe that it's real because appears to be consistent with other real rocket launches. We can even clearly see the rocket's exhaust pushing against the atmosphere just like you say that it's supposed to.
I already told you, Mainframes/Markjo damage-control combo; I ain't answering to you lot any more - you've ignored every single damn question I've asked for pages now, so don't expect me to answer yours.
First of all, if you make a claim that something looks fake, then I expect you to support that claim with something a little more substantial than "Thunderbirds Are Go!"
Secondly, you're more likely to get answers if you ask reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner.
-
Secondly, you're more likely to get answers if you ask reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner.
What, you mean 'reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner' like this?
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
Get off your moral High Horse, control-freak.
Whatever; who cares what you think, Grand Inquisitor Nobody? Neutrals can draw their own conclusions from what they see at 19:42 in this video...
! No longer available (http://#)
Unlike you, I ain't the Thought Police.
-
Oh, yeah; & this, too:
The fact is that the history of science-fiction & the history of fake 'space-exploration' are so inter-twined as to be indistinguishable from one another; where the former leads, the latter follows.
So, investigating current sci-fi trends will give us a good idea where fake 'space-exploration' may be heading next.
& the whole 'alien origin for human life' deception is a BIG theme in sci-fi right now.
Oh, look; NASA claimed to have found water on Mars this week, didn't they?
Just in time for the release of Ridley Scott's 'The Martian', which NASA had a big hand in 'consulting' on...
WHAT a surprise!
Here's an interesting quote from Ridley Scott: 'NASA & the Vatican agree that it's almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are without there being a little help along the way...'
For the Satanists at NASA to endorse such insanity is par for the course; but the Vatican too? Yikes!
& 'almost mathematically impossible'? LOL!!!
I'd like to see those 'maths'!
Anyhow, I won't interrupt you cultist's brainwashing duties further with my bringing of fresh information to the table...
As you were, then.
Lest we forget the Satanic agenda clearly at work within NASA...
-
Secondly, you're more likely to get answers if you ask reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner.
What, you mean 'reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner' like this?
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
Get off your moral High Horse, control-freak.
Whatever; who cares what you think, Grand Inquisitor Nobody? Neutrals can draw their own conclusions from what they see at 19:42 in this video...
! No longer available (http://#)
Unlike you, I ain't the Thought Police.
I've just looked at the Redstone rocket launch commencing at 19.42, and it looks genuine to me. It looks consistent with the many other rocket launches that you can see video of.
There is a rocket, a lauchpad, there is obvious ignition and exhaust being expelled out of the engine nozzle, so what's not genuine about this video again?
This launch was witnessed by thousands of people at the launch site.
But apparently because you THINK it's not genuine then the whole event was a hoax.
What exactly leads you to the conclusion that this video of the launch is fake? Is there something that doesn't look right? How does it differ from the video footage shown of other rocket launches?
-
You've exposed nothing, except yourself as a Fool.
And anyone else who argues for a force being created by pushing against Nothing is likewise a Fool.
But then again, creating Something from Nothing is one of the central tenets of the modern religion-that-doesn't-even-know-it's-a-religion of Scientism, isn't it?
In fact, your beloved 'Big Bang Theory' posits the ridiculous notion that Everything is created out of Nothing; so the fact that you'll fall for any old baloney when it comes to 'space' is no surprise...
Of course, Satan is traditionally known for his desire to make everything humanity believes a Lie; but I am sure there are some very real humans who would also benefit from such a program of Total Deception...
Like I said; the Magickal mantras 'Will made Manifest' & 'Invoke Often' can be simplified to 'repeating a Lie so often that it becomes the Truth'.
Brainwashing, in other words.
So; carry on Invoking Often in order to Make your Will Manifest & create Something from Nothing, satanic space-cultists...
Papa Legba, being immune to all voodoo, will sit patiently at the crossroads, laughing at you.
'And anyone else who argues for a force being created by pushing against Nothing is likewise a Fool.'
You really don't get the Newtonian laws do you.
The conservation of momentum experiment involving a man throwing a ball should be very easy to understand, but for whatever reason, you still can't grasp it.
In reference to your statement in blue, how can you not realise that the man is pushing of the mass of the ball, yet you are saying that he is 'pushing against nothing'?
HE IS PUSHING OFF THE BALL!
Stand 2 feet from a wall and push against it with your arms. What happens?
You are forced one way, because the wall is pushing back.
EXACTLY the same as the ball pushes back when a man throws it.
How can you not get this simple concept? Obviously the man is NOT pushing against 'nothing', he is pushing against the ball.
-
How does it differ from the video footage shown of other rocket launches?
Compare them & see.
Or not.
Your choice.
-
I'm pissing myself laughing at that lift off on 19:42. ;D
How far do N.A.S.A have to go in taking the piss out of these people with this crap, before they wake up?
How frigging comatose are they. ;D
You know that all rocket launches are public events that anyone can watch, right? You can't personally observe something that never happened, so why would they fake footage of something that really did happen?
Wow! Are you saying that you can see rockets orbit from the launch pad? Or, are you just derailing once again?
-
I'm pissing myself laughing at that lift off on 19:42. ;D
How far do N.A.S.A have to go in taking the piss out of these people with this crap, before they wake up?
How frigging comatose are they. ;D
You know that all rocket launches are public events that anyone can watch, right? You can't personally observe something that never happened, so why would they fake footage of something that really did happen?
Wow! Are you saying that you can see rockets orbit from the launch pad? Or, are you just derailing once again?
Your only form of argument is to simply call all rocket launches fake, but you never provide actual evidence that the rocket launches are fake, so why should your opinion be given any credibility?
What makes YOUR opinion correct, as though you are some sort of informed expert on the subject?
From what I seen on these threads, you are not very well informed about anything, but you still consider your opinion to be credible?
-
How can you not get this simple concept?
How can you not 'get' what a vacuum is & factor it into your system?
Because if you did, you would comprehend that you are trying to push off Zero Pressure/Mass (i.e. NOTHING).
The result of which would, of course, be Zero Work Done, & you would then understand that a rocket cannot possibly function in a vacuum & hopefully go pester someone else.
But this will never happen, as that is clearly neither your Nature nor your Purpose here, hence we must endure your continuous fallacious spam-drip for ever...
This is my last word on the subject; either you get it or you don't.
The choice is yours...
I care not a jot either way.
Goodbye.
-
How can you not get this simple concept?
How can you not 'get' what a vacuum is & factor it into your system?
Because if you did, you would comprehend that you are trying to push off Zero Pressure/Mass (i.e. NOTHING).
The result of which would, of course, be Zero Work Done, & you would then understand that a rocket cannot possibly function in a vacuum & hopefully go pester someone else.
But this will never happen, as that is clearly neither your Nature nor your Purpose here, hence we must endure your continuous fallacious spam-drip for ever...
This is my last word on the subject; either you get it or you don't.
The choice is yours...
I care not a jot either way.
Goodbye.
I think you need to watch this again.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
I think you need to get out of your meth-lab.
Or factor a vacuum into your system.
Neither's likely, so bye-bye, loser.
-
Oh, & this, lest we forget...
I would like to inquire as to what this 'space' we are all talking about actually is.
So; where is the word 'space', in its modern astronomical sense, first mentioned in the English language?
I will tell you; it is in John Milton's epic poem 'Paradise Lost'.
& which character in Paradise Lost first utters this word?
I will tell you; it is Satan.
I quote: 'Space may produce new worlds: whereof so rife there went a fame in heaven that he ere long intended to create, and therein plant a generation, whom his choice regard should favour equal to the sons of heaven: Thither, if but to pry, shall be perhaps our first eruption...'
Thus; not only is 'space' an undeniably Satanic invention, so is the concept of 'space exploration'.
LOL!!!
John Milton is, himself, an extremely interesting subject, & Paradise Lost is also proto-typical sci-fi propaganda; I will expand on this further at some point, for it is lulzy...
In the meantime, enjoy fantasising about your Satanic 'space-stations' in your Satanic 'space', full of Satanic 'stars', 'planets' & similar Satanic inventions...
Never for a moment think you've all been HAD, though...
Because you don't do 'thinking', do you?
Just Satanically-Inspired Dreaming...
-
Secondly, you're more likely to get answers if you ask reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner.
What, you mean 'reasonable, on topic questions in a civil manner' like this?
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
At least I can tell the difference between a statement and a question. I'll give you a hint, that 5 month old quote that you provided wasn't a question.
-
LOL!!!
Yet another super-constructive contribution from not-a-mod-but-really-tries-to-act-like-one markjo...
Yeah, you really moved the 'discussion' on there didn't you?
Really stayed 'on topic'...
Nothing's changed in 5 months, has it?
-
How can you not get this simple concept?
How can you not 'get' what a vacuum is & factor it into your system?
Because if you did, you would comprehend that you are trying to push off Zero Pressure/Mass (i.e. NOTHING).
The result of which would, of course, be Zero Work Done, & you would then understand that a rocket cannot possibly function in a vacuum & hopefully go pester someone else.
But this will never happen, as that is clearly neither your Nature nor your Purpose here, hence we must endure your continuous fallacious spam-drip for ever...
This is my last word on the subject; either you get it or you don't.
The choice is yours...
I care not a jot either way.
Goodbye.
I'm almost starting to think that it's your opinion that if an object is in a vacuum, then it actually has no mass?
The reason a man who throws a ball to the right, is moved to the left, is because he is pushing against the mass of the ball - nothing else. Don't even factor the skateboard into the equation, as it is only a platform on which to base the experiment.
But you actually think the reason the man is pushed in the opposite direction to the thrown ball, is because the ball is pushing against the atmosphere? WRONG.
The man moves because he is pushing off the mass of the ball.
Therefore, if the man and ball were in a vacuum, it doesn't matter, the conservation of momentum laws still apply of course.
-
Oh my god you are still replying to people's posts?
Okay here's one for you:
How do you prove that death is real?
Have you died before?
If you haven't, how do you know that death/cremation/burial isn't a massive conspiracy where the government take people for live experimentation?
-
Oh my god you are still replying to people's posts?
This is just the second post you have ever made on this forum; are we to believe that you joined only in order to ask me the above question?
Whatever; you are merely another anony-mouse who cannot differentiate between recoil effects & rocket propulsion.
Goodbye!
& chtwrone: LOL!!!
Everybody else: how will you feel when NASA announces (as they are bound to eventually, for that is their Purpose) that Life on Earth originated in Satanic 'space'?
Think about it; how will you FEEL?
Then, think about WHY you will feel that way...
THINK about it.
-
That's very not true man.
I actually have been a member since January 09.
You should probably do some research before going and insulting someone online.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZOF4uFb.png)
Anyway, I joined to laugh in amusement at people like you, and if you think I gave my email address away just to comment on your post, you are giving yourself too much credit for everything :)
-
I'm pissing myself laughing at that lift off on 19:42. ;D
How far do N.A.S.A have to go in taking the piss out of these people with this crap, before they wake up?
How frigging comatose are they. ;D
You know that all rocket launches are public events that anyone can watch, right? You can't personally observe something that never happened, so why would they fake footage of something that really did happen?
Wow! Are you saying that you can see rockets orbit from the launch pad? Or, are you just derailing once again?
Your only form of argument is to simply call all rocket launches fake, but you never provide actual evidence that the rocket launches are fake, so why should your opinion be given any credibility?
What makes YOUR opinion correct, as though you are some sort of informed expert on the subject?
From what I seen on these threads, you are not very well informed about anything, but you still consider your opinion to be credible?
Please, quote me saying that all rocket launches, or any for that matter, are fake. Why do you people have to make stuff up in order to support your theory?
-
LOL!!!
Yet another super-constructive contribution from not-a-mod-but-really-tries-to-act-like-one markjo...
Yeah, you really moved the 'discussion' on there didn't you?
Really stayed 'on topic'...
Nothing's changed in 5 months, has it?
You're the one who dug up the 5 month old quote as if it was relevant, not me.
-
For God's sake, markjo; how long are you gonna lurk here on post 18, waiting for someone to turn the page so you or one of your socks can get top post in on the next?
You do this all the time; it's just embarrassing.
Anyway; off you go; turn the page, gain yet another pointless win in your pointless battle to control the forum & police every member's thoughts...
This quote sums your mentality up perfectly:
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
Bravo, Wittgenstein!
-
For God's sake, markjo; how long are you gonna lurk here on post 18, waiting for someone to turn the page so you or one of your socks can get top post in on the next?
You do this all the time; it's just embarrassing.
Anyway; off you go; turn the page, gain yet another pointless win in your pointless battle to control the forum & police every member's thoughts...
This quote sums your mentality up perfectly:
I'm willing to bet that you've never eaten feces in your life, but that doesn't stop you from declaring that nasty stuff tastes like shit.
Bravo, Wittgenstein!
In reply #3447 you stated -
'This is my last word on the subject'.
Yet you've made several more posts on the 'subject'?
Did you forget what you said previously, or do you have so little self control, that you just have to reply to the posts of others?
-
LOL!!!
You just got your ass handed to you on page 4 of the 'people on skateboards' thread & are all butt-hurt & trying to direct attention from it, aintcha?
So I bet you wish it WAS my last word on the subject now!
Bye-bye, Loser...
-
That's the funniest thing I'll hear all day.
-
Seems the Vatican hosted a conference in 2009 discussing the implications for mankind of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life.
Then they co-hosted another in Arizona in 2014, on the same subject (lotsa geeks there I bet).
What NASA claim is 'the inevitable discovery of alien life'.
'Inevitable'... LOL!!!
So; the Vatican are implicated in this scam, too; up to their Heretical necks in it, I'd say.
Naughty Pope!
& what are NASA pinning their hopes on to aid them in this epoch-shaking 'discovery' (lol)?
Why, the James Webb Space Telescope!
Which entirely fictitious item is due to be fictitiously 'launched' in 2018.
So I guess we're looking at around 2021 as a date for their latest Luciferian Sun-Worshipping mega-hoax to be unveiled...
Should be lulzy; enjoy the show, cultists!
P.s. Who was James Webb anyway?
Meh; just some bureaucratic NASA fuck...
Typical.
-
Oh, & guess what?
Last year the Pope said that, if intelligent aliens ever visit Earth, he'd be happy to baptise them.
He even specifically mentioned Martians...
Nice bit of predictive programming there!
In the same speech he said that Catholicism was a church of 'open doors'.
'Open doors...'
LOL!!!
Legba sees Voodoo!
-
So; no-one has any comment to make about the Pope saying he would baptise aliens?
Pope...
Baptise...
Space-Aliens...
From Mars..?
REALLY?
Wtf?!?
-
Yeah, again, gotta ask:
WHY is the Vatican hosting or taking part in conferences discussing 'the inevitable discovery of alien life'?
WHY is the Pope saying he would baptise Aliens?
WHY is he saying the aliens he would baptise are from Mars?
Any thoughts, space-cultists?
-
Yeah, again, gotta ask:
WHY is the Vatican hosting or taking part in conferences discussing 'the inevitable discovery of alien life'?
WHY is the Pope saying he would baptise Aliens?
WHY is he saying the aliens he would baptise are from Mars?
Any thoughts, space-cultists?
Wow, 4 posts in a row that no one can be bothered to respond to - seems like you're just talking to yourself on this thread - just a wee bit sad really. At least you have a captive audience - yourself, lol.
-
Wow, 4 posts in a row that no one can be bothered to respond to - seems like you're just talking to yourself on this thread - just a wee bit sad really. At least you have a captive audience - yourself, lol.
Hiya, twelve steps!
I'll post what I like.
& if no-one here finds it odd that the Leader of one of the world's richest & most powerful organisations is endorsing the existence of space-aliens from Mars, even suggesting he would baptise the fictitious bloody things, then I'm sure some neutral readers will...
Did you know the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Catholic priest?
Kinda Heretical, but meh; they'll be baptising Martians soon so seems anything goes now.
Theilhard de Chardin; there's another interesting science-fraud Heretic Catholic priest; had his fingers in lots of dodgy pies...
Like' 'The Noosphere'; that's a good one; worth investigating, neutrals.
-
Wow, 4 posts in a row that no one can be bothered to respond to - seems like you're just talking to yourself on this thread - just a wee bit sad really. At least you have a captive audience - yourself, lol.
Hiya, twelve steps!
I'll post what I like.
& if no-one here finds it odd that the Leader of one of the world's richest & most powerful organisations is endorsing the existence of space-aliens from Mars, even suggesting he would baptise the fictitious bloody things, then I'm sure some neutral readers will...
Did you know the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Catholic priest?
Kinda Heretical, but meh; they'll be baptising Martians soon so seems anything goes now.
Theilhard de Chardin; there's another interesting science-fraud Heretic Catholic priest; had his fingers in lots of dodgy pies...
Like' 'The Noosphere'; that's a good one; worth investigating, neutrals.
Sorry, but that last post was as meaningless as the ones before it, but I wasn't expecting too many pearls of wisdom anyway.
LULZ.
-
Did you know the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Catholic priest?
Kinda Heretical, but meh; they'll be baptising Martians soon so seems anything goes now.
Do you honestly think that it's beyond the power of an omnipotent God to create an expanding, evolving universe with more than one planet that contains life?
LULZ indeed.
-
I just think it's odd that the Pope should be endorsing a concept of 'space' & space exploration that has NO biblical precedent whatsoever & in fact comes straight from the mouth of the Satan/Lucifer/Prometheus/Hermes/Thoth character in Milton's Paradise Lost.
That's the Milton who was an arch-propagandist & hypocrite & who actively promoted Galileo's Heliocentric science-fraud btw...
It all adds up to Heresy imo; but if you don't mind having a Heretical Sun-Worshipping Pope I guess that's fine.
One last thing: Pope Francis is a Jesuit; & what is the symbol of the Jesuit Order again..?
LOL!!!
-
I just think it's odd that the Pope should be endorsing a concept of 'space' & space exploration that has NO biblical precedent whatsoever & in fact comes straight from the mouth of the Satan/Lucifer/Prometheus/Hermes/Thoth character in Milton's Paradise Lost.
Milton may have been the first to use the term 'space' to refer to outer space, but I find it highly unlikely that he invented the concept of outer space or its exploration.
That's the Milton who was an arch-propagandist & hypocrite & who actively promoted Galileo's Heliocentric science-fraud btw...
It all adds up to Heresy imo; but if you don't mind having a Heretical Sun-Worshipping Pope I guess that's fine.
Then I guess that it's a good thing that you aren't the final arbiter for what is considered heresy.
-
Do you honestly think that it's beyond the power of an omnipotent God to create an expanding, evolving universe with more than one planet that contains life?
Look at yourself, markjo; trying to tell God what he did or didn't do...
Catholicism is based on The Bible.
The Bible is supposedly the Word of God.
There are no Martians in the Bible, nor is there any description of an expanding, evolving universe with more than one planet that contains life.
So what the Pope is saying is Heresy.
Based on satanic Sun-Worship.
I don't care either way; but it's true.
-
Do you honestly think that it's beyond the power of an omnipotent God to create an expanding, evolving universe with more than one planet that contains life?
Look at yourself, markjo; trying to tell God what he did or didn't do...
Is English your first language? I ask because I don't understand how your response follows from my question.
Catholicism is based on The Bible.
Actually, Catholicism is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Bible is supposedly the Word of God.
Sorta. Many of the books of the bible chronicle of the trials of the early Jews, the teachings of Jesus and lessons on how to lead a righteous life.
There are no Martians in the Bible, nor is there any description of an expanding, evolving universe with more than one planet that contains life.
There are no internal combustion engines or blenders in the Bible either.
So what the Pope is saying is Heresy.
So I guess cars and smoothies are heresy too.
Based on satanic Sun-Worship.
If you say so. ::)
I don't care either way; but it's true.
If you don't care, then why do you keep bringing it up?
-
If you don't care, then why do you keep bringing it up?
The same reason you keep responding, I guess.
As for cars & blenders, they are man-made inventions; are you saying that 'Martians' & an infinitely-expanding, evolving universe with other habitable planets are also man-made inventions?
If so, I agree.
Cos Jesus certainly never mentioned them.
As for the Sun-Worship; what is the symbol of the Jesuit Order again?
Anyhow; thanks for letting us know that, if you are a Catholic, you can tear out the Old Testament from your Bible, plus big chunks of the New.
It'll make the thing a lot more portable!
Toodle-pip, Humpty.
Legba sees voodoo!
-
As for cars & blenders, they are man-made inventions; are you saying that 'Martians' & an infinitely-expanding, evolving universe with other habitable planets are also man-made inventions?
If so, I agree.
Cos Jesus certainly never mentioned them.
Did Jesus mention the auroras or North America? What about germs or killer whales? There are lots of things that Jesus didn't mention. Last I heard, Jesus wasn't an astronomer or astrologer, nor were his followers, so I doubt that the nature of the universe came up much.
By the way, did you know that Jesus didn't actually write anything in the Bible? All we have is other people's word on what He did or didn't say, so keep that in mind.
-
All we have is other people's word on what He did or didn't say, so keep that in mind.
& all we have on what 'space' is like is other people's words, Humpty Dumpty.
So keep THAT in mind, too.
Or have you been to space to find out for yourself?
I doubt it, but as you like pretending to be an authority on what both God & Jesus did or didn't do, then your arrogance is seemingly limitless...
But we already knew that.
So; have you been to space, Humpty Dumpty markjo?
-
I have noticed that a lot of people are feeding the troll: Papa Legba. He doesn't actually believe what he says and he is just trying to push your buttons, and even if he wasn't lying someone like him doesn't deserve the satisfaction of being responded to. You are all giving him what he wants and wasting your time, stop letting him win and start giving him the lack of attention he deserves.
-
All we have is other people's word on what He did or didn't say, so keep that in mind.
& all we have on what 'space' is like is other people's words, Humpty Dumpty.
Incorrect. We first hand testimony of people who have been there as well as photographic, video, telemetry and other types of evidence supporting space travel.
-
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!
Didn't you swear you were ignoring me, LIAR?
Don't you remember your desperate pleas to get me banned, LIAR?
Accused me of causing suicides, didn't you, LIAR?
But, as you were caught being a sock-puppet of markjo, let's just ignore all the above & call markjo the LIAR.
Now; carry on your sock-puppet lying, LIAR.
Oh; & what is the symbol of the Jesuit Order again?
That's right; it's a bloody great big SUN, isn't it?
LOL!!!
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.....
Oh; look at markjo, shoe-horning a rushed shitpost in to make me turn the page before I could properly reply to socko mikeman; how do you know that I am posting before I even post, EX-MOD markjo?
Anyway; you haven't been to space, so you know fuck-all about it, so STFU ok?
Now; HAS THE POPE BEEN TO SPACE?
-
Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.....
Oh; look at markjo, shoe-horning a rushed shitpost in to make me turn the page before I could properly reply to socko mikeman; how do you know that I am posting before I even post, EX-MOD markjo?
Do you honestly think that I give a rat's ass whether or not any of my posts force a new page?
Anyway; you haven't been to space, so you know fuck-all about it, so STFU ok?
I've never been to England either, but they tell me that it's nice there. But, then again, you know how they lie, don't you?
Now; HAS THE POPE BEEN TO SPACE?
How am I supposed to know? I'm not his travel agent.
-
Do you honestly think that I give a rat's ass whether or not any of my posts force a new page?
Well, duh!
If you didn't care then you wouldn't do it all the bloody time, would you?
As for being the Pope's travel agent; you seem to think you know everything that both God & Jesus did or didn't do or say, so it's a distinct possibility...
If only in your tiny, arrogant, pompous-beyond-belief Mind.
Enough of not-a-mod-but still-seems-to-have-access-to-the-forum's-architecture YOU, though; let's talk about the Vatican...
The symbol of the Jesuit Order is a great big SUN; also the symbol of Lucifer the Light Bringer btw.
So; what is the Jesuit Order's newest telescope, situated at Mount Graham, Arizona, called?
I will tell you: it is called L.U.C.I.F.E.R.
LOL!!!
Legba sees BIG-ASS VOODOO!!!
Oh; & why is the FIRST Jesuit Pope blathering on about baptising Martians?
HAS he been to space?
I think we should be told; wouldn't want us to suspect he's JUST MAKING SHIT UP, would we?
LMFAO - at the PSYCHO-POPE!!!!
& you, too, if you fall for this nonsense...
-
Do you honestly think that I give a rat's ass whether or not any of my posts force a new page?
Well, duh!
If you didn't care then you wouldn't do it all the bloody time, would you?
You give me far too much credit.
As for being the Pope's travel agent; you seem to think you know everything that both God & Jesus did or didn't do or say, so it's a distinct possibility...
When did I ever say that? ???
If only in your tiny, arrogant, pompous-beyond-belief Mind.
You're one to talk about arrogance.
Enough of not-a-mod-but still-seems-to-have-access-to-the-forum's-architecture YOU, though; let's talk about the Vatican...
Nah, let's not and say that we didn't bother.
-
Enough of not-a-mod-but still-seems-to-have-access-to-the-forum's-architecture YOU, though; let's talk about the Vatican...
Nah, let's not and say that we didn't bother.
But I already did, madman; are you playing King Canute now?
Look:
The symbol of the Jesuit Order is a great big SUN; also the symbol of Lucifer the Light Bringer btw.
So; what is the Jesuit Order's newest telescope, situated at Mount Graham, Arizona, called?
I will tell you: it is called L.U.C.I.F.E.R.
LOL!!!
Legba sees BIG-ASS VOODOO!!!
Oh; & why is the FIRST Jesuit Pope blathering on about baptising Martians?
HAS he been to space?
I think we should be told; wouldn't want us to suspect he's JUST MAKING SHIT UP, would we?
LMFAO - at the PSYCHO-POPE!!!!
& you, too, if you fall for this nonsense...
Damn, markjo/mikeman/master_evar/misero/god-only-knows-how-many-other-sock-ID's; you are losing it big-time here!
You can't hold back the tide, King Canute...
Cos Legba sees ALL voodoo; & so do many neutral readers...
Now go baptise some Martians, Humpty Dumpty.
-
Do you honestly think that I give a rat's ass whether or not any of my posts force a new page?
Well, duh!
If you didn't care then you wouldn't do it all the bloody time, would you?
As for being the Pope's travel agent; you seem to think you know everything that both God & Jesus did or didn't do or say, so it's a distinct possibility...
If only in your tiny, arrogant, pompous-beyond-belief Mind.
Enough of not-a-mod-but still-seems-to-have-access-to-the-forum's-architecture YOU, though; let's talk about the Vatican...
The symbol of the Jesuit Order is a great big SUN; also the symbol of Lucifer the Light Bringer btw.
So; what is the Jesuit Order's newest telescope, situated at Mount Graham, Arizona, called?
I will tell you: it is called L.U.C.I.F.E.R.
LOL!!!
Legba sees BIG-ASS VOODOO!!!
Oh; & why is the FIRST Jesuit Pope blathering on about baptising Martians?
HAS he been to space?
I think we should be told; wouldn't want us to suspect he's JUST MAKING SHIT UP, would we?
LMFAO - at the PSYCHO-POPE!!!!
& you, too, if you fall for this nonsense...
'Oh; & why is the FIRST Jesuit Pope blathering on about baptising Martians?
HAS he been to space?
I think we should be told; wouldn't want us to suspect he's JUST MAKING SHIT UP, would we?
LMFAO - at the PSYCHO-POPE!!!!
& you, too, if you fall for this nonsense...'
Speaking of nonsense and 'JUST MAKING SHIT UP', this applies perfectly to the proposal that the earth is covered by a dome.
And somehow magically, the sun is ALWAYS the same size regardless of the time of day. Flat earthers can NEVER explain how the sun can be exactly the same size when it's overhead at midday and only 3000 miles away, yet when it's early morning or late evening and theoretically 5 times further away, it is still the same size. This one FACT alone completely blows the flat earth model into pathetic little pieces, lol.
-
When did I say I was a flat-earther, psycho?
Or that there's a dome, psycho?
Wtf is wrong with you?
Now; back to the FACT that the Roman Catholic Church, as well as all modern science, is geared towards promoting thinly-disguised pagan Sun-Worship.
You'll doubtless have heard the Insane idea that all complex matter in 'the Universe' (lol - semantic Fail!) is made up of atoms from dead Stars...
Pop-science frauds like Sagan put it thus: 'We are all made of Stardust'.
LOL!!!
STARS are allegedly SUNS...
So all the atoms we are made from come from a SUN.
We are SUN-BORN...
Can it be any more in your dumb fucking faces?
Sun-Worshipping Pagan Pricks...
Oh, & think about what the word 'SUPERNOVAE' actually means, too...
In your dumb-fuck faces again!
LMFAO!!!
-
I have heard it said that "if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger".
LOL!!!
Hypocrite.
Now; is the symbol of the Jesuit Order a bloody great big Sun?
Yes.
With the initials for the Latin 'by this sign shalt thou conquer' in the centre?
Yes.
Is the Pope a Jesuit?
Yes.
Did he say he'd baptise Martians?
Yes.
Is the Jesuit's newest telescope called L.U.C.I.F.E.R?
Yes.
Did pop-science-fraud spammer Carl Sagan say 'We are all made of Stardust'?
Yes.
Getting the picture yet, suckers?
Or do you think you're made of Stardust too?
Legba sees beaucoup voodoo...
-
I have heard it said that "if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger". Politicians are pretty good at it.
Papa Legba seems to be attacking markjo et al. I wonder who has simply run out of logical arguments.
Maybe he's just practicing with a view to being a successful polly.
Being attacked by Papa Legba is becoming quite a badge of honour.
Papa Legba, how about some reasonable arguments with some believable evidence.
He's gave many reasonable arguments. The fact that people like yourself don't accept them as being so is neither here nor there. The real people are the audience who can actually see them as genuine arguments and more than reasonable.
Being chained to a rotating globe with water stuck to it like treacle does not make your arguments reasonable when relating to it. In fact is looks ridiculous. As ridiculous as you people think alternative theories are, yet here you are trying to push your globe on a flat Earth society.
Go to a physics forum and chat with people who agree with you. Why here?....for the laugh? for the ridicule?....you fail on both counts so what's the other reasons, if any?
-
I have heard it said that "if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger".
LOL!!!
Hypocrite.
Now; is the symbol of the Jesuit Order a bloody great big Sun? Yes.
With the initials for the Latin 'by this sign shalt thou conquer' in the centre? Yes.
Is the Pope a Jesuit? Yes.
Did he say he'd baptise Martians? Yes.
Is the Jesuit's newest telescope called L.U.C.I.F.E.R? Yes.
Did pop-science-fraud spammer Carl Sagan say 'We are all made of Stardust'? Yes.
Getting the picture yet, suckers?
Or do you think you're made of Stardust too?
Legba sees beaucoup voodoo...
And is one word of that is evidence of flat earth, hollow earth or round earth?
-
And is one word of that is evidence of flat earth, hollow earth or round earth?
What, you mean one word of this, twelve-steps?
Is the symbol of the Jesuit Order a bloody great big Sun?
Yes.
With the initials for the Latin 'by this sign shalt thou conquer' in the centre?
Yes.
Is the Pope a Jesuit?
Yes.
Did he say he'd baptise Martians?
Yes.
Is the Jesuit's newest telescope called L.U.C.I.F.E.R?
Yes.
Did pop-science-fraud spammer Carl Sagan say 'We are all made of Stardust'?
Yes.
Getting the picture yet, suckers?
Or do you think you're made of Stardust too?
Legba sees beaucoup voodoo...
-
Oooh; looky what I just noticed!
The below video was posted by markjo a week or two ago as solid evidence of NASA's achievements'
I then pointed out how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
LMFAO - at YOU, guilty-as-sin markjo!!!
-
Come on, mighty 28,000 posts of Fail markjo; why are you tampering with & hiding evidence?
I'd really like to know...
-
Initiating a forum slide won't help you, markjo; the incriminating post is #3428 on page 172 of this thread.
The video you posted showing clear evidence of NASA fraud has since been deleted.
EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HIDDEN OR TAMPERED WITH, MARKJO.
ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE DO THAT.
YOU ARE BUSTED!
& by God, that is so LOL!!!
-
Initiating a forum slide won't help you, markjo; the incriminating post is #3428 on page 172 of this thread.
The video you posted showing clear evidence of NASA fraud has since been deleted.
EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HIDDEN OR TAMPERED WITH, MARKJO.
ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE DO THAT.
YOU ARE BUSTED!
& by God, that is so LOL!!!
Can you prove that markjo has access to change anything with that video? or that it was changed by him and not removed for some other reason (owner took it down, copyright claim, etc.)? Surely if you are making the accusation you have proof, right?
-
Frenat is a proven Troll & markjo crony; ignore him, neutrals.
Look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent.
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls...
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
-
Frenat is a proven Troll person who asks question I refuse to answer & markjo crony; ignore him, neutrals.
Fixed that for you. Logical fallacy of poisoning the well noted.
Look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent. unsupported opinion
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls... People who ask question I refuse to answer
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
So you can't prove he had anything to do with it then. Got it.
-
Do you think I write for you, proven Troll frenat?
Do you think I care what False Witness you bring to bear in support of your troll-crony markjo?
FAIL!!!
Again, for the neutral jury to ponder...
Look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent.
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls...
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
-
Do you think I write for you, proven Troll person who asks questions I refuse to answer frenat?
Do you think I care what False Witness you bring to bear in support of your troll-crony markjo?
FAIL!!!
Again, for the neutral jury to ponder...
Look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent. stilnunsupported opinion
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls...People who ask questions I refuse to answer
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
You've already shown you can't prove he had anything to do with it. You don't have to show it again. It just makes you look foolish.
-
Nobody cares what you think, troll-thing 'frenat'.
The below video was posted by markjo a week on page 172, reply#3428 as solid evidence of NASA's 'achievements'
I then pointed out how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
LMFAO - at YOU, guilty-as-sin markjo!!!
-
Nobody I don't cares what you think, troll person who asks questions I refuse to answer-thing 'frenat'.
The below video was posted by markjo a week on page 172, reply#3428 as solid evidence of NASA's 'achievements'
I then pointed out how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
LMFAO - at YOU, guilty-as-sin markjo!!!
and you STILL can't prove he had anything to do with removing it. You ONLY have a point if you can prove that and you haven't even tried. Quite funny.
-
Obvious time-wasting troll is wasting time obviously...
The below video was posted by markjo a week on page 172, reply#3428 as solid evidence of NASA's 'achievements'
I then pointed out how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
Let's look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent.
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls...
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
Oh, okay, it is: LMFAO - at MARKJO!!!
-
Obvious time-wasting troll is wasting time obviously... translation: Stop calling me out for my lack of proof
The below video was posted by markjo a week on page 172, reply#3428 as solid evidence of NASA's 'achievements'
I then pointed out had an unsupported opinion of how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
Let's look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
*The video was shown to be laughably fraudulent.
*The video was subsequently deleted.
Evidence has clearly been Hidden or Tampered With; it is axiomatic that this is a sign of GUILT.
Ergo, markjo is GUILTY of promoting a FRAUD.
Let's be clear, cultists; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD is a very real & very serious CRIME.
Anyone who promotes such a crime is guilty of AIDING & ABETTING.
Remember this, Trolls...
Cos it is NOT lol.
Not lol at all...
Oh, okay, it is: LMFAO - at MARKJO!!!
Still no proof from you. You really like showing how you can't prove it, don't you?
-
Nobody cares what a troll thinks, frenat; unlike myself, you have no fans.
Anyway; here's a few facts:
Is the symbol of the Jesuit Order a bloody great big Sun?
Yes.
With the initials for the Latin 'by this sign shalt thou conquer' in the centre?
Yes.
Is the Pope a Jesuit?
Yes.
Did he say he'd baptise Martians?
Yes.
Is the Jesuit's newest telescope called L.U.C.I.F.E.R?
Yes.
Did pop-science-fraud spammer Carl Sagan say 'We are all made of Stardust'?
Yes.
Getting the picture yet, suckers?
Or do you think you're made of Stardust too?
Legba sees beaucoup voodoo...
Plus:
Seems the Vatican hosted a conference in 2009 discussing the implications for mankind of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life.
Then they co-hosted another in Arizona in 2014, on the same subject (lotsa geeks there I bet).
What NASA claim is 'the inevitable discovery of alien life'.
'Inevitable'... LOL!!!
So; the Vatican are implicated in this scam, too; up to their Heretical necks in it, I'd say.
Naughty Pope!
& what are NASA pinning their hopes on to aid them in this epoch-shaking 'discovery' (lol)?
Why, the James Webb Space Telescope!
Which entirely fictitious item is due to be fictitiously 'launched' in 2018.
So I guess we're looking at around 2021 as a date for their latest Luciferian Sun-Worshipping mega-hoax to be unveiled...
Should be lulzy; enjoy the show, cultists!
P.s. Who was James Webb anyway?
Meh; just some bureaucratic NASA fuck...
Typical.
-
Let's look at the FACTS:
*Markjo posted a video of NASA's 'achievements'.
Incorrect.
I posted a link to a video that someone else posted on YouTube.
That YouTube account has since been deleted.
Shit happens.
Get over it.
-
Nobody cares what a proven disinfo spammer thinks, markjo; unlike myself, you have no fans.
Can't you tell; everybody hates you?
Really?
LOL!!!
Anyway; here's a few facts:
Is the symbol of the Jesuit Order a bloody great big Sun?
Yes.
With the initials for the Latin 'by this sign shalt thou conquer' in the centre?
Yes.
Is the Pope a Jesuit?
Yes.
Did he say he'd baptise Martians?
Yes.
Is the Jesuit's newest telescope called L.U.C.I.F.E.R?
Yes.
Did pop-science-fraud spammer Carl Sagan say 'We are all made of Stardust'?
Yes.
Getting the picture yet, suckers?
Or do you think you're made of Stardust too?
Legba sees beaucoup voodoo...
Plus:
Seems the Vatican hosted a conference in 2009 discussing the implications for mankind of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life.
Then they co-hosted another in Arizona in 2014, on the same subject (lotsa geeks there I bet).
What NASA claim is 'the inevitable discovery of alien life'.
'Inevitable'... LOL!!!
So; the Vatican are implicated in this scam, too; up to their Heretical necks in it, I'd say.
Naughty Pope!
& what are NASA pinning their hopes on to aid them in this epoch-shaking 'discovery' (lol)?
Why, the James Webb Space Telescope!
Which entirely fictitious item is due to be fictitiously 'launched' in 2018.
So I guess we're looking at around 2021 as a date for their latest Luciferian Sun-Worshipping mega-hoax to be unveiled...
Should be lulzy; enjoy the show, cultists!
P.s. Who was James Webb anyway?
Meh; just some bureaucratic NASA fuck...
Typical.
[/quote]
-
Nobody cares what you think, troll-thing 'frenat'.
The below video was posted by markjo a week on page 172, reply#3428 as solid evidence of NASA's 'achievements'
I then pointed out how laughably fake one of the rocket launches in it was.
Anyhow; try watching it now...
! No longer available (http://#)
Oh Dear!
Seems it's been deleted!
Funny, that, cos it's axiomatic that ONLY GUILTY PARTIES HIDE OR TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE!
LMFAO - at YOU, guilty-as-sin markjo!!!
You seem to think you're such an expert on rocket launches, that you can tell a fake one from a real one?
I have provided a link to the footage of the Apollo 11 launch - maybe you can share your expertise and inform us all as to the authenticity of this footage. If you consider it fake, please provide your reasoning behind this stance.
(http://)
-
It's all fake, psycho; but the footage markjo deleted was more obviously fake than most.
Low budget I guess.
Anyhow; Mormonism is another Sun-Worshipping space-cult.
Little better than Scientologists.
They are known for their attempts to infiltrate establishment structures such as the FBI, CIA etc.
They have infiltrated NASA too.
Big-time.
Any Mormons here, spamming space-lies?
-
So; yeah; any Mormons space-cultists here?
You know, autists are very bad at telling whether they are being lied to or not.
Plus, they are unadaptable, obsessed with order & hate having their set routines upset.
But they're good with numbers & remembering trivia.
Thus, they are perfect gatekeepers for by-the-numbers Science Fraud...
So; any Mormon Autists here?
If so, you're opinion don't look like it's worth shit...
-
So; yeah; any Mormons space-cultists here?
You know, autists are very bad at telling whether they are being lied to or not.
Plus, they are unadaptable, obsessed with order & hate having their set routines upset.
But they're good with numbers & remembering trivia.
Thus, they are perfect gatekeepers for by-the-numbers Science Fraud...
So; any Mormon Autists here?
If so, you're opinion don't look like it's worth shit...
Autists are indeed bad at identifying sarcasm and often think that people trying to be sarcastic arebeing serious and that can often be quite confusing, but that's due to a lack of social sills and not a lack of logic. Many of the people involved in making computers and the internet which are alowing us to communicate right now were Autists.
There are a lot of people (including me) who believe that Ausism should be considered a personality trait, not a disorder that needs cured. Most people who are famous for creating, composing, or deriving something are believed to have some form of Autism including but not limited to Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and Einstein. Think about that next time you feel like insulting me for it to make yourself feel better about your life.
-
I thought you had me on 'ignore', LIAR?
Whatever; as you are a member of a deranged space-cult that has completely infiltrated NASA, & have brain-damage that renders you a perfect gatekeeper/'useful idiot' for all their deranged space-lies, I have no wish to communicate with your lying self further.
But feel free to spam a few more space-lies in support of your heretical space-cult if it helps you get through what passes for 'life' for your poor broken-robot self...
Take this LOL!!! with you for good luck.
-
I thought you had me on 'ignore', LIAR?
Whatever; as you are a member of a deranged space-cult that has completely infiltrated NASA, & have brain-damage that renders you a perfect gatekeeper/'useful idiot' for all their deranged space-lies, I have no wish to communicate with your lying self further.
But feel free to spam a few more space-lies in support of your heretical space-cult if it helps you get through what passes for 'life' for your poor broken-robot self...
Take this LOL!!! with you for good luck.
I read a post or two of yours every so often, but I do ignore about 90% of what you post. You specifically mentioned me so I responded. I am glad we agree that we should stop communicating, hopefully this means you will stop whining about it.
By the way, you should make this your profile picture:
(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1287666826226.png)
It will give people a full disclaimer that they are talking to a troll.
-
I am glad we agree that we should stop communicating
Then why do you keep responding to me, HYPOCRITE?
& remember writing this, LIAR?
I have noticed that a lot of people are feeding the troll: Papa Legba. He doesn't actually believe what he says and he is just trying to push your buttons, and even if he wasn't lying someone like him doesn't deserve the satisfaction of being responded to. You are all giving him what he wants and wasting your time, stop letting him win and start giving him the lack of attention he deserves.
What a pathetic specimen you are...
Your brain-damage is not the issue here, Mikeman.nasa,gov; the main issue is that you are a member of a Heretical Space-Cult that has infiltrated NASA & you are only here to enable your Heretical Space-Cult's demented Space-Lies as much as you are able.
The fact that your neurological impairment means that you are ideally suited to this role of relentless meat-calculating spam-bot & all-round useful idiot is secondary.
YOU are the Troll, Mikeman; everyone knows it.
Now take this LOL!!!, plus this LMFAO!!!, with a touch of STFU!!!, & take them to the Planet Kolob, or Kobol, or wherever the fuck it is your Psycho-Cult thinks your heretical Space-God lives...
Cos Legba sees ALL your space-voodoo.
ALL the time...
KABISA!
-
Then why do you keep responding to me, HYPOCRITE?
Good point, I should ignore you more. I will start by not reading the rest of your post.
-
Then why do you keep responding to me, HYPOCRITE?
Good point, I should ignore you more. I will start by not reading the rest of your post.
LOL!!!
Is there no end to your lies & hypocrisy?
Let's look at Mormon involvement in NASA.
Seems they've been there right from the beginning; Don Lind, Richard Searfoss & Jake Garn were early mormon space-cultist 'astronauts'.
Then, with James C. Fletcher - who was Chief Administrator form 1971-77 & 1986-89 - they took over the place, as cultists do.
Ron Dittemore carries on the infiltration, though by now the entire program will be infested with them...
As for mormonism being a space-cult; well, this is easily googled, & the lulz will flow when you do so, for it is completely barmy nonsense, easily on a par with Scientology.
Lastly, did you know that Battlestar Galactica is based on mormon cosmology & beliefs?
Well, it is; the writer, Glen A. Larson, was a commited space-cultist who clearly wanted to indoctrinate as many young minds as possible with his toxic psychopathology; what better than a prime-time TV sci-fi adventure to do it with?
Anyhow; pretend you haven't read this post as well, MikeMan the MorMon...
We all know that you'll be Lying, as it's all you ever do here; but old habits die hard.
Especially for brain-damaged cultists.
Aaaaand: LMFAO!!!
At YOU!!!
-
Of course, the Mormon's creepy connections to, & virtual kidnapping of, Howard Hughes are well-documented.
Less well-documented is the fact that Mitt Romney's firm, Bain Capital, has swindled over $4 billion from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Do these obviously criminal space-cultists sound like the kind of people who should be running NASA?
It's your tax-dollars, Yanks...
& of course, the question remains; in view of the easily-verified information I have provided, does Mikeman the Mormon's relentless spamming of pro-NASA propaganda leave him with any credibility whatsoever on this forum?
I'd like to hear what he has to say to justify his heretical & fraudulent space-cult's criminal activities...
But he's ignoring me, isn't he?
Except when he isn't, of course; proof, if any were needed, of his true Hypocritical & Dishonest nature.
-
Of course, the Mormon's creepy connections to, & virtual kidnapping of, Howard Hughes are well-documented.
Less well-documented is the fact that Mitt Romney's firm, Bain Capital, has swindled over $4 billion from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Do these obviously criminal space-cultists sound like the kind of people who should be running NASA?
It's your tax-dollars, Yanks...
& of course, the question remains; in view of the easily-verified information I have provided, does Mikeman the Mormon's relentless spamming of pro-NASA propaganda leave him with any credibility whatsoever on this forum?
I'd like to hear what he has to say to justify his heretical & fraudulent space-cult's criminal activities...
But he's ignoring me, isn't he?
Except when he isn't, of course; proof, if any were needed, of his true Hypocritical & Dishonest nature.
Do you ever stop talking out of your arse?
-
Oh look - it's Mainframes, come to help out his floundering Mate, MikeMan the MorMon.
LOL!!!
Master_evar & Markjo will probably follow shortly; though Misero, Manaewolf & MikeyT seem to be on sabbatical...
Notice too, neutral readers, how Mainframes simply tells you I am talking out of my arse, but makes no attempt whatsoever to refute my information.
You are all free to research it yourself; in fact I hope you do so...
Because Conspiracy to Defraud is a very serious crime indeed.
But all the M-people would really prefer you didn't research it; exactly what does that tell you about them?
-
It's all fake, psycho; but the footage markjo deleted was more obviously fake than most.
Low budget I guess.
Anyhow; Mormonism is another Sun-Worshipping space-cult.
Little better than Scientologists.
They are known for their attempts to infiltrate establishment structures such as the FBI, CIA etc.
They have infiltrated NASA too.
Big-time.
Any Mormons here, spamming space-lies?
I'm not surprised you have not answered my simple question, as to why you think some videos of rocket launches are 'obviously fake'?
Are there any videos of rocket launches that aren't fake? Maybe you could provide a link to one these genuine launches? While you're at it, please provide a link to one of the 'obviously fake' rocket launches, so that we can compare them and see these differences for ourselves.
But you know what, I think all you'll do is reply as you always do, with just more rhetorical BS - typically short on specifics, yet long on meaningless crap.
-
Is there no end to your lies & hypocrisy?
Perhaps you could try to answer that question yourself.
Seems they've been there right from the beginning; Don Lind, Richard Searfoss & Jake Garn were early mormon space-cultist 'astronauts'.
Possibly any hobbies you have are related to this.
Lastly, did you know that Battlestar Galactica is based on mormon cosmology & beliefs?
When did you first know that battlestar galactica is based on mormon
cosmology beliefs?
Well, it is; the writer, Glen A. Larson, was a commited space-cultist who clearly wanted to indoctrinate as many young minds as possible with his toxic psychopathology; what better than a prime-time TV sci-fi adventure to do it with?
Have you been afraid of that?
Anyhow; pretend you haven't read this post as well, MikeMan the MorMon...
You mentioned that conspiracy to defraud is a very serious crime indeed?
We all know that you'll be Lying, as it's all you ever do here; but old habits die hard.
Does the fact that old habits die hard explain anything else?
Especially for brain-damaged cultists.
Perhaps this has something to do with problems at school?
-
LOL!!!
You made another sock-puppet, special for me like?
But all it does is shitpost, same as you.
Retards.
Mormonism was invented by Masons btw; again, this is easily researched & should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Masonic symbolism anyway.
& did you know mormons have to give a tenth of their earnings to their space-cult?
They call it 'tithing'; others may call it 'thieving'.
Oh; I believe chtwrone was still whining on about rocket launches...
Wants to know which are & aren't fake, asks for links & generally acts like the petulant needy blow-hard he always is.
Here's your answer, spoiled brat: any rocket launch that is claimed to be heading to space is FAKE.
Simple enough for you, Humpty Dumpty?
-
LOL!!!
You made another sock-puppet, special for me like?
But all it does is shitpost, same as you.
Retards.
Mormonism was invented by Masons btw; again, this is easily researched & should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Masonic symbolism anyway.
& did you know mormons have to give a tenth of their earnings to their space-cult?
They call it 'tithing'; others may call it 'thieving'.
Oh; I believe chtwrone was still whining on about rocket launches...
Wants to know which are & aren't fake, asks for links & generally acts like the petulant needy blow-hard he always is.
Here's your answer, spoiled brat: any rocket launch that is claimed to be heading to space is FAKE.
Simple enough for you, Humpty Dumpty?
With each and every post you make, it becomes more clear how much of a socially inept waste of space you are. I bet even your family have disowned you, and I doubt you have any real friends.
And re labelling me a 'spoiled brat', how did you come to that conclusion?
Oh, and by the way, your mystical Object B in the rocket system, is of course the burnt and ejected fuel, which incidentally has HUGE momentum, which is obviously countered by the rocket being propelled in the opposite direction, but of course this rather simple to understand concept is even beyond your realm of comprehension, lol.
-
LOL!!!
You made another sock-puppet, special for me like?
But all it does is shitpost, same as you.
Retards.
Mormonism was invented by Masons btw; again, this is easily researched & should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Masonic symbolism anyway.
& did you know mormons have to give a tenth of their earnings to their space-cult?
They call it 'tithing'; others may call it 'thieving'.
Oh; I believe chtwrone was still whining on about rocket launches...
Wants to know which are & aren't fake, asks for links & generally acts like the petulant needy blow-hard he always is.
Here's your answer, spoiled brat: any rocket launch that is claimed to be heading to space is FAKE.
Simple enough for you, Humpty Dumpty?
With each and every post you make, it becomes more clear how much of a socially inept waste of space you are. I bet even your family have disowned you, and I doubt you have any real friends.
And re labelling me a 'spoiled brat', how did you come to that conclusion?
Oh, and by the way, your mystical Object B in the rocket system, is of course the burnt and ejected fuel, which incidentally has HUGE momentum, which is obviously countered by the rocket being propelled in the opposite direction, but of course this rather simple to understand concept is even beyond your realm of comprehension, lol.
You asked him about rocket launches and he gave you his answer which is correct and you can't accept it because you're far too brainwashed or peer pressure scared to accept it, so you start going into a tantrum.
I suggest you take some time out and sit alone, then ponder all of what's been told. From there you need to start up your logical mind motor and let it tick over in readiness for any loads placed upon it.
Do this and you might see the light.
The reason why you don't see the light now is, you've been putting the wrong fuel in your mind motor.
-
LOL!!!
You made another sock-puppet, special for me like?
But all it does is shitpost, same as you.
Retards.
Mormonism was invented by Masons btw; again, this is easily researched & should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Masonic symbolism anyway.
& did you know mormons have to give a tenth of their earnings to their space-cult?
They call it 'tithing'; others may call it 'thieving'.
Oh; I believe chtwrone was still whining on about rocket launches...
Wants to know which are & aren't fake, asks for links & generally acts like the petulant needy blow-hard he always is.
Here's your answer, spoiled brat: any rocket launch that is claimed to be heading to space is FAKE.
Simple enough for you, Humpty Dumpty?
With each and every post you make, it becomes more clear how much of a socially inept waste of space you are. I bet even your family have disowned you, and I doubt you have any real friends.
And re labelling me a 'spoiled brat', how did you come to that conclusion?
Oh, and by the way, your mystical Object B in the rocket system, is of course the burnt and ejected fuel, which incidentally has HUGE momentum, which is obviously countered by the rocket being propelled in the opposite direction, but of course this rather simple to understand concept is even beyond your realm of comprehension, lol.
You asked him about rocket launches and he gave you his answer which is correct and you can't accept it because you're far too brainwashed or peer pressure scared to accept it, so you start going into a tantrum.
I suggest you take some time out and sit alone, then ponder all of what's been told. From there you need to start up your logical mind motor and let it tick over in readiness for any loads placed upon it.
Do this and you might see the light.
The reason why you don't see the light now is, you've been putting the wrong fuel in your mind motor.
So you think that each and every rocket launch that has ever happened, has been a hoax?
So what is the point of each of these launches, if it hasn't been to put something into earth's orbit or as an exploratory probe into the solar system?
There must be a lot of companies that have invested millions of dollars into putting their technology into orbit, yet apparently there is nothing up there? I haven't seen anything in the media lately, to suggest that any of these companies are querying where their satellites are?
Obviously you have the answers to all these questions, or are you just going to 'make shit up' to explain this glaring lack of complaints from aerospace companies?
-
So you think that each and every rocket launch that has ever happened, has been a hoax?
Didn't say that, Humpty Dump-tard; I said all the ones that allegedly go to space are fake.
As for the reasons; I've been patiently setting out for you the occult social engineering ones, & the financial ones should be blindingly obvious.
I'll get to the military ones eventually, though you'll probably implode in a foot-stamping hissy-fit when I do, spoilt brat chtwrone...
Which will be LOL!!!
Anyhoo - so seems Mormonism was invented by Masons, partially for the purpose of having a gang of especially useful thieving idiots at their command, & partially for the Lulz...
After all, The Book of Mormon was 'revealed' to the Mason Joseph Smith by an angel called Moroni, was it not?
MORONi; in your face, space-cultists!
So; are there any Masons involved in NASA, too?
Hell Yes!
Tons of em in fact, including James 'bureaucratic fuck' Webb, whose eponymous & fraudulent 'space-telescope' will likely discover the Martians that our Sun-Worshipping Jesuit Pope is so bizarrely keen on Baptising...
Shame he won't let women be priests though; according to him 'that door is closed'.
But when it comes to baptising Martians he says Catholicism is 'a church of open doors'...
Women Priests: NO.
Bapitised Martians: YES.
Open & Closed Doorway references: LOTS.
Ohhh... Do you see Voodoo?
Cos Legba sees beaucoup Voodoo.
For what, exactly, does the Sun represent in Magickal terms?
Could it be the Masculine Principle?
Why yes; I think it is!
Starting to get the picture yet, Suckers?
-
So; we see that, in Magickal symbolism, the Sun represents the Masculine, Rational principle.
What, then, could represent the Feminine, Intuitive principle?
You guessed it: the Moon.
That'd be the thing that THREE mason astronauts allegedly 'CONQUERED' via the gigantic phallic symbol of the SATURN rocket, in the laughably fake APOLLO ELEVEN mission of god-only-knows-how-long-ago...
If you cannot see that it was all a bizarre & freakish occult ceremony, utterly unconnected to anything 'scientific' or 'factual', you'll probably believe that Martians deserve to be more welcome in the openly Sun-Worshipping Catholic Church than women...
Door to martians: OPEN.
Door to women priests: CLOSED.
Amount of voodoo Legba sees: FUCK-LOADS.
Total lulz: APPROACHING INFINITE.
-
So; we see that, in Magickal symbolism, the Sun represents the Masculine, Rational principle.
What, then, could represent the Feminine, Intuitive principle?
You guessed it: the Moon.
That'd be the thing that THREE mason astronauts allegedly 'CONQUERED' via the gigantic phallic symbol of the SATURN rocket, in the laughably fake APOLLO ELEVEN mission of god-only-knows-how-long-ago...
If you cannot see that it was all a bizarre & freakish occult ceremony, utterly unconnected to anything 'scientific' or 'factual', you'll probably believe that Martians deserve to be more welcome in the openly Sun-Worshipping Catholic Church than women...
Door to martians: OPEN.
Door to women priests: CLOSED.
Amount of voodoo Legba sees: FUCK-LOADS.
Total lulz: APPROACHING INFINITE.
It's now patently obvious to all and sundry, that you have a mental disorder. Either the drugs you have been prescribed are ineffectual, or you have gone off your meds all together.
Regardless, you are a classic flat earth waste of space, both delusional and lame in your beliefs.
-
Regardless, you are a classic flat earth waste of space, both delusional and lame in your beliefs.
I'm not a flat earther; I already told you this, dyslexia-face.
So who's delusional?
However, I am a free-thinker, which makes me 100% more entitled than you are to be a member of this forum, alzheimers-face cry-baby.
I would apologise for pointing out the obvious fact that your silly 'mooooooooooooooooooon missions' were in fact tawdrily-enacted magickal ceremonies...
If I cared what you think.
But I do not.
Nobody does.
Now go perv over some farcical 'spayzze-rokkit' launches - or old episodes of Thunderbirds, as there is little difference - & leave the Freedom & Thinking to those who are capable of it.
Anyhow; here's a question: why don't NASA send a woman to the Moooooooooooooooooooon?
They can send Mormons, Masons & alcoholics...
But not one woman?
Perhaps 'that door is closed' too?
LOL!!!
Smelling voodoo yet, suckers?
-
Apparently, according to Papa Legba, when a molecule from a rocket's exhaust hits an atmospheric molecule, the exhaust molecule bounces back and creates a propelling force on the base of the rocket.
I find it a little puzzling however, that an atmospheric molecule has the ability to 'bounce' an exhaust molecule travelling at hypersonic velocity, in the opposite direction at a sufficient velocity to impart enough force on the base of the rocket, thereby propelling it?
And regardless of the interaction between the exhaust and atmospheric molecules, there must only be a very small percentage of impacts between these molecules that are perpendicular enough to factor into the equation of those molecules that might be bounced backwards, and not glanced off to the side, and therefore useless as far as imparting any force is concerned.
But the biggest problem of all, concerns the 'supply' of atmospheric molecules. Just after engine ignition, the initial blast of hypersonic exhaust molecules 'interacts' with the atmospheric molecules and momentarily exerts a backward force. However, immediately after this (micro-seconds), the initial volume of atmospheric molecules has been replaced with the ejected exhaust molecules, and this constant stream of ejected exhaust molecules prevents further atmospheric molecules from replacing those that had been previously 'interacted' with.
In other words, just after ignition there are no more atmospheric molecules adjacent to the engine nozzle for the exhaust molecules to 'interact' with. Therefore, there are no longer any propelling forces being applied to the base of the rocket by exhaust molecules, which had previously and only momentarily been 'bounced' back by the atmospheric molecules immediately after engine ignition.
(http://s27.postimg.org/rgpy0k1hf/PAPAS_DIAGRAM.png)
(http://s17.postimg.org/m0zj9zl8v/Apollo_15_launch_medium_distance.jpg)
-
Stop spamming your childish nonsense everywhere, cry-baby spoilt-brat chtwrone.
& stop sending me PMs too, you crank.
Go jizz over your silly gaylord Saturn V or whatever, OCD-face.
Anyhoo; so NASA can send masons & mormons & alcoholics to teh mooooooooooooooooooooon...
They can send dune buggies & golf clubs & broken science experiments (ALSEP lol!).
They can send hammers & feathers & titty mags & trashbags & flags all sorts of assorted garbage...
But they cannot send a Woman.
That Door Is Closed.
Anyone wonder why?
-
Stop spamming your childish nonsense everywhere, cry-baby spoilt-brat chtwrone.
& stop sending me PMs too, you crank.
Go jizz over your silly gaylord Saturn V or whatever, OCD-face.
Anyhoo; so NASA can send masons & mormons & alcoholics to teh mooooooooooooooooooooon...
They can send dune buggies & golf clubs & broken science experiments (ALSEP lol!).
They can send hammers & feathers & titty mags & trashbags & flags all sorts of assorted garbage...
But they cannot send a Woman.
That Door Is Closed.
Anyone wonder why?
That's rich accusing me of 'spamming nonsense everywhere' when it's YOU who has copied and pasted the same old rhetorical post about 30 times in various threads.
But getting back to the topic, it's obvious that within the exhaust plume of a rocket, there are NO atmospheric molecules for the exhaust molecules to be bounced off of.
So please explain how the exhaust molecules are ever going to be bounced back onto the base of the rocket and propel it forward?
-
Don't tell me what to post, psychopath.
The reason I keep repeating my statement on recoil is that none of you have correctly addressed it yet.
& I will do so until you have.
Okay?
There are FOUR separate threads for you to parade your abysmal ignorance of rocketry in.
Stick to them.
Below is yet another of my posts that NONE of you have addressed.
You expect Answers & Obedience from ME, but never, ever, for yourselves...
Wtf is WRONG with you?
Obvious Hypocritical Thought-Police are SO Hypocritically fucking Obvious.
Anyway; so NASA can send masons & mormons & alcoholics to teh mooooooooooooooooooooon...
They can send dune buggies & golf clubs & broken science experiments (lol!).
They can send hammers & feathers & titty mags & trashbags & flags & all sorts of other garbage...
But they cannot send a Woman.
That Door Is Closed.
Anyone wonder why?
-
You made another sock-puppet, special for me like?
Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
Retards.
Can you elaborate on that?
Simple enough for you, Humpty Dumpty?
How do you reconcile hangups you have?
-
Obvious shitposting time-wasting Troll sockpuppet is Obvious.
You REALLY don't like what I'm saying, do you, 'round earthers' (lol!) & M-people?
So I must be onto something...
Let's face it; neutral readers will have learnt to scroll straight past your derailing non-posts by now & concentrate on mine.
Or they can just click on my name & go to 'show posts' to save the bother...
Anyway; so NASA can send masons & mormons & alcoholics to teh mooooooooooooooooooooon...
They can send dune buggies & golf clubs & broken science experiments (lol!).
They can send hammers & feathers & titty mags & trashbags & flags & all sorts of other garbage...
But they cannot send a Woman.
That Door Is Closed.
Anyone wonder why?
-
So; a deafening silence to my observation that it is odd how NASA have never sent a woman to the moon?
Oookay...
Back to how the 'mooooooooooooooooooooooon misshunz' were in fact thinly-veiled & poorly-fabricated occult rituals, then...
Apollo 13 is especially lulzy & obvious, the entire ridiculously implausible scenario being a shabby recreation of a Masonic Initiation Ceremony.
I can't be bothered going through the sordid details of this farce, but those interested can google 'William Cooper Apollo 13' if they wish to know more.
The Apollo 13 press conference is also a hoot, as none of the 'heroic astro-nots' really seem to want to be there, or know exactly what the hell went on in their fail-fest 'moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon-mizhunn' anyway.
Seriously; does anyone (except for brain-damaged space-cultists & schoolkids) still believe this stuff?
3,000-tonne 'spayze-rokkits' knocked up out of mild steel, corrugated aluminium & plastic, taking off slower than a moped, travelling 400,000+ miles at 24,000+ mph on one tank of gas, then landing on teh munn in something that looked like it came out of a skip, planting a flappy lol-flag, hooning round in a dune-buggy, doing no science whatsoever, ignoring all the stars that they somehow both could & couldn't see, then hopping back in their trashcan, taking off in a shower of cheap firework sparks, defying all the laws of physics by not being melted during re-entry, then bobbing about in a dinghy for President Nixon to salute like the thieving fucking retard he was?
I mean, REALLY?!?
One last thing: what was Neil Armstrong's famous speech again?
'One small step for a MAN, one giant leap for MANkind'.
Jesus! NASA wouldn't even MENTION women, let alone allow em to go to teh munnnnn!
What a swizz...
-
So that's teh munn mizzuhns out of the way; how anyone can believe them nowadays is beyond me...
Still; NASA should at least have acknowledged that women exist, dontcha think?
50% of the population completely blanked...
LOL!!!
What about modern space-frauds though?
Well the ISS is lulzy; let's kick that around for a while, eh?
Now; all you space-tards claim you can see it through a telescope - once you've given that telescope a good hard polishing, I imagine - but that is of course a Lie.
Because you cannot see something that does not exist.
Yet there does seem to be a blob of light floating around in the sky at roughly the time your impossible ISS allegedly passes over.
I asked you before for alternative explanations as to what this blob is.
But your imaginations somehow failed you; it simply MUST be a series of tubes full of idiots playing flutes & guitars, you claimed...
There can be NO other explanation!
LOL!!!
Funny that, cos I can think of plenty...
Let's start with a high altitude plane covered in LEDs.
Do NASA have high altitude planes?
Yes.
They are called the ER-2, & are a variation on the U2; funnily, their overall plan looks a bit like the ISS...
Stick a bunch of LEDs on em & they'd do the job of faking the ISS well enough to fool the very few losers left in the world who care what NASA does...
After all, they're not the most intelligent people, are they?
Any thoughts, space-cultists?
-
So; a deafening silence to my observation that it is odd how NASA have never sent a woman to the moon?
Oookay...
Back to how the 'mooooooooooooooooooooooon misshunz' were in fact thinly-veiled & poorly-fabricated occult rituals, then...
Apollo 13 is especially lulzy & obvious, the entire ridiculously implausible scenario being a shabby recreation of a Masonic Initiation Ceremony.
I can't be bothered going through the sordid details of this farce, but those interested can google 'William Cooper Apollo 13' if they wish to know more.
The Apollo 13 press conference is also a hoot, as none of the 'heroic astro-nots' really seem to want to be there, or know exactly what the hell went on in their fail-fest 'moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon-mizhunn' anyway.
Seriously; does anyone (except for brain-damaged space-cultists & schoolkids) still believe this stuff?
3,000-tonne 'spayze-rokkits' knocked up out of mild steel, corrugated aluminium & plastic, taking off slower than a moped, travelling 400,000+ miles at 24,000+ mph on one tank of gas, then landing on teh munn in something that looked like it came out of a skip, planting a flappy lol-flag, hooning round in a dune-buggy, doing no science whatsoever, ignoring all the stars that they somehow both could & couldn't see, then hopping back in their trashcan, taking off in a shower of cheap firework sparks, defying all the laws of physics by not being melted during re-entry, then bobbing about in a dinghy for President Nixon to salute like the thieving fucking retard he was?
I mean, REALLY?!?
One last thing: what was Neil Armstrong's famous speech again?
'One small step for a MAN, one giant leap for MANkind'.
Jesus! NASA wouldn't even MENTION women, let alone allow em to go to teh munnnnn!
What a swizz...
No women because they were not allowed on front line service in the armed forces. All bar one of the Apollo astronauts were former fighter pilots and the other was a profession Geologist.
-
No women because they were not allowed on front line service in the armed forces. All bar one of the Apollo astronauts were former fighter pilots and the other was a profession Geologist.
Well, thanks for letting us know that the Apollo munn mizhuns were strictly Military endeavours...
I'll remember that for later.
But surely, even in 1969, NASA could have found at least ONE female geologist?
LOL!!!
Anyhow: the blob of light in the sky retards claim to be the ISS: could sit imply be a pimped-out NASA ER-2 high-altitude jet..?
Got an opinion on that, anyone?
-
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA believers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
-
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA believers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
You should be able to prove that by having you and another person observe it at the same time and measuring the angle of observation and then doing the relevant trigonometry. Your claim, your burden of proof. I'm betting you won't even try though.
-
No women because they were not allowed on front line service in the armed forces. All bar one of the Apollo astronauts were former fighter pilots and the other was a profession Geologist.
Well, thanks for letting us know that the Apollo munn mizhuns were strictly Military endeavours...
I'll remember that for later.
But surely, even in 1969, NASA could have found at least ONE female geologist?
LOL!!!
Anyhow: the blob of light in the sky retards claim to be the ISS: could sit imply be a pimped-out NASA ER-2 high-altitude jet..?
Got an opinion on that, anyone?
FORMER fighter pilots. Learn to read.
They were chosen as they had the best qualifications for the job. Not quite sure why it is important that women weren't involved and given the time period its not particularly surprising.
-
I'm betting you won't even try though.
No, of course I won't.
Because I'm not retarded enough to believe that I can see something the size of a soccer pitch from 250 miles away to start with.
So I KNOW that the ISS is a hoax anyway; I'm just wondering what it really is.
I don't actually CARE; nobody does...
Cos NASA are fake & gay.
You space-trolls just love wasting people's time on wild goose chases, don't you?
They were chosen as they had the best qualifications for the job.
Correct: they were Masons, Mormons, Military & most importantly MALE.
Now; carry on lying.
-
I'm betting you won't even try though.
No, of course I won't.
Because I'm not retarded enough to believe that I can see something the size of a soccer pitch from 250 miles away to start with.
So I KNOW that the ISS is a hoax anyway; I'm just wondering what it really is.
I don't actually CARE; nobody does...
Cos NASA are fake & gay.
You space-trolls just love wasting people's time on wild goose chases, don't you?
So you could prove it is all a hoax and won't even try. Interesting.
-
I just told you: I KNOW it's all a hoax cos you can't see something the size of a soccer pitch from 250 miles away...
Oh; I forgot - you're a troll.
Okay; carry on trolling!
-
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
I would. I have fairly recently seen two passes of the "alleged" ISS and I can tell you that it ain't no airplane.
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
Except the light that I saw was smaller, brighter and moved faster across the sky than any normal airplane that I have ever seen.
-
I have fairly recently seen two passes of the "alleged" ISS and I can tell you that it ain't no airplane.
You were caught sock-puppeting as mikeman & recently deleted a video you had posted as evidence on NASA's achievements when it was found to be fraudulent, then claimed innocence.
Those are just the most blatant of your many Lies.
So I don't believe you.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, you know?
But I'm irrelevant; it's all the neutral readers you need to convince...
& I assure you, they won't take your word for a damn thing.
As one of them said to me: 'Who's that one with all the sock-puppets? What's his problem?'
You have NO fans, markjo; your personality repels people.
Which is why they hurriedly scroll past your posts, to get to someone less creepy.
This is not an insult; it is simple fact.
Anyhow; carry on lying... What else have you seen in the sky recently? Through a telescope, I imagine...
-
I just told you: I KNOW it's all a hoax cos you can't see something the size of a soccer pitch from 250 miles away...
Oh; I forgot - you're a troll.
Okay; carry on trolling!
Sure. A neutral observer might think that since you can't be bothered to prove your claim that you don't really believe it yourself. All talk and no action.
-
I have fairly recently seen two passes of the "alleged" ISS and I can tell you that it ain't no airplane.
You were caught sock-puppeting as mikeman & recently deleted a video you had posted as evidence on NASA's achievements when it was found to be fraudulent, then claimed innocence.
Yet another claim you can't prove.
-
All talk and no action.
Let me translate that from frenat's gaylord troll-speak: 'ALL knowing what is & is not physically possible & NO wasting time following troll-instructions'.
Now: I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA believers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
-
I have fairly recently seen two passes of the "alleged" ISS and I can tell you that it ain't no airplane.
You were caught sock-puppeting as mikeman & recently deleted a video you had posted as evidence on NASA's achievements when it was found to be fraudulent, then claimed innocence.
If you say so. ::)
Those are just the most blatant of your many Lies.
So I don't believe you.
Then don't; see if I care. Consult one of the many ISS trackers and watch a pass and decide for yourself. But if you would rather base your opinion on ignorance, then I don't suppose that there's much that I can do about it.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, you know?
Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.
But I'm irrelevant; it's all the neutral readers you need to convince...
Neutrals generally don't base their opinions on ignorance, like you do.
& I assure you, they won't take your word for a damn thing.
Good. They shouldn't take my word for it any more than they should take your word for it. They should watch an ISS pass and make an informed decision for themselves, which is obviously more than you will ever do.
As one of them said to me: 'Who's that one with all the sock-puppets? What's his problem?'
You have NO fans, markjo; your personality repels people.
LOL!!
Which is why they hurriedly scroll past your posts, to get to someone less creepy.
This is not an insult; it is simple fact.
Anyhow; carry on lying... What else have you seen in the sky recently? Through a telescope, I imagine...
Blah, blah, blah.
-
All talk and no action.
Let me translate that from frenat's gaylord troll-speak: 'ALL knowing what is & is not physically possible & NO wasting time following troll-instructions'.
Now: I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA believers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
Your claim, your burden of proof. Hilarious that you won't bother to put any effort to trying to prove it. Thanks for the humor!
-
All talk and no action.
Let me translate that from frenat's gaylord troll-speak: 'ALL knowing what is & is not physically possible & NO wasting time following troll-instructions'.
Now: I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
Anyone care to refute this?
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to match the alleged ISS 'orbit' & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA believers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
If that's your claim then strap a camera to a telescope and prove it.
-
I just told you: I KNOW it's all a hoax cos you can't see something the size of a soccer pitch from 250 miles away...
Oh; I forgot - you're a troll.
Okay; carry on trolling!
The only time that the International Space Station can be viewed with the naked eye by an observer on earth, is after the sun has set, but with the ISS still illuminated by the sun due to its higher elevation.
Because the ISS is highly reflective, it is EASILY seen from a distance of 250 miles in the night sky.
And no, your suggestion that the 'lights' that are seen on a regular and scheduled basis is a US military aircraft is weak and contrived, and therefore easily discarded as a possibility. This would require the US military to have a high altitude aircraft permanently airborne, and flying at exactly the correct speed and direction to comply with the published schedule of the ISS. And all this effort to support this supposed ISS hoax?
Sorry, but your suggestion is rather childish and contrived in the extreme.
Regardless of your thoughts, the ISS is real, can be captured on film and video and has been verified as real by astronauts from many countries around the world.
The only 'people' who have questioned it's existence, is the very,very,very, very tiny percentage of people who have an agenda against the round earth model, and who have an irrational and deluded prejudice against NASA.
It's funny that these people only mention the 'evil' NASA in their rhetoric, but never the scores of other space agencies around the world who have also put astronauts and satellites into space.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/05/iss-tenth-anniversary-11-02-2010.jpg)
-
Because the ISS is highly reflective, it is EASILY seen from a distance of 250 miles in the night sky.
Nonsense.
You cannot see an object the size of a football pitch from 250 miles away.
Unless you have Superman's vision...
Or are an X-man, perhaps?
Are you either of these, chtwrone?
Perhaps you could spam me an unwelcome & abusive PM on the matter?
Troll-thing frenat & fantasy-scientist mainframes: I don't have to do anything, or prove anything.
I already know that the ISS is a physically impossible object; so when a blob of light in the sky is claimed to be said impossible object, I suggest the burden of proof is on the one making that impossible claim.
Which would be YOU.
So STOP trolling & lying & START bringing that impossible proof to the table for us all to laugh at.
Markjo: like every other intelligent neutral reader of this forum, I simply scrolled past your post.
I am not paid to read your repulsive garbage, so I will only do so when I choose.
The possibility that your silly light in the sky is in fact a pimped-out spyplane is intriguing; & some of the time I think that is what it is.
But there is a stronger possibility; I will expound on this later.
For now, LOL!!!
& carry on Lying.
-
Because the ISS is highly reflective, it is EASILY seen from a distance of 250 miles in the night sky.
Nonsense.
You cannot see an object the size of a football pitch from 250 miles away.
Unless you have Superman's vision...
Or are an X-man, perhaps?
Are you either of these, chtwrone?
Perhaps you could spam me an unwelcome & abusive PM on the matter?
Troll-thing frenat & fantasy-scientist mainframes: I don't have to do anything, or prove anything.
I already know that the ISS is a physically impossible object; so when a blob of light in the sky is claimed to be said impossible object, I suggest the burden of proof is on the one making that impossible claim.
Which would be YOU.
So STOP trolling & lying & START bringing that impossible proof to the table for us all to laugh at.
Markjo: like every other intelligent neutral reader of this forum, I simply scrolled past your post.
I am not paid to read your repulsive garbage, so I will only do so when I choose.
The possibility that your silly light in the sky is in fact a pimped-out spyplane is intriguing; & some of the time I think that is what it is.
But there is a stronger possibility; I will expound on this later.
For now, LOL!!!
& carry on Lying.
Actually, you are wrong if you think that an object the size of the ISS can't be seen with the naked eye from 250 miles.
As I stated in my previous post, the ISS can only be seen under the correct viewing conditions, when the sky is dark, and the ISS is still being illuminated by the sun due to its higher elevation, and due to its highly reflective surface, the ISS is EASILY seen from this great distance.
One does not need to have Superman vision at all - as normal vision is perfectly adequate, as can be testified by the millions of people around the world who have seen the ISS for themselves.
-
Actually, you are wrong if you think that an object the size of the ISS can't be seen with the naked eye from 250 miles.
'Actually'; LOL!!!
What are you, like 12 years old?
Actually I'm actually not actually wrong actually.
Because actually any actual retard actually can actually tell actually from actually their own actual everyday actual experience actually that actually it actually is actually absolutely actually physically fucking impossible actually for the actual human eye to actually see actually anything that actual size actually at 250 actual miles...
ACTUALLY.
What a Troll...
LMF'actual'AO, actually - AT YOU!!!
-
Mainframes seems to have conveniently forgotten the time he showed he did not understand the Newtonian definition of a Force, & I had to point out his mistake.
So here it is; & it is just as lol-tastic this time round.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
LOL!!!
Mainframes claims to have a masters in Chem. Eng; after the above, does anyone believe him?
-
Mainframes seems to have conveniently forgotten the time he showed he did not understand the Newtonian definition of a Force, & I had to point out his mistake.
So here it is; & it is just as lol-tastic this time round.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
LOL!!!
Mainframes claims to have a masters in Chem. Eng; after the above, does anyone believe him?
Good old semantics but you don't have to push off an object. If two magnets interact they are not pushing off each other as they are not in contact, but a force had been developed on the objects which does 'push on them.
-
NOT semantics, mainframes; we were NOT talking about magnetism.
You were bullshitting about how I did not understand N3, as you ALWAYS do, then you came out with THIS:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
Anyone can go back to the relevant pages to see the context of your humiliation.
So do NOT try to bluff & bluster your way out of this; you are BUSTED.
Now show us proof of this 'masters in Chem. Eng.' you claim to have, charlatan.
-
Mainframes and chtwrone, Papa Legba is a troll. He wants to provoke you and you are giving him what he wants. He is the most hateful person I have ever encountered and he is undeserving of your attention. He does not believe a word of what he says, he is just trying to be an a**hole.
-
Of course he is. I just like seeing what bullshit he comes up with next after he backs himself into yet another corner. I find him very amusing.
-
LOL!!!
Wtf is WRONG with you, mainframes?
You're the one in a corner; because you said this about Newton's 3rd, then denied it.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
Ooops!
Pretty conclusive, Mr. 'masters in Chem. Eng.'
& mikeman turning up to bale you out just makes this look worse for you; cos he's supposed to have me on 'ignore', remember?
So how did he know to come to your aid so promptly?
You're busted, mainframes; end of story.
Try & pretend it never happened as much as you like; you won't change the facts.
Now; carry on Lying.
-
Mainframes and chtwrone, Papa Legba is a troll. He wants to provoke you and you are giving him what he wants. He is the most hateful person I have ever encountered and he is undeserving of your attention. He does not believe a word of what he says, he is just trying to be an a**hole.
Says the 18 year old that forgot his own birthday until someone reminded him. Lol.
Also the same 18 year old global Earther that comes on a flat Earth forum at 18 and plants over 5,000 posts in, as well as the very same 18 year old offering $250 to anyone that can disprove a globe.
The same 18 year old that is getting all worked up because his friends (or aliases) are being schooled by Papa Legba.
Mikeman must be desperate to want to go to such lengths to stop people thinking for themselves.
-
Mainframes and chtwrone, Papa Legba is a troll. He wants to provoke you and you are giving him what he wants. He is the most hateful person I have ever encountered and he is undeserving of your attention. He does not believe a word of what he says, he is just trying to be an a**hole.
Says the 18 year old that forgot his own birthday until someone reminded him. Lol.
Also the same 18 year old global Earther that comes on a flat Earth forum at 18 and plants over 5,000 posts in, as well as the very same 18 year old offering $250 to anyone that can disprove a globe.
The same 18 year old that is getting all worked up because his friends (or aliases) are being schooled by Papa Legba.
Mikeman must be desperate to want to go to such lengths to stop people thinking for themselves.
This coming from the self proclaimed genius who hails from North Korea. Has numerous patents and inventions yet won't divulge what they might be. Devised and performed an experiment on a 2 mile long section of frozen lake that proves beyond doubt the earth is flat, yet shows no one the results. Is building a scale model of his ice dome, what 15 foot in diameter?, yet has not produced a picture of the construction that, by his own account, should be done any minute now. And has over 14000 posts on this site, not counting the ones he has rage deleted.
Have I forgotten anything?
Scepti must be desperate to want to go to such lengths to stop people thinking at all.
-
Says the 18 year old that forgot his own birthday until someone reminded him. Lol.
If you quote it happening then it will count as you winning my challenge. On a round Earth it is not expected that shills would be hired to patroll a flat Earth forum.
Also the same 18 year old global Earther that comes on a flat Earth forum at 18 and plants over 5,000 posts in, as well as the very same 18 year old offering $250 to anyone that can disprove a globe.
That $250 challenge would be a very bad move if I were wrong and I knew it, don't you think? Speaking of my challenge, why did you give up on it so easily?
The same 18 year old that is getting all worked up because his friends (or aliases) are being schooled by Papa Legba.
Have you read Papa Legba's posts lately? I am ignoring him because he's hateful, which would be true even if he held my oppinions. I could quote him saying incredibly hateful things if you want, and his points are so easy to debunk it's laughable.
Mikeman must be desperate to want to go to such lengths to stop people thinking for themselves.
THINKING FOR YOURSELF IS A GOOD THING THAT I ADVOCATE.
There, are you happy now?
By thew way, what was that thing you wanted me to do to prove that I am who I say I am? I am still ready and willing to do a live Skype call with you. I have already linked you to my Facebook and recorded a video in which I mentioned your name. You must have one heck of a bias.
-
Yep; ALL the 'round earthers' (lol!) are riding to mainframe's rescue...
Cos he's messed up bad & can't just pretend it never happened.
Like he pretends he has a masters in Chem. Eng... Pretends a LOT of things, in fact.
Of course, this RE-swarming protective behaviour is completely damning in the eyes of any neutral, being proof that they are all acting in concert.
But seems they're too damn stupid to even realise that...
Shoulda just left the useless fraud to hang imo.
Makes no odds to me, mind; they are all a joke & I have been beating em like a set of bongos ever since I got here.
Let's just gloat over mainframe's miserable humiliation again, eh?
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
LULZ!!!
Mighty Mainframes, foremost AUTHORITAH on Newton's 3rd & ALL physics, doesn't even understand what the term 'force' means...
Masters Degree?
GTFO!
He ain't even passed his GCSE, the charlatan.
Did I say LMFAO?
No?
Then: LMFAO!!!
-
Magnets develop a force on objects and they do not push off anything. Sorry Papa.
-
We weren't talking about magnets & you know it, Walter Mitty.
Neutrals can go back to page 168-170 of this thread & see for themselves, so don't think you can bluff your way out of this.
We were in fact talking about Newton's 3rd & you didn't even know what Newton meant by a 'force'.
Look:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
LOL!!!
What a jackass.
Now show us this 'masters in Chem. Eng.' of yours, liar.
-
Here is mainframes original post; it shows that we were NOT discussing magnetism, we were SPECIFICALLY discussing Newton's 3rd.
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
It is absolutely clear that mainframes does not understand the Newtonian definition of Force; thus I am thoroughly justified in calling bullshit on his claim to have a masters in Chem. Eng.
Either that or he's a Troll; make your own mind up, neutrals...
Both are LOL!!!
-
I have a good way to explain how rockets work that even a FE should understand. It will take a few posts, as I want FE's to answer a few questions so that I know they follow with the explanation.
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit. For simplicity, let's say that 1cm of the motor has the same mass as 1cm of the piston (so when it extends 2 cm, the motor goes out by 1cm and the piston goes out by 1cm from the center of mass). So as we extend the piston, it goes out equal distances on either side of it.
You with me so far?
(I have Papa Legba ignored, so if he answers in any meaningful way, feel free to quote him for me)
-
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit.
No; let's not.
Let's not 'imagine' anything; let's deal with Facts.
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
It must be noted this result would occur regardless of a person's opinion on the shape of the Earth; yet master_b8r tries to conflate a belief in FE with the Scientific Fact that rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum.
Such an abysmal failure to think logically suggests he is not to be taken seriously by any intelligent reader.
Perhaps if he invents some Imaginary Qualifications the more gullible will heed his tales of Imaginary Hydraulic Motors in Space?
But it didn't work for mainframes so I doubt it'll work for him...
In Summation: LOL!!!
-
Just to clean this up, here is mainframe's original post, showing clearly that we were discussing Newton's Laws, not magnetism:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Mainframes claims to have a masters in Chem. Eng, & has been repeatedly boasting that he knows more about physics - especially Newton's Laws - than I.
Does anyone believe him after this?
-
Legba is winning by a landslide. :)
-
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
Incorrect.
-
So now a rocket doesn't carry its fuel in pressurised tanks?
Oookay... *backs away slowly*
-
So now a rocket doesn't carry its fuel in pressurised tanks?
Solid propellant rockets don't.
Liquid fuel rockets carry liquid fuel in pressurized tanks that they burn to become exhaust gasses. That's different than:
... a rocket in 'space' is a very small tank of pressurised gas...
Oookay... *backs away slowly*
Yes, keep backing away until you find your way to a physics class.
-
So now a rocket doesn't carry its fuel in pressurised tanks?
Oookay... *backs away slowly*
Here's a question that only requires a yes or no answer -
'When X amount of fuel mass is combusted and forcibly ejected out of a rocket's engine nozzle at hypersonic velocity, does this 'chunk' of burnt fuel in the form of exhaust particles, have exactly the same mass as before?
-
Here's another question that only requires a yes or no answer: Did the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg Lay your Head?
-
I have a good way to explain how rockets work that even a FE should understand. It will take a few posts, as I want FE's to answer a few questions so that I know they follow with the explanation.
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit. For simplicity, let's say that 1cm of the motor has the same mass as 1cm of the piston (so when it extends 2 cm, the motor goes out by 1cm and the piston goes out by 1cm from the center of mass). So as we extend the piston, it goes out equal distances on either side of it.
You with me so far?
(I have Papa Legba ignored, so if he answers in any meaningful way, feel free to quote him for me)
-
Seems master_b8r wants to spam his 'hydraulic motor in spayzze' analogy; so I'll just spam my refutation too.
Fair, no?
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit.
No; let's not.
Let's not 'imagine' anything; let's deal with Facts.
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is in essence a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
It must be noted this result would occur regardless of a person's opinion on the shape of the Earth; yet master_b8r tries to conflate a belief in FE with the Scientific Fact that rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum.
Such an abysmal failure to think logically suggests he is not to be taken seriously by any intelligent reader.
Perhaps if he invents some Imaginary Qualifications the more gullible will heed his tales of Imaginary Hydraulic Motors in Space?
But it didn't work for mainframes so I doubt it'll work for him...
In Summation: LOL!!!
-
Joule expansion only applies if both chambers are joined, fixed, and finite, as you already know. In fact, Free expansion refers to the expansion of a chamber, and the effects it has on a gas contained inside. That's not the case here. This isnt a strictly thermodynamical proccess, rather a thermokinetical one. Remember Newton's laws! If the gas expands towards one direction, then a force exists, opposite to that expansion.
-
Joule expansion only applies if both chambers are joined, fixed, and finite, as you already know.
Yes, in a laboratory experiment on earth; for that's the only way a vacuum can be contained, as YOU already know.
But the same principle applies to a container of gas surrounded by the infinite vacuum of 'space'; again, as YOU already know.
In fact, Free expansion refers to the expansion of a chamber, and the effects it has on a gas contained inside.
What? That doesn't mean anything.
That's not the case here.
Clearly!
This isnt a strictly thermodynamical proccess, rather a thermokinetical one.
So?
Remember Newton's laws!
I will, you pompous ass; mainframes couldn't though, & neither can you if you think it's possible to push on nothing.
If the gas expands towards one direction, then a force exists, opposite to that expansion.
Well Duh! But Work will only be created when the gas eventually encounters resistance. Which may take a while as it is travelling through the infinite vacuum of space.
Force isn't Work, you know? You only said 'Remember Newton's Laws!' one sentence ago but seems you've already forgotten them.
What an arrogant gaylord!
To sum up: another pathetic space-tard attempt to sneak past the laws of physics so they can hazz spayzze-shippz.
*Yawn!*
-
Joule expansion only applies if both chambers are joined, fixed, and finite, as you already know.
Yes, in a laboratory experiment on earth; for that's the only way a vacuum can be contained, as YOU already know.
But the same principle applies to a container of gas surrounded by the infinite vacuum of 'space'; again, as YOU already know.
In fact, Free expansion refers to the expansion of a chamber, and the effects it has on a gas contained inside.
What? That doesn't mean anything.
That's not the case here.
Clearly!
This isnt a strictly thermodynamical proccess, rather a thermokinetical one.
So?
Remember Newton's laws!
I will, you pompous ass; mainframes couldn't though, & neither can you if you think it's possible to push on nothing.
If the gas expands towards one direction, then a force exists, opposite to that expansion.
Well Duh! But Work will only be created when the gas eventually encounters resistance. Which may take a while as it is travelling through the infinite vacuum of space.
Force isn't Work, you know? You only said 'Remember Newton's Laws!' one sentence ago but seems you've already forgotten them.
What an arrogant gaylord!
To sum up: another pathetic space-tard attempt to sneak past the laws of physics so they can hazz spayzze-shippz.
*Yawn!*
Here's an interesting question.
When stationary fuel within a rocket's fuel tank is suddenly accelerated to a hypersonic velocity out of the rocket system, has any momentum been applied to this previously stationary fuel mass?
If your answer is no, then that will imply that no 'work' what so ever has been done on the stationary fuel mass. But then you will have to explain by what means the previously stationary fuel was accelerated to a hypersonic velocity out of the rocket system.
It just doesn't make much sense though, how an X amount of stationary fuel, can be converted into a hypersonic X amount of burnt fuel, without a huge amount of 'work' been done in the process.
-
Here's an interesting question.
Wrong.
As always.
Now here IS an interesting question: Did the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg Lay your Head?
-
Here's an interesting question.
Wrong.
As always.
Now here IS an interesting question: Did the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg Lay your Head?
You say that my post is 'wrong'?
So you're saying that the previously stationary X amount of fuel mass, has NOT had any 'work' imparted onto it by the rocket system, to convert it to an X amount of burnt fuel mass with a hypersonic velocity?
Are you really saying that no 'work' has been done whatsoever within the rocket system, to convert this previously stationary fuel mass into a hypersonic burnt fuel mass?
I would have thought that a huge amount of 'work' (momentum) has been created here, but what you're effectively saying is, that the previously stationary fuel mass, has
NO momentum whatsoever, despite now travelling at hypersonic velocity and still possessing the same mass?
-
You say that my post is 'wrong'?
No, dyslexia-face; I said that it was not an interesting question.
I didn't read any of your post after that; nobody intelligent reads your psychotic spam.
Was it something to do with telescopes & conspiracies?
Meh; you'll doubtless send me an unwelcome & abusive PM on the subject eventually; but as I'll delete that without reading it what will you do then?
Come to my house & shout through the letterbox?
-
You say that my post is 'wrong'?
No, dyslexia-face; I said that it was not an interesting question.
I didn't read any of your post after that; nobody intelligent reads your psychotic spam.
Was it something to do with telescopes & conspiracies?
Meh; you'll doubtless send me an unwelcome & abusive PM on the subject eventually; but as I'll delete that without reading it what will you do then?
Come to my house & shout through the letterbox?
Your house?
Don't you mean the institution for mentally ill, where you reside at?
-
LOL!!!
Cool story, bro...
While we wait for chtwrone's shitposting to cease, or an unwelcome & abusive PM from him to appear in our inbox, let us laugh again at mainframe's complete self-destruction.
Doubtless he'll slink back here soon enough, trying to pretend it all never happened...
But we all know it did, don't we, readers?
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Mainframes also pretends to have a masters in Chem. Eng. & has been repeatedly boasting that he knows more about ALL physics - especially Newton's Laws - than I.
Does anyone believe him after this?
-
You say that my post is 'wrong'?
So you're saying that the previously stationary X amount of fuel mass, has NOT had any 'work' imparted onto it by the rocket system, to convert it to an X amount of burnt fuel mass with a hypersonic velocity?
Are you really saying that no 'work' has been done whatsoever within the rocket system, to convert this previously stationary fuel mass into a hypersonic burnt fuel mass?
I would have thought that a huge amount of 'work' (momentum) has been created here, but what you're effectively saying is, that the previously stationary fuel mass, has
NO momentum whatsoever, despite now travelling at hypersonic velocity and still possessing the same mass?
So you don't think the above post was interesting?
I would say that the questions I have asked are VERY interesting, especially with regards to the proposition of yours that when the stationary fuel inside a rocket's fuel tanks is suddenly accelerated to hypersonic velocities, that NO momentum is created within the rocket system as a result?
This view of yours defies basic physics, but apparently my post questioning this impossibility is NOT interesting?
I can assure you, EVERYBODY viewing/posting on this thread, will find your explanation VERY interesting.
-
So you don't think the above post was interesting?
Nope.
& nobody cares what you think.
THIS is interesting though:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Mainframes also pretends to have a masters in Chem. Eng. & has been repeatedly boasting that he knows more about ALL physics - especially Newton's Laws - than I.
Does anyone believe him after this?
This, too, is interesting:
Seems master_b8r wants to spam his 'hydraulic motor in spayzze' analogy; so I'll just spam my refutation too.
Fair, no?
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit.
No; let's not.
Let's not 'imagine' anything; let's deal with Facts.
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is in essence a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
It must be noted this result would occur regardless of a person's opinion on the shape of the Earth; yet master_b8r tries to conflate a belief in FE with the Scientific Fact that rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum.
Such an abysmal failure to think logically suggests he is not to be taken seriously by any intelligent reader.
Perhaps if he invents some Imaginary Qualifications the more gullible will heed his tales of Imaginary Hydraulic Motors in Space?
But it didn't work for mainframes so I doubt it'll work for him...
In Summation: LOL!!!
Your question, however, is not.
Toodle-pip!
-
So you don't think the above post was interesting?
Nope.
& nobody cares what you think.
THIS is interesting though:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Mainframes also pretends to have a masters in Chem. Eng. & has been repeatedly boasting that he knows more about ALL physics - especially Newton's Laws - than I.
Does anyone believe him after this?
This, too, is interesting:
Seems master_b8r wants to spam his 'hydraulic motor in spayzze' analogy; so I'll just spam my refutation too.
Fair, no?
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit.
No; let's not.
Let's not 'imagine' anything; let's deal with Facts.
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is in essence a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
It must be noted this result would occur regardless of a person's opinion on the shape of the Earth; yet master_b8r tries to conflate a belief in FE with the Scientific Fact that rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum.
Such an abysmal failure to think logically suggests he is not to be taken seriously by any intelligent reader.
Perhaps if he invents some Imaginary Qualifications the more gullible will heed his tales of Imaginary Hydraulic Motors in Space?
But it didn't work for mainframes so I doubt it'll work for him...
In Summation: LOL!!!
Your question, however, is not.
Toodle-pip!
Ok fine, if you want to call a 'force' a 'push' then let's run with that for the meantime.
Let's look at person on a skateboard who throws a medicine ball.
Would you agree that in effect, when a person on a skateboard 'pushes' on a medicine ball, that the required equal and opposite 'push' is that of the medicine ball back onto the person?
In other words, the medicine ball 'pushes' back on the person?
Correct?
-
Let's look at person on a skateboard who throws a medicine ball.
Nope; again, let's not.
Wrong thread, retard.
Instead, let's look at this:
Legba is winning by a landslide. :)
As usual, hoppy calls it right...
Perhaps you could send HIM an abusive & unwelcome PM on the subject, too?
That is, if you already haven't...
Summary: staying LOL!!! with chances of WTF?
-
Let's look at person on a skateboard who throws a medicine ball.
Nope; again, let's not.
Wrong thread, retard.
Instead, let's look at this:
Legba is winning by a landslide. :)
As usual, hoppy calls it right...
Perhaps you could send HIM an abusive & unwelcome PM on the subject, too?
That is, if you already haven't...
Summary: staying LOL!!! with chances of WTF?
The previous question has been reposted on the skateboard thread.
-
Ok fine, if you want to call a 'force' a 'push' then let's run with that for the meantime.
If[b']I'[/b]want to call a force a push?
'I' got that definition from www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com), which was either the 1st or 2nd google-hit I got on the subject.
So stop pretending I'm inventing these terms myself, psycho.
But if you want to be absolutely precise on what a Newtonian Force is, why not go to the man himself?
Newton described a 'pull' as a 'draw' & a 'push' as a 'press'.
So; in the interests of strict accuracy, from now on we will refer to a Newtonian Force in terms of 'pressing', or Pressure.
Okay?
-
But if you want to be absolutely precise on what a Newtonian Force is, why not go to the man himself?
Newton described a 'pull' as a 'draw' & a 'push' as a 'press'.
And he described a force as a mass being accelerated. In casual discussion, whether a push or pull caused the acceleration is only important when resolving the vector component of the force.
So; in the interests of strict accuracy, from now on we will refer to a Newtonian Force in terms of 'pressing', or Pressure.
Okay?
Why limit a force to being a push when it could just as easily be a pull?
-
Yes, Newton's second law is F=ma, King of Nothing...
Shame NASA haven't learned that yet; they claim it's F=mv.
Quick! Someone tell em before they try to build a rokkit to teh munn or something!
& 'vector component'?
LOL!!!
'In casual discussion' nobody cares what you think, King of Nowhere.
Anyhoo; Newton himself used the word 'press' to describe how a Force acts upon an object.
www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) uses the word 'push'.
My point is, I am not the inventor of these terms, as lying Prince of Nowhere chtwrone lyingly implies.
So he can go suck a big one...
One as big as the fat, fake & fruity Saturn V he's so phallus-worshippingly obsessed with, in fact.
Summary: Meh! with occasional spells of LOL!!!
-
Ok fine, if you want to call a 'force' a 'push' then let's run with that for the meantime.
If[b']I'[/b]want to call a force a push?
'I' got that definition from www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com), which was either the 1st or 2nd google-hit I got on the subject.
So stop pretending I'm inventing these terms myself, psycho.
But if you want to be absolutely precise on what a Newtonian Force is, why not go to the man himself?
Newton described a 'pull' as a 'draw' & a 'push' as a 'press'.
So; in the interests of strict accuracy, from now on we will refer to a Newtonian Force in terms of 'pressing', or Pressure.
Okay?
Okay, no problem.
So if we look at some systems where a 'push' is involved, would it be fair to say that when a man sitting on a skateboard, pushes (throws) a medicine ball, imparting momentum 1 onto it, then for the momentum equation to be balanced back to zero, the medicine ball must push back on the man imparting momentum -1 onto the man?
momentum of man + momentum of ball = 0
Do you agree with all of the above, or have I got it wrong somewhere?
-
Wrong thread, retard...
Again.
Oh, you're quite the genius ain't you?
-
Wrong thread, retard...
Again.
Oh, you're quite the genius ain't you?
You strike me as being a rather angry person with a huge chip on their shoulder. In fact, I even imagine that you often curse at your computer screen, sometimes out of frustration, but usually due to a complete lack of self-control.
Have your career aspirations not really taken off to your satisfaction?
Perhaps you have a very poor relationship with your bos and you absolutely hate your job?
Maybe your financial situation is rather pathetic after some VERY poor investment decisions?
How about your personal relationships? I imagine most of those have gone south in a hurry, which wouldn't be surprising if you talk to people face to face as you do here on this messageboard.
You really need to get a grip pal, as your shitty life ain't going to get any better if you carry on the way you are here.
You really do have my sympathies, as I would not wish your hopeless situation onto any body.
The first step is to recognise and admit to the profound issues/problems you have, and from that point on, you can deal with those issues in a specific and beneficial manner.
First off, you can drop your pathetically trite put-downs towards those that have contrary views to yours - this should be rather easy, as it just requires a bit of self-censorship prior to clicking 'post'.
-
First off, you can drop your pathetically trite put-downs towards those that have contrary views to yours -
Sorry, Sigmund Fraud, but I just couldn't comprehend the above post without some ENORMOUS PHOTOS OF FAKE SPAYZZE-ROKKITZ & GIANT RED TEXT IN ALL CAPS & BOLD to help illustrate your point...
Perhaps you could further enlighten me, & any other member who has the cheek to disbelieve your pompous & ignorant guff, by the medium of Abusive & Unwelcome PM?
*Yawn!*
Now, you wrote this:
Ok fine, if you want to call a 'force' a 'push' then let's run with that for the meantime.
I pointed out that www.thephysicsclassroom (http://www.thephysicsclassroom) defined a Newtonian Force as a 'push', whilst Newton himself described it as a 'press'.
So why you would want to try & imply that it was ME who somehow invented these definitions is somewhat of a mystery...
The only reasons I can think are that you are either abysmally ignorant of Newton's laws, or are a dissembling Liar, or Both.
Your 'round earther' (lol!) crony Mainframes has been proven to be all the above already; I suggest you are from the same mould.
Now; explain again how, when a rocket creates an Action, it also somehow creates a Reaction against that Action, thus 'pushing on itself' (lol!) all the way to 'spayzze', where it gives the law of Free Expansion in a Vacuum a good violating before 'pushing itself' (lol!) ever onwards, to teh munn, Maarz, Joopiytah, Plooto, Mickey, Goofy & probably Donald bloody Duck eventually...
Yeah, sooper-spayzze-tard, abusive PM sender & crappy amateur psychologist chtwrone; run us through all that!
Using the correct Newtonian definitions, please; you know - the ones I just provided that you didn't even know a couple of days ago?
Summary: stable at LOL!!! with STFU increasing & U SUCK!!! later.
-
Anyhoo; despite the seeming determination of chtwrone & all the M-people to turn every single thread on this site into a debate about people on skateboards, I'd still like some response to this:
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to roughly match the alleged 'orbit' of the laughably implausible ISS & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA-huggers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
Anyone care to logically refute my hypothesis?
In fact, has anyone here actually clearly seen the ISS themselves through their 'telescopes' (lol)?
I look forward to mocking your asinine & robotic wiki-spam answers...
Thank You!
-
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to roughly match the alleged 'orbit' of the laughably implausible ISS & voila; fake space station.
It's obvious that you have never seen a pass of the ISS because if you had, then you would note that it moves across the sky much faster than any high altitude airplane (except for maybe the SR-71).
-
it moves across the sky much faster than any high altitude airplane (except for maybe the SR-71).
Unless you know the exact altitude & velocity of that light in the sky then you cannot claim that.
& you don't so you can't.
Or do you own a high-tech Radar set?
Being King Shitposter markjo, I wouldn't be surprised if you claim you do...
Also, the SR-71 is a 50 year old design; do you not think something substantially faster may not be available now?
Using Drone tech, perhaps?
Or are you so naive as think the military tells us all their latest technology the moment it's operational?
Summary: FAIL with breezy LOL!!! & possibilities of O RLY? to follow.
-
it moves across the sky much faster than any high altitude airplane (except for maybe the SR-71).
Unless you know the exact altitude & velocity of that light in the sky then you cannot claim that.
I've seen enough airliners flying at altitude to know how slowly they crawl across the sky. The ISS passes that I saw traveled much faster than that.
& you don't so you can't.
Neither can you, but that doesn't seem to stop you.
Also, the SR-71 is a 50 year old design; do you not think something substantially faster may not be available now?
Sonic booms are a telltale sign of such aircraft.
Using Drone tech, perhaps?
Or a space station, maybe?
Or are you so naive as think the military tells us all their latest technology the moment it's operational?
Or are you such a conspiracy theorist that you believe more in technology that the military doesn't announce than the technology that NASA does announce?
Summary: FAIL with breezy LOL!!! & possibilities of O RLY? to follow.
Says the one who refuses to even try to watch an ISS pass for fear that he may actually see something that he can't otherwise explain away.
-
I've seen enough airliners flying at altitude to know how slowly they crawl across the sky. The ISS passes that I saw traveled much faster than that.
Yeah, right; cos airliners are the fastest aircraft ever designed, there's nothing faster even possible ever ever ever so there & markjo is crowned shitpost King of Nowhere again...
LONNG LIVFE TEH KINNG!!!1!11
Summary: severe GTFO followed by storm-force O Rly? & heavy STFU.
-
I've seen enough airliners flying at altitude to know how slowly they crawl across the sky. The ISS passes that I saw traveled much faster than that.
Yeah, right; cos airliners are the fastest aircraft ever designed, there's nothing faster even possible ever ever ever so there & markjo is crowned shitpost King of Nowhere again...
Airliners travel at high subsonic speeds. If they were to travel at supersonic speeds, then they would create sonic booms which are very difficult to hide.
-
If they were to travel at supersonic speeds, then they would create sonic booms which are very difficult to hide.
Well, the sonic boom from the SR-71 was barely audible at ground level when it was cruising at mach 3.5 & 85,000 feet, so your latest shitpost will just have to go straight onto the compost heap where it belongs...
There's 28,000 others there already; your rose-bushes'll turn out nice this year!
Like I said; what about far smaller drones using tech that's 50 years in advance of the SR-71?
Faster, Higher, smaller sonic boom...
Pimp one up with a spotlight & hey presto!
Fake ISS.
But no; that'd be way too hard to do!
It's FAR more likely that the ISS is in fact a series of tubes, lit up like a magnesium flare, flying 250 impossible-to-see miles up where it's both VERY HOT & VERY COLD depending on who's lying to you, somehow falling for ever yet never crashing, in violation of all physics, full of poofy actors in fright-wigs who never get sick, all playing flutes & guitars & doing no science ever, going months without bathing or having sex, never being struck by meteors, never filming eclipses or doing anything worthwhile, just spinning round & pointlessly round & costing a mere $18 billion a year...
Oh yeah; it'd be a fucking BARGAIN at twice the price - put me down for a dozen!
Summary: LOL-icane warning issued!
-
Like I said; what about far smaller drones using tech that's 50 years in advance of the SR-71?
Faster, Higher, smaller sonic boom...
What happened to the ER-2?
One minute it's a big, slow 60 year old plane that everyone knows about, the next it's an alleged super secret, super fast spy drone.
Who's flip-flopping now?
-
One minute it's a big, slow 60 year old plane that everyone knows about, the next it's an alleged super secret, super fast spy drone.
Well, King Wrong, do you remember saying this?
it moves across the sky much faster than any high altitude airplane (except for maybe the SR-71).
So, I pointed out that the SR-71 was a 50 year old design & newer ones are very likely available, then pointed out that sticking a spotlight on such an airplane would be much easier than building a space station.
That's called REASONING, King Pong; you know, the thing that you lied about being interested in last night?
Anyway, as you clearly have no way of determining the exact altitude & velocity of the tiny light in the sky that, against all REASON, you claim to be a space-station full of mincing children's entertainers doing no science or personal hygiene, then it could still be an ER-2 for all we know...
In fact it could be pretty much any fairly fast, high-flying aircraft; for example the F-15 has a max speed of mach 2.5 at high altitude & a ceiling of 65,000 feet.
& have NASA owned any F-15's?
Yep; they had one for 'research purposes' from 1993-2009.
What's more they've had many other similar planes: F-18's, F-16's, etc...
But whatever; I'll be interested in your REASONABLE response; I'm absolutely confident it won't involve basically saying NO U!!! lots & avoiding every issue at hand, before arriving at a smug & irrelevant little bitch-slap of a conclusion...
You know; like this one?
Who's flip-flopping now?
Yeah; no REASON for me to believe you'd do that, is there?
Summary: settled at MEH.. with sporadic LOLS increasing to NOBODY CARES.
-
I find it rather interesting (a possibly a bit hypocritical) that you have so many possible explanations for something that you refuse to take a look at for yourself.
-
And the bitch-slapping continues...
GAYLORD CONFIRMED!
I find it rather interesting (a possibly a bit hypocritical) that you have so many possible explanations for something that you refuse to take a look at for yourself.
I find it quite extraordinarily UN-interesting (& possibly a bit NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY) that you are so dumb you believe a tiny light in the sky is a knotted LOL-tube shpaaaaaayzzhe-shtaaaaaaaaaaayshunnn full of useless prancing unwashed homosexuals spinning impossibly round & round the Heavens in clear violation of all Physics & Engineering principles...
But I don't feel the need to make prissy snot-nose shitposts about it all the goddamn time.
I mean; will me going & looking at this tiny light in the sky somehow alter the Laws of Physics?
Will the mere sight of this blob of light Strike me Down with some kind of Religious Epiphany, so I just KNOW IN MY HEART that it TRULY IS a cylinder full of poofters doing jack-shit?
Or will it just WASTE MY TIME?
Enough of that though; answer me this: Who does the ironing on the ISS?
On every video I see, the Poofter-nauts are wearing freshly-pressed shirts & slacks.
Every single video...
So: Who Irons Them?
& who developed the 'spayyzze-iron'?
& the 'shpayzze ironing board'?
McDonnel Douglas, perhaps?
At a cost of $$$twelvety-million a pop, I imagine...
-
I find it extremely odd how, on another thread, markjo somehow researched & posted every single resource on the web regarding the subject of rocket engine Injector Plates within only 30 minutes (lol! They were all useless too!)...
Yet here, on the seemingly far simpler subject of 'space-ironing', he has remained strangely silent.
I wonder why?
The fact remains, however, that in every video I have seen from the lol-tastically fake ISS, the Poofter-nauts all have freshly-pressed shits & pants...
Nice, sharp creases all round!
So, I ask again: who does the ironing on the ISS?
& who developed the 'space-iron' & 'space-ironing board'?
Can we mere mortals buy one?
If so, at what cost?
I await your answers keenly, spayze-tards & Raown Derfers...
For the lulz will flow like wine...
Summary: settled at O RLY? with increasing LOL!!! to follow, chances of GTFO later.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html)
-
Hiya, Twelve-Steps!
DRUNKARD DETECTED!
Your link mentions NOTHING about spayze-ironing.
Yet, in EVERY video, we see the poofter-nauts on the ISS wearing freshly-pressed pants & shirts with knife-sharp creases...
How is this achieved?
WHERE is the 'spayze-iron'?
WHERE is the 'spayze-ironing board'?
DO please tell us, spayze-tards; preferably in your own words, rather than by just shit-bombing us with irrelevant & uninformative NASA.guff links...
-
Hiya, Twelve-Steps!
Your link mentions NOTHING about spayze-ironing.
Yet, in EVERY video, we see the poofter-nauts on the ISS wearing freshly-pressed pants & shirts with knife-sharp creases...
How is this achieved?
WHERE is the 'spayze-iron'?
WHERE is the 'spayze-ironing board'?
DO please tell us, spayze-tards; preferably in your own words, rather than by just shit-bombing us with irrelevant & uninformative NASA.guff links...
If you are really interested why don't you contact NASA.
-
If you are really interested why don't you contact NASA.
& why don't you learn to punctuate your hurried shitposts correctly, Forrest Gump?
Markjo found EVERY SINGLE RESOURCE ON THE WEB relating to the fake injector plates of fake 'spayzze-rokkits' within only 30 minutes earlier.
(which was all completely useless btw: lol!).
So it is clear that you shpayze-nerds are hellacious Researchers & endless fact-buckets when it comes to anything shpaaaaayzzze-related.
Yet you cannot find one single reference to the 'spayze-ironing' that is clearly being undertaken by the precious cargo of homosexuals on the spinning & whirling LOL-tube that is the ISS.
Why?
Is it a Military Secret?
Do they have Ironing Boards of Mass Destruction stashed away up there, waiting for the call to unleash a Hell on Earth of Clothes-Pressing-based Immolation on the cowering population below?
Have I stumbled onto something BIG here?
Oh noez, heer cumz teh Menn inn Blakk too tekk mi ahWaay!
Summary: mild STFU rising to U SUCK! with storm-force LMFAO!!! to follow.
-
I find it extremely odd how, on another thread, markjo somehow researched & posted every single resource on the web regarding the subject of rocket engine Injector Plates within only 30 minutes (lol! They were all useless too!)...
Yet here, on the seemingly far simpler subject of 'space-ironing', he has remained strangely silent.
I wonder why?
Because permanent press clothing has nothing to do with rockets.
But if you insist:
They don't do laundry in space. They have fresh clothes sent up as part of the resupply missions.
-
They don't do laundry in space. They have fresh clothes sent up as part of the resupply missions.
Funny that; cos this kinda suggests that they DO, in a dumb & LOL!!! way; they just don't do 'shpayze-ironing'...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html)
And are you really trying to tell me that they send enough clothes up there for them to change into new ones EVERY time they are filmed?
It's a shpaaayze-shtayshunn full of the world's most highly qualified mincers, prancers & poofters ffs; not a branch of Gap!
There's flutes, guitars, clunky 1990s laptops & non-existent science-experiments needed up there, man - nice sharp creases should be the last thing on NASA's minds!
There is CLEARLY clothes-pressing going on in the ISS; CLEARLY I say!!!
And I DEMAND that we are told how it is achieved!
-
They don't do laundry in space. They have fresh clothes sent up as part of the resupply missions.
Funny that; cos this kinda suggests that they DO, in a dumb & LOL!!! way; they just don't do 'shpayze-ironing'...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/livinginspace/Astronaut_Laundry.html)
Did you even read the article in that link?
While the Space Station does offer more amenities than did earlier spacecraft, such as the best free gym off the planet, one of the many things it still does not have is a way to wash clothes.
-
Did you even read the article in that link?
Yeah.
It says summat about one of the poofternauts sticking his undies in a bag full of water & washing em that way.
Which, as well as being very LOL!!! is also 'laundry'.
So, as ever, you Fail but good, King Wrong...
& what about this:
Because permanent press clothing has nothing to do with rockets.
So they wear the most 'staying-prest' Sta-Prests ever known to man? 'Shpayze' Stay-Prests, perhaps, developed by Boeing at a cost of $$$eleventy-squillion a pair?
THAT'S your best answer?
SHITPOST DETECTED. REMAIN CALM & DO NOT TOUCH THE SHITPOST!
And why do you then say that it has nothing to do with rockets? Well Duh!
Do you want every single thread on this site to be about rockets, Mr. 'I-can't-believe-he-doesn't-work-for-NASA' King of Nowhere markjo?
Are there not enough already?
Fact is that there is CLEARLY 'shpayze-ironing' occurring on the LOL-apalooza flying sewer-pipe full of fruity am-dram rejects that is known as the ISS.
And we will only move on once I have got to the bottom of this deeply improbable, perplexing & oh-so lulzy matter.
Okay, Control-Freak?
Summary: settled at SO WHAT? with spots of LOL!!! and GTFO.
-
Fact is that there is CLEARLY 'shpayze-ironing' occurring on the LOL-apalooza flying sewer-pipe full of fruity am-dram rejects that is known as the ISS.
And we will only move on once I have got to the bottom of this deeply improbable, perplexing & oh-so lulzy matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
-
Hiya Twelve Steps!
SOBRIETY VIOLATED! ALERT SPONSOR IMMEDIATELY!
Watchoo talking about, 'strawman'?
We're discussing the massively fake & gay ISS here, not the Wizard of Oz...
Though they're both Fantasy creations, so it's a better comparison than with, say, Science, Logic or Reality.
Anyhoo; unless you can enlighten us on how the poofternaut's shirts & pants remain freshly-pressed at all times then I suggest your 'strawman' is in fact a strawman...
Oooh, hang on - I see what you did there!
Summary: strong GTFO with persistent LMFAO!!! & occasional NO U!!!
-
Go and check the ISS for yourself. I have done and thousands have also.
Put up or shut up.
-
Go and check the ISS for yourself.
Put up or shut up.
Tell you what, Mr. Fibs; I'll check the ISS if you admit that you do not understand the Newtonian definition of Force & are lying about your science degree.
In case you missed it, here is the original post where you messed up:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
We got a deal, Walt?
Put up or shut up, Liar-in-chief!
-
I don't have a science degree I have an engineering masters degree. I have told where to find it. Now go on, there's a good lad.
-
Nobody cares, Walter Mitty; you will be judged by your words here alone, & your words here have conclusively proven that you do not understand basic physics...
Live with it, Mr. Unwarranted Self-Importance.
Now; does anyone have details of the space-ironing that is clearly taking place aboard the fake-as-a-nine-dollar-bill ISS?
Or shall we just begin yet another shitpost war to avoid discussing the matter?
-
Nobody cares, Walter Mitty; you will be judged by your words here alone, & your words here have conclusively proven that you do not understand basic physics...
Live with it, Mr. Unwarranted Self-Importance.
Now; does anyone have details of the space-ironing that is clearly taking place aboard the fake-as-a-nine-dollar-bill ISS?
Or shall we just begin yet another shitpost war to avoid discussing the matter?
Ironic given you have shown your inability to understand the term free expansion, how pressure gradients exist dependant upon environmental conditions.
You seem to think that I don't know what a force is but you betray yourself by thinking that all forces require contact.
-
Whatever, Walter Mitty; you can't even find the correct thread to post on, so just give it up...
Now; do you have any information regarding how it is possible that, on every video we see from the fake ISS, the poofternauts are always wearing box-fresh clothing with knife-sharp creases?
I suggest it is because there is 'space-ironing' occurring; yet I can find no evidence whatsoever of this remarkable advancement in the History & Science of Household-chores...
What are NASA trying to hide from us?
Any thoughts?
On-topic ones, that is...
-
Checking out the astronauts? Sorry, I don't think any are gay.
-
Checking out the astronauts? Sorry, I don't think any are gay.
Must be a big disappointment to you...
The accuracy of your 'Gaydar' aside, do you have any opinion of or information on space-ironing?
You know; the topic at hand?
Wouldn't want us to think you were just a shitposting Troll, would you?
So; Space-Ironing - the final frontier!
Who can unravel the strange mystery of the knife-sharp creases on the poofternauts pants..?
-
Whatever, Walter Mitty; you can't even find the correct thread to post on, so just give it up...
Now; do you have any information regarding how it is possible that, on every video we see from the fake ISS, the poofternauts are always wearing box-fresh clothing with knife-sharp creases?
I suggest it is because there is 'space-ironing' occurring; yet I can find no evidence whatsoever of this remarkable advancement in the History & Science of Household-chores...
What are NASA trying to hide from us?
Any thoughts?
On-topic ones, that is...
You only EVER mention NASA as the 'evil and corrupt' organisation connected with space flight, but why do you COMPLETELY ignore the MANY other space agencies around the world?
Are they not just as 'evil and corrupt'?
The fact that you ONLY ever mention NASA in your lame posts, is testament to your irrational and ignorant view-point.
NOT THAT ANYBODY REALLY CARES WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, LOL.
BUT IT'S FUN GETTING THE LAME RESPONSES EACH TIME SOMEONE ELSE MAKES A POST, AS THEN WE CAN SEE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, HOW LAME YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, LOL.
YOU REALLY ARE THE BIGGEST NOBODY ON THESE THREADS, LOL.
IRRELEVANT ON THESE THREADS, AND NO DOUBT IRRELEVANT IN SOCIETY AS WELL, LOL.
YOU HAVE ACTUALLY NO WORTHWHILE PURPOSE ON THIS EARTH - WHY DO YOU EVEN EXIST?
AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE, I DONATE BLOOD EVERY 3 MONTHS.
WHAT DO YOU DO AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE?
YEAH, WHAT A SURPRISE - NOTHING, LOL.
-
chtwrone: you appear to be in a right state. It might be best for you to take a bit of time off to recover or you might crack up.
Just accept you were owned and are wrong and you can move on.
-
chtwrone: you appear to be in a right state. It might be best for you to take a bit of time off to recover or you might crack up.
Just accept you were owned and are wrong and you can move on.
'Owned' in what way?
So you don't think that Object B is the fuel/propellent in a rocket system?
Oh, please don't tell us that you actually think a rocket's exhaust is pushing on the atmosphere?
If this is actually what you think, then obviously you're COMPLETELY dismissing the HUGE momentum force being created when the mass of the fuel/propellent is being forcibly ejected at hypersonic velocity out of the rocket system?
You might have to explain how this huge amount of mass travelling at a hypersonic velocity has created no momentum force?
Good luck explaining this - we await your reply.
-
we await your reply.
And I await you learning to post on the correct thread.
You know; the one you created especially for this very topic?
Until then, could you provide any information on the subject of 'space-ironing'?
Because NASA can't...
Which isn't in the least suspicious, of course!
-
Ooh - looky what I found!
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
-
lol
you can't even explain simple ideas.
lol
-
you can't even explain simple ideas.
No; you can't understand simple ideas.
Learn the difference... Oh, wait - you can't!
Nice shitpost, though; now back to this:
Ooh - looky what I found!
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
-
lol
Live_ISS_Stream on USTREAM: Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times... (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream#)
lol
-
Wtf is THIS supposed to be?
Live_ISS_Stream on USTREAM: Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times... (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream#)
I just got a black screen; can they not point the camera at the Earth or something?
Or maybe show us this magical clothes-pressing they're indulging in?
What a mighty heap of FAIL!
-
lol
Learn what night is.
lol
Here
http://www.isstracker.com/ (http://www.isstracker.com/)
lol
night time
lol
-
Well, if there's nothing to see outside then why not cut to inside?
Or, with the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NASA HAVE, buy an infra-red camera?
Or any number of methods that must be available for not showing us a completely black screen?
GTFO, psycho!
Now if you're done with your time-wasting, back to this:
Ooh - looky what I found!
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
-
They don't show inside. The project was to install HD camera's outside. Watch NASA TV to see inside footage.
The ISS is coming into the daytime now.
-
They don't show inside.
Oh; I wonder why?
Idiot.
Now, back to this:
Ooh - looky what I found!
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
-
Another high quality rebuttal.
-
You ran away from this thread when all you had to do was scroll down in the link and see that they do apparently show inside the ISS now.
Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times. The video is accompanied by audio of conversations between the crew and Mission Control. This video is only available when the space station is in contact with the ground. During "loss of signal" periods, viewers will see a blue screen. Since the station orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes, it experiences a sunrise or a sunset about every 45 minutes. When the station is in darkness, external camera video may appear black, but can sometimes provide spectacular views of lightning or city lights below.
-
they do apparently show inside the ISS now.
Remember this, retard?
They don't show inside.
What a jackass.
Now, back to this:
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
-
I have a good way to explain how rockets work that even a FE should understand. It will take a few posts, as I want FE's to answer a few questions so that I know they follow with the explanation.
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit. For simplicity, let's say that 1cm of the motor has the same mass as 1cm of the piston (so when it extends 2 cm, the motor goes out by 1cm and the piston goes out by 1cm from the center of mass). So as we extend the piston, it goes out equal distances on either side of it.
You with me so far?
(I have Papa Legba ignored, so if he answers in any meaningful way, feel free to quote him for me)
So I take it as FE's are afraid of being proven wrong with this then?
-
You ran away
He is on time out. Don't confuse the terms.
-
they do apparently show inside the ISS now.
Remember this, retard?
They don't show inside.
What a jackass.
Thank you for learning what a correction is, you pass the first grade. It would be someone of a new feature.
Now, back to this:
YOU CAN SEE THE ISS IN DETAIL FROM THE SKY.
I've done it. And no, NASA does not project some image into the sky of the ISS 24/7 365 days a year.
One of you Raown Derfers HAS seen the ISS; not just as a blob of light but IN DETAIL!
FROM THE SKY! (wait what?)
Ooh; I wonder if Misero's telescopic device was long & strong & Maginificatorily diddly-dong powerful enough to make out any clothes-pressing activity?
I am SO EXCITED at the possibilities here!
PLEASE don't keep us waiting, Misero; your audience awaits...
I'll get me popcorn.
We are all waiting for you to make a proper rebuttal to anything.
-
I have a good way to explain how rockets work that even a FE should understand. It will take a few posts, as I want FE's to answer a few questions so that I know they follow with the explanation.
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit. For simplicity, let's say that 1cm of the motor has the same mass as 1cm of the piston (so when it extends 2 cm, the motor goes out by 1cm and the piston goes out by 1cm from the center of mass). So as we extend the piston, it goes out equal distances on either side of it.
You with me so far?
(I have Papa Legba ignored, so if he answers in any meaningful way, feel free to quote him for me)
So I take it as FE's are afraid of being proven wrong with this then?
Stop pretending your stupid analogy hasn't already been kicked to the kerb for the time-wasting, utterly barm-pot nonsense it is, Walter Mitty...
Look, I did it weeks ago:
Imagine we have a hydraulic motor in space, in orbit.
No; let's not.
Let's not 'imagine' anything; let's deal with Facts.
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is in essence a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
It must be noted this result would occur regardless of a person's opinion on the shape of the Earth; yet master_b8r tries to conflate a belief in FE with the Scientific Fact that rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum.
Such an abysmal failure to think logically suggests he is not to be taken seriously by any intelligent reader.
Perhaps if he invents some Imaginary Qualifications the more gullible will heed his tales of Imaginary Hydraulic Motors in Space?
But it didn't work for mainframes so I doubt it'll work for him...
In Summation: LOL!!!
As for sock-arul; get lost, psycho.
& whoever it is that's been sending me yet more insolent & unwelcome PMs in my absence; you can get lost too, wannabe psycho.
What the hell is wrong with all you raown derfers?
Anyhoo; we're going to take a long hard look at the construction of, & alleged temperatures within, spayzze-rokkit combustion chambers next, as well as investigating how De Laval nozzles actually function...
So get studying, assorted psychos!
Until then: Carry On Lying!
-
Pressurised gas pushes on the tank and the tank pushes on the gas. Newtons third.
MEng in Biochemical Engineering. Bath University. 2002.
Did you pass key stage 3?
-
The Facts are that a rocket in 'space' is in essence a very small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
& we have a perfectly adequate set of physical laws for describing what will happen when the pressurised gas is introduced to that vacuum.
What will happen is the result known as Free Expansion.
The gas will do No Work & no motion can be produced.
You seem to be under the impression that no work can be done inside the pressurized tank before the gas crosses the threshold into the vacuum. This is simply not true. As the gas crosses the threshold, the pressure and temperature inside the tank change and mass is accelerated. That sounds an awful lot like work to me.
Because you cannot push on nothing.
True, but a pressurized gas can push against a rocket engine and the rocket engine can push back with an equal and opposite force.
Anyhoo; we're going to take a long hard look at the construction of, & alleged temperatures within, spayzze-rokkit combustion chambers next, as well as investigating how De Laval nozzles actually function...
This should be interesting.
-
Ah! The markjo/mainframes rockem-sockem shitposting duo, Lying like Trojans again...
Some things never change round here!
Before we go on, let us remind our selves exactly how much Walter 'mainframes' Mitty really knows about Newton's 3rd:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
Quite...
Of course, neutrals are free to believe that such a buffoon has an Imaginary Qualification in... what was it again?
Cramponical Mountaineering from the University of Krakatoa East of Java?
But I refuse to; he is simply another anonymous nobody with serious delusions of grandeur making a pest of himself on the internet.
As for markjo; read this, dear neutrals, & decide if it was written by Lewis Carrol, Edward Lear, or someone just plain retarded:
Because you cannot push on nothing.
True, but a pressurized gas can push against a rocket engine and the rocket engine can push back with an equal and opposite force.
Very sad... The concept of back-pressure seems to be completely beyond this poor fellow!
But, of course, it is not beyond us, is it, neutrals; & we shall see how vital it is to the functioning of a De Laval nozzle soon enough...
But first, let us ease the tragically handicapped Raown Derfers gently into the subjects at hand with a little light googling; would any of you care to find out the typical operating temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch for us?
& the melting temperature of stainless steel, if you please?
I already know the answers btw; so no cheating!
We shall reconvene when the links & numbers are spammed; for spamming links & numbers is all you are good for...
So be good little Derfers; off you run!
Until then, have a nice LOL-ipop to suck on.
-
Ah! The markjo/mainframes rockem-sockem shitposting duo, Lying like Trojans again...
Some things never change round here!
Before we go on, let us remind our selves exactly how much Walter 'mainframes' Mitty really knows about Newton's 3rd:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
Quite...
Of course, neutrals are free to believe that such a buffoon has an Imaginary Qualification in... what was it again?
Cramponical Mountaineering from the University of Krakatoa East of Java?
But I refuse to; he is simply another anonymous nobody with serious delusions of grandeur making a pest of himself on the internet.
As for markjo; read this, dear neutrals, & decide if it was written by Lewis Carrol, Edward Lear, or someone just plain retarded:
Because you cannot push on nothing.
True, but a pressurized gas can push against a rocket engine and the rocket engine can push back with an equal and opposite force.
Very sad... The concept of back-pressure seems to be completely beyond this poor fellow!
But, of course, it is not beyond us, is it, neutrals; & we shall see how vital it is to the functioning of a De Laval nozzle soon enough...
But first, let us ease the tragically handicapped Raown Derfers gently into the subjects at hand with a little light googling; would any of you care to find out the typical operating temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch for us?
& the melting temperature of stainless steel, if you please?
I already know the answers btw; so no cheating!
We shall reconvene when the links & numbers are spammed; for spamming links & numbers is all you are good for...
So be good little Derfers; off you run!
Until then, have a nice LOL-ipop to suck on.
A force being a push or pull on an object is not the same as requiring something to push off of. Magnets push or pull objects but they do not touch that object and therefore do push off anything. The problem here is terminology.
Either way, a rocket pushes on its exhaust gas which forces it out of the rocket. The gas pushes back at the same time propelling the rocket. Simple.
-
As for markjo; read this, dear neutrals, & decide if it was written by Lewis Carrol, Edward Lear, or someone just plain retarded:
Because you cannot push on nothing.
True, but a pressurized gas can push against a rocket engine and the rocket engine can push back with an equal and opposite force.
Very sad... The concept of back-pressure seems to be completely beyond this poor fellow!
But, of course, it is not beyond us, is it, neutrals; & we shall see how vital it is to the functioning of a De Laval nozzle soon enough...
Of course back pressure is important. Why do you think that SpaceX has different versions of its Merlin engine for atmospheric and vacuum use?
On March 10, 2009 a SpaceX press release announced successful testing of the Merlin Vacuum engine. A variant of the 1C engine, Merlin Vacuum features a larger exhaust section and a significantly larger expansion nozzle to maximize the engine's efficiency in the vacuum of space. Its combustion chamber is regeneratively cooled, while the 2.7 metres (9 ft)-long[23] niobium alloy[5] expansion nozzle is radiatively cooled.
But first, let us ease the tragically handicapped Raown Derfers gently into the subjects at hand with a little light googling; would any of you care to find out the typical operating temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch for us?
& the melting temperature of stainless steel, if you please?
If you're hinting at why rocket engines don't melt, it's quite simply because the rocket scientists have several tricks up their sleeve to keep that from happening, such as regenerative cooling:
Regenerative cooling, in the context of rocket engine design, is a configuration in which some or all of the propellant is passed through tubes, channels or in a jacket around the combustion chamber or nozzle to cool the engine. This is effective because the fuel (and sometimes the oxidizer) are good coolants.
By the way, doe this mean that you finally accept that work can be done in a rocket engine before the exhaust hits the vacuum of space?
-
By the way, doe this mean that you finally accept that work can be done in a rocket engine before the exhaust hits the vacuum of space?
You really do need to stop channelling Lewis Carroll, old bean, as well as learn how to spell a simple word like 'does'; it makes you look more than a little odd.
Does the vacuum of space somehow sense that it's at the entrance of the rocket nozzle in your funny little Wonderland World & say 'No; I'd best not go in there; that would be rude'?
& even if the rocket did work, what Reaction could it produce from creating an Action against the very definition of Nothing At All?
Really; you could stop all this self-humiliation by simply learning how to apply Newton's laws of Motion correctly & boning up on Joules Expansion & Pressure Gradient Forces somewhat.
But of course you won't; after all, that is not your purpose here, is it?
As for 'regenerative cooling'; as applied by NASA's 'rokkit-enjynneerz' it is a ridiculous concept, as we will see once you have spammed the numbers I requested: the temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutter's flame & melting temperature of stainless steel please!
Off you pop & get them now; Run, Forrest, Run - don't get stuck down a Rabbit-Hole on the way!
-
What's ridiculous about regenerative cooling?
Using supercooled propellant and oxidiser to cool the rocket nozzle, which also helps heat those two components making them more efficient in combustion. Sounds like good engineering to me.
-
And what does the burning temperature of acetylene have to do with anything?
Trying to prove that the rocket engine will melt?
Well imagine this. The burning temperature of petrol will cause an engine to melt. That is why we use circulating oil and water circuits to cool the engine so it doesn't melt. Just like they do in rocket engines.
You really are pathetically scraping the barrel papa.
-
*Yawn!*
I'm not letting you forget you wrote this, Walter Mitty...
Never gonna happen.
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
But you've served your purpose, i.e. pushing me onto post 19 so you can start a new page afresh with some kind of bogus lying sockpuppet shitpost...
Go ahead, psychonaut; every net-savvy neutral will know exactly what you're doing & be disgusted by it.
& of course you didn't provide the numbers I asked for either; they'll notice that too...
But yeah; I'm the one scraping the barrel.
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Now; carry on Lying.
-
As the Raown Derfers refuse to play (I wonder why?), here are some numbers; you do the sums...
Burn-time of J2 Apollo engine: 8 minutes.
Temp. of combustion chamber in J2 Apollo engine: 3500C.
Temp. of oxy-acetylene cutter torch: 3500C.
Melting point of stainless steel: 1600C max.
Metal the J2 combustion chamber is made of: stainless steel.
Thickness of stainless steel in J2 combustion chamber: 0.03 millimetres. That's right: one third of a millimetre.
Temp. of liquid hydrogen: -253C.
Temp. of liquid oxygen: -193C.
Do the math; laugh the laugh.
Suggested experiment to test possibility of 'regenerative cooling' functioning as claimed: take oxy-acetylene cutter & apply to the cylinder of LOX it comes with for 8 minutes.
Observe results.
If alive afterwards - shpaaaaaayzzze-eckspurayshunnn!!!!!
Christ Almighty, what idiots you all are.
-
Anyhoo; despite the seeming determination of chtwrone & all the M-people to turn every single thread on this site into a debate about people on skateboards, I'd still like some response to this:
I suggest that the blob of light in the sky that space-tards claim is the lol-tastic & impossible ISS could in fact be an ER-2 high altitude jet fitted out with suitably high-powered LEDs.
All it has to do is fly lower & slower in order to roughly match the alleged 'orbit' of the laughably implausible ISS & voila; fake space station.
After all, the few remaining NASA-huggers are so retarded they'd believe anything...
Anyone care to logically refute my hypothesis?
In fact, has anyone here actually clearly seen the ISS themselves through their 'telescopes' (lol)?
I look forward to mocking your asinine & robotic wiki-spam answers...
Thank You!
“ER-2 Aircraft Capabilities
The ER-2 is a versatile aircraft well suited to perform multiple
mission tasks. The ER-2 operates at altitudes from 20,000 feet to 70,000 feet, which is above 99 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Depending on aircraft weight, the ER-2 reaches an initial cruise altitude of 65,000 feet within 20 minutes. Typical cruise speed is 410 knots. The range for a normal eight-hour mission is 3,000 nautical miles yielding seven hours of data collection at altitude. The aircraft is capable of longer missions in excess of 10 hours and ranges in excess of 6,000 nautical miles. The ER-2 can carry a maximum payload of 2,600 pounds (1,179 kilograms) distributed in the equipment bay, nose area and wing pods.The aircraft has four large pressurized experiment compartments and a high capacity AC/DC electrical system, permitting it to carry a variety of payloads on a single mission. The modular design of the aircraft permits rapid installation or removal of payloads to meet changing mission requirements”
excerpt from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/171831main_FS-046-DFRC.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/171831main_FS-046-DFRC.pdf)
As capable this craft is, it is not capable of mimicking flight time of the ISS. The ISS circumnavigate the globe every 90 minutes, you say slower, it is not slower but considerably faster that you have to go, in order to mimic the ISS, let alone it’s size.
Not happening.
-
By the way, doe this mean that you finally accept that work can be done in a rocket engine before the exhaust hits the vacuum of space?
You really do need to stop channelling Lewis Carroll, old bean, as well as learn how to spell a simple word like 'does'; it makes you look more than a little odd.
Does the vacuum of space somehow sense that it's at the entrance of the rocket nozzle in your funny little Wonderland World & say 'No; I'd best not go in there; that would be rude'?
Wow. Were you born this big of an ass or did you have to work at it?
A vacuum is simply the absence of a fluid in a given space (in this case, the combustion chamber of a rocket engine). As soon as you start introducing a fluid into that space (in this case, burning fuel and oxidizer), then you no longer have a vacuum.
& even if the rocket did work, what Reaction could it produce from creating an Action against the very definition of Nothing At All?
For the umpteenth time, the gasses are creating a reaction with the walls of the rocket engine, not the vacuum.
Really; you could stop all this self-humiliation by simply learning how to apply Newton's laws of Motion correctly & boning up on Joules Expansion & Pressure Gradient Forces somewhat.
And you should ask your rocket scientist buddies to explain why you keep misunderstanding those principles. If you won't believe me, then maybe you'll believe them.
As for 'regenerative cooling'; as applied by NASA's 'rokkit-enjynneerz' it is a ridiculous concept, as we will see once you have spammed the numbers I requested: the temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutter's flame & melting temperature of stainless steel please!
Perhaps you should research the principles behind regenerative cooling before you dismiss them out of hand, or do you honestly think that you're asking questions that weren't already answered 50 years ago?
-
As the Raown Derfers refuse to play (I wonder why?), here are some numbers; you do the sums...
Burn-time of J2 Apollo engine: 8 minutes.
Temp. of combustion chamber in J2 Apollo engine: 3500C.
Temp. of oxy-acetylene cutter torch: 3500C.
Melting point of stainless steel: 1600C max.
Metal the J2 combustion chamber is made of: stainless steel.
Thickness of stainless steel in J2 combustion chamber: 0.03 millimetres. That's right: one third of a millimetre.
Temp. of liquid hydrogen: -253C.
Temp. of liquid oxygen: -193C.
Do the math; laugh the laugh.
Why don't you get all of the relevant fact first?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/499245main_J2_Engine_fs.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/499245main_J2_Engine_fs.pdf)
-
Thickness of stainless steel in J2 combustion chamber: 0.03 millimetres. That's right: one third of a millimetre.
Temp. of liquid hydrogen: -253C.
Temp. of liquid oxygen: -193C.
Do the math; laugh the laugh.
While you are splitting your sides, a couple of little points:
1) "Thickness of stainless steel in J2 combustion chamber: 0.03 millimetres.". Sure might be just a typo, but we know how fussy you are about detail! That is 0.3 millimetres, not 0.03 millimetres! Yes your one third of a millimetre is correct.
2) Why so thin? To get rapid heat transfer to the 285 kg/sec LOX + LH2 flowing over the outside.
Yes, I know in the early (and not so early) stages numerous rocket motors did fail dramatically because of just that problem.
-
As the Raown Derfers refuse to play (I wonder why?), here are some numbers; you do the sums...
Burn-time of J2 Apollo engine: 8 minutes.
Temp. of combustion chamber in J2 Apollo engine: 3500C.
Temp. of oxy-acetylene cutter torch: 3500C.
Melting point of stainless steel: 1600C max.
Metal the J2 combustion chamber is made of: stainless steel.
Thickness of stainless steel in J2 combustion chamber: 0.03 millimetres. That's right: one third of a millimetre.
Temp. of liquid hydrogen: -253C.
Temp. of liquid oxygen: -193C.
Do the math; laugh the laugh.
Suggested experiment to test possibility of 'regenerative cooling' functioning as claimed: take oxy-acetylene cutter & apply to the cylinder of LOX it comes with for 8 minutes.
Observe results.
If alive afterwards - shpaaaaaayzzze-eckspurayshunnn!!!!!
Christ Almighty, what idiots you all are.
If you actually read whichever article you quoted the J2 thickness from then actually it is constructed from 0.3mm thickness tubes not plate. Each of those tubes has supercooled liquid passing through it. All we need to do now is work out the heat exchange that occurs in the tubes.
The ignited gas will not have as much heat capacity as the supercooled liquid and therefore a large amount of the heat generated in combustion will be transfered to the liquid leaving the tubes intact.
It is just a heat exchanger unit. Want me to provide design calculations for you to check the maths?
-
What would be the reason for regenerative cooling not to work? Surelly Papa Legba understands the difference from a pressurized canister, and tons of gas being pumped out.
-
If you actually read whichever article you quoted the J2 thickness from then actually it is constructed from 0.3m thickness tubes not plate.
LULZ!!!
Walter 'Mainframes' Mitty brings the comedy gold again!
33 centimeter thick stainless steel tubes - LMFAO!!!
& how do you know what article I read anyhow?
Are you psychic now, as well as psychotic?
No; the article I read clearly said the tube walls were 0.3 millimetres thick, which is about right for lightweight steel tubing.
& if any of you Raown Derfers seriously think for one single second that steel tubing that thin could withstand the equivalent temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch being played on it for 8 minutes solid, whilst only being cooled down internally by 250C at most, you are insane.
3500C minus 250C = 3250C.
ALL stainless steel melts at 1600C max.
3250C minus 1600C = 1650C.
So; that's 1650C you still need to dispose of... Care to explain how?
Of course, I'd just prefer you try the experiment I suggested; make sure you video it & leave instructions to someone who can post your fiery & explosive death on youtube mind...
We'll all enjoy that!
Toodle-pip, Losers; see you soon...
Until then; Carry On Lying!
-
If you actually read whichever article you quoted the J2 thickness from then actually it is constructed from 0.3m thickness tubes not plate.
LULZ!!!
Walter 'Mainframes' Mitty brings the comedy gold again!
33 centimeter thick stainless steel tubes - LMFAO!!!
& how do you know what article I read anyhow?
Are you psychic now, as well as psychotic?
No; the article I read clearly said the tube walls were 0.3 millimetres thick, which is about right for lightweight steel tubing.
& if any of you Raown Derfers seriously think for one single second that steel tubing that thin could withstand the equivalent temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch being played on it for 8 minutes solid, whilst only being cooled down internally by 250C at most, you are insane.
3500C minus 250C = 3250C.
ALL stainless steel melts at 1600C max.
3250C minus 1600C = 1650C.
So; that's 1650C you still need to dispose of... Care to explain how?
Of course, I'd just prefer you try the experiment I suggested; make sure you video it & leave instructions to someone who can post your fiery & explosive death on youtube mind...
We'll all enjoy that!
Toodle-pip, Losers; see you soon...
Until then; Carry On Lying!
Firstly I beg your forgiveness for my typo as I meant to type mm not m for the thickness. I was trying to highlight the fact they were tubes.
Secondly, it is not the temperature difference that is important but the heat capacity. The ignited exhaust might be very hot but it is also gaseous/vapour at this point and therefore actually has a low heat capacity compared to the cryogenic coolants which are liquid. What you need to find out is the flow rate of heat i.e. energy into the tubes and how much is carried away. I think you'll find that the cooling is quite adequate.
You do know how to find heat capacity of substances and calculate the heat transfer don't you?
-
The ignited exhaust might be very hot but it is also gaseous/vapour at this point and therefore actually has a low heat capacity compared to the cryogenic coolants which are liquid.
So the exhaust is exactly like the flame of an oxy-acetylene cutter & the coolants are exactly like the contents of a LOX cylinder.
Ergo, my experiment still stands.
So; off you toddle & get it done - remember to set the camera at a safe distance!
You Raown Derfers really don't have much practical experience of anything at all, do you?
-
The ignited exhaust might be very hot but it is also gaseous/vapour at this point and therefore actually has a low heat capacity compared to the cryogenic coolants which are liquid.
So the exhaust is exactly like the flame of an oxy-acetylene cutter & the coolants are exactly like the contents of a LOX cylinder.
Ergo, my experiment still stands.
So; off you toddle & get it done - remember to set the camera at a safe distance!
You Raown Derfers really don't have much practical experience of anything at all, do you?
The difference here is that the coolants used are being refreshed constantly from the main tanks and therefore heat exchange is constant. The nozzle is being actively cooled.
An acetylene cutting torch on a LOX tank will heat the tank until it fails as there is no cooling method.
Massive difference in situations. Your arguments are getting seriously weak. Where's the challenge....?
-
& if any of you Raown Derfers seriously think for one single second that steel tubing that thin could withstand the equivalent temperature of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch being played on it for 8 minutes solid, whilst only being cooled down internally by 250C at most, you are insane.
Why does your car's engine block not melt on long trips when it's only surrounded by a jacket of water/glycol mix? Surely the concept of a water cooled car engine is very similar to regenerative cooled rocket engine.
-
The ignited exhaust might be very hot but it is also gaseous/vapour at this point and therefore actually has a low heat capacity compared to the cryogenic coolants which are liquid.
So the exhaust is exactly like the flame of an oxy-acetylene cutter & the coolants are exactly like the contents of a LOX cylinder.
Ergo, my experiment still stands.
So; off you toddle & get it done - remember to set the camera at a safe distance!
You Raown Derfers really don't have much practical experience of anything at all, do you?
Have you ever boiled water in a paper cup?
-
The ignited exhaust might be very hot but it is also gaseous/vapour at this point and therefore actually has a low heat capacity compared to the cryogenic coolants which are liquid.
So the exhaust is exactly like the flame of an oxy-acetylene cutter & the coolants are exactly like the contents of a LOX cylinder.
Ergo, my experiment still stands.
So; off you toddle & get it done - remember to set the camera at a safe distance!
You Raown Derfers really don't have much practical experience of anything at all, do you?
Have you ever boiled water in a paper cup?
! No longer available (http://#)
-
Yay!
All three of the stooges are here - Larry, Curly & Moe!
All trying to tell me that a Three-and-a-half-THOUSAND degree celsius jet of flame can be played upon a steel tube as thin as a piece of paper for over 8 minutes with No Problems Whatsoever...
It'll work JUUUUST FINE.
LMFAO!!!
What's even funnier is the choice of coolant for your ridiculous 'regenerative cooling' concept: Hydrogen gas, one of the most volatile substances imaginable, mixed with Oxygen to make it even more dangerous...
Cos yeah; THAT'S a good idea!
Honestly; have any of you done any welding?
No - don't answer that!
You'll just Pretend you're the Emeritus Professor of Welding, Cutting, Brazing & Soldering at the University of Mydadsbiggerthanyourdad in Gobbledy-gookshire or something...
Jesus Christ, you're beyond redemption ain't you?
& sock-arul; boiling water in a paper cup?
Really?
ROFLMFAO!!!
Fantastic... Oh, deary me, let me dry my eyes...
Anyhoo; we'll move on to De Laval nozzles soon, when your next Three Stooges slapstick act is done.
Until then; Carry On Lying!
-
You didnt answer to my question, Papa. What exactly is that you dont believe about rocket regenerative cooling? That will help me pin down a demonstration or a couple papers on the subject.
-
Yay!
All three of the stooges are here - Larry, Curly & Moe!
All trying to tell me that a Three-and-a-half-THOUSAND degree celsius jet of flame can be played upon a steel tube as thin as a piece of paper for over 8 minutes with No Problems Whatsoever...
It'll work JUUUUST FINE.
LMFAO!!!
What's even funnier is the choice of coolant for your ridiculous 'regenerative cooling' concept: Hydrogen gas, one of the most volatile substances imaginable, mixed with Oxygen to make it even more dangerous...
Cos yeah; THAT'S a good idea!
Honestly; have any of you done any welding?
No - don't answer that!
You'll just Pretend you're the Emeritus Professor of Welding, Cutting, Brazing & Soldering at the University of Mydadsbiggerthanyourdad in Gobbledy-gookshire or something...
Jesus Christ, you're beyond redemption ain't you?
& sock-arul; boiling water in a paper cup?
Really?
ROFLMFAO!!!
Fantastic... Oh, deary me, let me dry my eyes...
Anyhoo; we'll move on to De Laval nozzles soon, when your next Three Stooges slapstick act is done.
Until then; Carry On Lying!
The liquid oxygen and hydrogen are not mixed. They are in separate pipes.
And you clearly don't understand what the video showing paper cup being heated is showing you. Once you understand heat transfer and heat capacity then come back and discuss the temperature of the J2 nozzle.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
-
You didnt answer to my question, Papa.
That'd be because I didn't READ your question.
& that'd be because I ignore people who try to tell me that a steel tube as thin as a sheet of paper can withstand 3500C heat for 8 minutes.
& that'd be because people who try to tell me such things are idiots & time-wasters.
& that'd be YOU.
Next!
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
BEST!
SHITPOST!
EVAAAAAAARRR!!!!!!
I swear, I'm showing this one to my welder mates; they'll piss themselves...
Thank you, Raown Derfers; you have truly made my day!
-
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
-
Looks like heat capacity, conduction and most other thermodynamics are beyond you then then.
-
What's even funnier is the choice of coolant for your ridiculous 'regenerative cooling' concept: Hydrogen gas, one of the most volatile substances imaginable, mixed with Oxygen to make it even more dangerous...
Do you have a reading disability? First of all, it's liquid hydrogen (one of the coldest liquids imaginable), not hydrogen gas. Secondly, the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen aren't mixed until they get sprayed into the combustion chamber.
Honestly; have any of you done any welding?
I have some hands on experience soldering household pipes. What have you done?
You'll just Pretend you're the Emeritus Professor of Welding, Cutting, Brazing & Soldering at the University of Mydadsbiggerthanyourdad in Gobbledy-gookshire or something...
Nope, just some basic home handyman practical experience.
& sock-arul; boiling water in a paper cup?
Really?
Yes, really. Do you have reason to doubt the video that I linked? There's lots more on YouTube if you want to look.
Anyhoo; we'll move on to De Laval nozzles soon, when your next Three Stooges slapstick act is done.
Why, when you don't even understand basic heat transfer?
*edit* Oh look, I forced a brand new page. Something else for you to gripe about. ::)
-
So, then, we are to assume that the problem with regenerative cooling is just the numbers? (That is, you accept regenerative cooling as a thing, but dont accept its use in rocketry because of scale and magnitude)
-
So, then, we are to assume that the problem with regenerative cooling is just the numbers?
Nope.
You really do need to learn to read.
My problem with being told that a paper-thin steel tube filled with one of the most combustible substances in existence is capable of being blasted by a hypersonic jet of gases heated to 3,500C for over 8 minutes without it melting & exploding is that it is complete bullshit & physically impossible.
You can keep telling me that it isn't until you're blue in the face; I understand that you are all Liars & that Lying is your purpose here...
But it won't make it True.
Nothing will.
So; Carry On Lying!
-
So, then, we are to assume that the problem with regenerative cooling is just the numbers?
Nope.
You really do need to learn to read.
My problem with being told that a paper-thin steel tube filled with one of the most combustible substances in existence is capable of being blasted by a hypersonic jet of gases heated to 3,500C for over 8 minutes without it melting & exploding is that it is complete bullshit & physically impossible.
You can keep telling me that it isn't until you're blue in the face; I understand that you are all Liars & that Lying is your purpose here...
But it won't make it True.
Nothing will.
So; Carry On Lying!
The steel being paper thin is a good thing. It allows efficient heat transfer from the exhaust plume to the cryogenic fluid. The LOX and LH are heated slightly but they are not mixed at this point and it actually improves the combustion performance once they are added to the combustion chamber.
Perhaps you could demonstrate how much the fluids are heated and demonstrate your point...?
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
-
Jesus Christ are you still here, channelling Lewis Carroll?
Should we call an exorcist, Humpty Dumpty?
Here's a quote from Alice Through the Looking Glass:
Alice: 'One can't believe Impossible Things!'
Red Queen: 'I dare say you haven't had much practice. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six Impossible Things before breakfast.'
Toodle-pip, 21st-century schizoid markjo!
-
Are you gong to ever provide a proper rebuttal?
-
Well, if I were to 'provide a rebuttal' it might dignify your lying, shitposting & sock-puppetry with the status of a 'debate'.
So no, I won't.
Instead I will simply provide Information for the neutral reader to make of what they will, whilst simultaneously mocking your preposterous & deceitful responses.
If you don't like that, then stop responding; no-one will miss you, I guarantee it.
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
Stop bullshitting. Any plumber knows if you have a leak in copper pipe with water in it you put a cut with a hacksaw further down the line to relieve steam pressure then weld your leak, then turn around and weld your cut. You can not get rid of all of the water.
Why are you now talking about solder?
Have you not seen underwater welding on ships?
And Mainframes obviously does not know the difference between cutting with acetylene and welding.
Terrible shitposting by roundies.
Here look, Chinese in space- (http://)
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
Stop bullshitting. Any plumber knows if you have a leak in copper pipe with water in it you put a cut with a hacksaw further down the line to relieve steam pressure then weld your leak, then turn around and weld your cut. You can not get rid of all of the water.
Why are you now talking about solder?
Have you not seen underwater welding on ships?
And Mainframes obviously does not know the difference between cutting with acetylene and welding.
Terrible shitposting by roundies.
Here look, Chinese in space- (http://)
Any plumber will actually tell you that the pipe needs to be fully drained before it can be soldered. Also underwater welding is done using a type of electrode welding using flux in gas bubbles, not acetylene torches.
-
Why are you talking about soldering, Walter Mitty?
In fact, why are you talking at all about a subject it is abundantly clear you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
Or have you been to an Imaginary University, existing only in the privacy of your own tiny mind, since your last stinking dump of an ignorant shitpost, & attained an Imaginary Qualification in Underwater Welding?
I said you'd do this; lo & behold, you have not disappointed...
You are the most ridiculous & implausible troll-entity on this forum.
However, as you continually undermine your 'shpaayze-ecksplurayshun' cause by indulging in such clownish antics, all I can say is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
Stop bullshitting. Any plumber knows if you have a leak in copper pipe with water in it you put a cut with a hacksaw further down the line to relieve steam pressure then weld your leak, then turn around and weld your cut. You can not get rid of all of the water.
Thanks for agreeing that you can't solder a pipe that has water anywhere near where you want to solder.
Why are you now talking about solder?
Because using a torch flame to heat a pipe with water in it is similar to regenerativly cooling a rocket engine.
Have you not seen underwater welding on ships?
Irrelevant.
-
using a torch flame to heat a pipe with water in it is similar to regenerativly cooling a rocket engine.
LULZ!!!
Oh, dear, this just gets better & better...
Anyhoo; you derfers seem to like referring to something called an 'acetylene torch' or 'acetylene cutter' that is used for welding.
My friends & I are very interested in this item; would you please explain to us precisely how an 'acetylene cutter' is set up & operated?
Don't worry about going into too much detail for our poor, simple brains to cope with; just tell us all you know...
We'll try to keep up!
Oh; & please don't just post a link to a youtube or website; tell us in your own words, eh?
-
You don't understand acetylene fueled cutters?
-
using a torch flame to heat a pipe with water in it is similar to regenerativly cooling a rocket engine.
LULZ!!!
Oh, dear, this just gets better & better...
And your rebuttals get worse and worse.
Anyhoo; you derfers seem to like referring to something called an 'acetylene torch' or 'acetylene cutter' that is used for welding.
As I recall, you brought up acetylene torches, not us.
My friends & I are very interested in this item; would you please explain to us precisely how an 'acetylene cutter' is set up & operated?
If you don't understand them, then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Don't worry about going into too much detail for our poor, simple brains to cope with; just tell us all you know...
We'll try to keep up!
I doubt that. You seem to deliberately misrepresent just about everything else, so why should this be any different?
Oh; & please don't just post a link to a youtube or website; tell us in your own words, eh?
Why should we bother when all you do is call us liars anyways?
-
LULZ!!!
You can't do it, can you?
You have simply no idea whatsoever what you are talking about...
Raown Derfers - RETREAT!!!
RUN AWAY!!!
FLEE!!!
Damn; we were all really looking forward to finding out what an 'acetylene cutter' is...
Life is full of little disappointments, isn't it?
Perhaps I'll explain what OA cutting actually entails later; but for now I just wish to savour the sweet smell of defeated derfer-poop emanating from your shamefully soiled britches.
You're probably savouring it yourself, too, markjo; though for somewhat different reasons, I wager...
Toodle-pip, Losers; don't forget to change your pants!
-
An oxy/acetylene cutter isn't anything terribly special. It's pretty much just using a regular oxy/acetylene torch with an appropriate tip and adjusting the oxy/gas mix to make an intense, concentrated flame.
Now would you care to explain what that has to do with regenerative cooling in a rocket engine?
Or am I destined to be disappointed again?
Cutting torches focus the flame on a single spot. Rocket engines do not.
Your turn.
-
LULZ!!!
You can't do it, can you?
You have simply no idea whatsoever what you are talking about...
Raown Derfers - RETREAT!!!
RUN AWAY!!!
FLEE!!!
Damn; we were all really looking forward to finding out what an 'acetylene cutter' is...
Life is full of little disappointments, isn't it?
Perhaps I'll explain what OA cutting actually entails later; but for now I just wish to savour the sweet smell of defeated derfer-poop emanating from your shamefully soiled britches.
You're probably savouring it yourself, too, markjo; though for somewhat different reasons, I wager...
Toodle-pip, Losers; don't forget to change your pants!
An oxyacetylene cutter has three output pipes. One for acetylene mix, one for oxygen mix and one for oxygen injection.
The acetylene and oxygen mix valves are opened, ignited, and adjusted to gain correct mix and flame. This flame is used to heat the steel to red hot temperature. Once this is achieved the oxygen injection is activated to blast the metal with pure oxygen. This oxidises the heated metal and significantly reduces its melting point and enables a cut to be made. Acetylene cutting relies on this oxidisation process to allow cutting to take place.
The combustion chamber is constructed from Stainless Steel. The chromium component prevents the steel from oxidising and means that Acetylene torches are not appropriate for cutting Stainless Steel. The torch will just gradually heats the metal up until it hits its melting point. The combustion chamber is however a highly efficient heat exchange system being cooled by cryogenic liquid and therefore does not hit its melting point.
-
Oh no you don't, Humpty Dumptys; you were talking about 'acetylene torches' - look:
I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
So don't go trying to sneak the 'Oxygen' part back in with your copypasta wiki-spam after the fact, by now Definitively Proven Shitposting Liars.
Focusing the torch creates a tip with a temperature of 3,500C; exactly the same temp as in a 'spayze-rokkit' combustion chamber.
The tip also needs to be Oxygen-rich; a mix of about 6:1 LOX to Fuel.
& funnily enough, the mix the J2 engine uses is 5.5:1 LOX to Fuel... near enough identical again.
All of which is allegedly being blasted at hypersonic speed & enormous pressure against a steel tube, one third of a millimetre thick & filled with highly combustible pressurised gas, for 8 solid minutes.
Now; you can tell me that flimsy little tube would not melt like butter as long, loud & often as you like; but I am used to your brainwashing ways by now so will simply ignore you.
Because it is Physically Impossible; there is no 'cooling system' imaginable that could protect it from such extreme temperatures.
Of course, you will spam me for ever on this stupid subject if I allow you; so I will not.
Expect nothing but mockery & derision if you persist.
Oh; one last thing - you know the welder mates I had checking this thread earlier?
They thought YOU lot were the Flat Earthers, because your answers were so completely deluded & wrong...
And if that ain't worth a heart-felt ROFLMFAO!!! I don't know what is.
Toodle-pip, LOSERS.
-
Oh no you don't, Humpty Dumptys; you were talking about 'acetylene torches' - look:
I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
So don't go trying to sneak the 'Oxygen' part back in with your copypasta wiki-spam after the fact, by now Definitively Proven Shitposting Liars.
Focusing the torch creates a tip with a temperature of 3,500C; exactly the same temp as in a 'spayze-rokkit' combustion chamber.
The tip also needs to be Oxygen-rich; a mix of about 6:1 LOX to Fuel.
& funnily enough, the mix the J2 engine uses is 5.5:1 LOX to Fuel... near enough identical again.
All of which is allegedly being blasted at hypersonic speed & enormous pressure against a steel tube, one third of a millimetre thick & filled with highly combustible pressurised gas, for 8 solid minutes.
Now; you can tell me that flimsy little tube would not melt like butter as long, loud & often as you like; but I am used to your brainwashing ways by now so will simply ignore you.
*sigh* First of all, the rocket's thrust is not focused on the combustion chamber walls like a cutting torch.
Secondly, the coolant running through the tubes is a cryogenic liquid, not a gas. Please get your facts straight.
Thirdly, the gasses don't go supersonic until they pass through the throat. Being an expert on De Laval nozzles, you should know this.
Because it is Physically Impossible; there is no 'cooling system' imaginable that could protect it from such extreme temperatures.
Is that what your welder buddies told you?
Of course, you will spam me for ever on this stupid subject if I allow you; so I will not.
Expect nothing but mockery & derision if you persist.
Yes, because mockery and derision strengthens your position among neutrals. ::)
Oh; one last thing - you know the welder mates I had checking this thread earlier?
They thought YOU lot were the Flat Earthers, because your answers were so completely deluded & wrong...
Perhaps you should get one of your welder mates to sign up and educate us himself.
-
Yes, because mockery and derision strengthens your position among neutrals.
Indeed it does; the welder mates that you seem to think I should not be allowed to have were both pissing themselves at how I poked fun at the nonsense you were spouting.
While we're on this subject, could you please provide a comprehensive list of all the trades & tradesmen that I'm NOT allowed to be mates with, bizarro Fascist Thought-Policeman markjo?
Cos, you know, being in construction I have to know quite a lot of them?
Do please reply promptly; I know that you are the Mighty King of Nothing hereabouts & He Who Must be Obeyed, so am ever so desperate to alter my entire professional existence to suit your every psychotic & unstable whim...
LOL!!!
Jesus Christ, markjo; you are so f**ked in the head it's not even funny - this is why the welder mates you won't allow me to have thought YOU were the mental-as-owt 'flat earther'.
Seriously; think on what I just wrote, markjo; cos you are screwing the pooch big-time here...
Which, as ever, is very, very, VERY LOL!!! indeed.
-
Yes, because mockery and derision strengthens your position among neutrals.
Indeed it does; the welder mates that you seem to think I should not be allowed to have were both pissing themselves at how I poked fun at the nonsense you were spouting.
While we're on this subject, could you please provide a comprehensive list of all the trades & tradesmen that I'm NOT allowed to be mates with, bizarro Fascist Thought-Policeman markjo?
??? What are you talking about? When did I say anything even remotely like that? You can have all the tradesman buddies that you want, I couldn't possibly care any less. Then again, with your charming personality, I'd be surprised if you actually had any friends insider or outside of work.
However, if your welder buddies think that we're spouting nonsense, then I'd rather hear it from them than from you, seeing as you are hardly an impartial party.
-
Papa:
What is the heat transfer rate into the pipe from the combustion?
What is the heat transfer rate out of the pipe from the cryogenic fuel?
-
if your welder buddies think that we're spouting nonsense, then I'd rather hear it from them than from you
I already told you, Humpty Dumpty; they think you're a nutter.
They don't care what you think.
Because you talk like a nutter.
All of you raown derfers do; look at what mainframes wrote:
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Pure nutter-talk.
Why would a professional welder join a flat earth forum just to try & talk sense into nutters who write nutter-stuff like that?
Really; please try living in reality for just one - maybe two - minutes, King Shitposter markjo.
-
Do I need to post the "boiling water in a paper cup" video? What do your buddies say about it?
-
No; you need to STFU & GTFO.
Btw, & I just got a text from one of the welder mates markjo doesn't think I should be allowed to have...
He told me to point out this stinky nugget of Troll-poo:
Secondly, the coolant running through the tubes is a cryogenic liquid, not a gas.
Apprently, the LOX will only be liquid when under the extreme high pressure found within the fuel tank.
As soon as it is released from the high-pressure tank it will immediately revert to gaseous form.
So it will be in gaseous, not liquid, form when running through the steel tubes forming the combustion chamber.
There you go, markjo; seems that - regardless of what you think about the shape of the earth - to know you is to hate you.
He also told me to inform mainframes that he is a f**kwit.
I ain't arguing...
-
Are u and your fellow welders also aerospace engineer?
Cause Space Flight implies design problem that the majority of us wouldn't even think about and requires solution that have been developed in university and research center and took a huge amount of highly educated people and resources.
As an example I will suggest to look at friction stir welding(welding without actually melting the material), I think your friends would found it strange but it's being used in aerospace industry ;)
Bottom line, there all trolls and people who just say stupid stuff in this forum, but I could also be the occasion to inform ourselves in something we've considered strange or impossible
-
Bottom line, there all trolls and people who just say stupid stuff in this forum
Yes; & you're one of them, thus proving your own hypothesis...
Well done!
In case you've all forgotten, here is the crux of the 'debate':
Focusing an oxy-acetylene torch creates a tip with a temperature of 3,500C; exactly the same temp as in a 'spayze-rokkit' combustion chamber.
The tip also needs to be Oxygen-rich; a mix of about 6:1 LOX to Fuel.
& funnily enough, the mix the J2 engine uses is 5.5:1 LOX to Fuel... near enough identical again.
All of which is allegedly being blasted at hypersonic speed & enormous pressure against a steel tube, one third of a millimetre thick & filled with highly combustible pressurised gas, for 8 solid minutes.
Now; you can tell me that flimsy little tube would not melt like butter as long, loud & often as you like; but I am used to your brainwashing ways by now so will simply ignore you.
Because it is Physically Impossible; there is no 'cooling system' imaginable that could protect it from such extreme temperatures.
luckyfred's 'stir-fry' welding is thus utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand, as are his nebulous references to strange or impossible design solutions nobody has yet thought of...
This is Reality, unluckyfred, not the X-Files...
-
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Now we will go back to what Mainframes said before Markjo used his usual tactics trolled and then changed the subject to solder.
Yes you can cut metal with oxy that has the other end stuck in water.
-
Was just trying to point out the fact that construction workerks don't know almost anything about space flight, maybe u should inform a little bit more before saying something is impossible when actually it's real. Ok just hypotesis that space flights doesn't exist but rocket do leave the launch pad(or are u doubting even the existence of rocket in the first place?) then how it's possible that a very thin foil of steel withstand those temperatures even for a couple of seconds without some sort of cooling?
-
Shut up, unluckyfred; nobody cares.
Tappet, like every other welder who has seen this thread, is good & mad & rightly so...
Now face the music, Lying derfers.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Now we will go back to what Mainframes said before Markjo used his usual tactics trolled and then changed the subject to solder.
Yes you can cut metal with oxy that has the other end stuck in water.
-
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Now we will go back to what Mainframes said before Markjo used his usual tactics trolled and then changed the subject to solder.
Yes you can cut metal with oxy that has the other end stuck in water.
That was a bad example, maybe a better example could be "have u ever tried to cut a hole in the bottom of a thin pot full of water? U won't be able to do that untill the water has evaporated cause the interiore side of the pot we'll remain at about 100 degrees celsius still there's water and since metal are very weel thermal conductive material the exterior of the pot though it's been subjected to the torch won't be able to reach the melting point". In this case the thinner the better, less material means less difference of temperature between the inside and outside
-
using a torch flame to heat a pipe with water in it is similar to regenerativly cooling a rocket engine.
Oh; & please don't just post a link to a youtube or website; tell us in your own words, eh?
What is the problem with providing links to other sites with explanations?
Is it just you want to have an argument and score points? That's not how the real world works. Look for some links and tell us why they are wrong. There is no need for detailed explanations here.
-
Shut up, unluckyfred; nobody cares.
Tappet, like every other welder who has seen this thread, is good & mad & rightly so...
Now face the music, Lying derfers.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Now we will go back to what Mainframes said before Markjo used his usual tactics trolled and then changed the subject to solder.
Yes you can cut metal with oxy that has the other end stuck in water.
U haven't answeres my question which was inherent to u're claim against space flight
-
Are u and your fellow welders also aerospace engineer?
Cause Space Flight implies design problem that the majority of us wouldn't even think about and requires solution that have been developed in university and research center and took a huge amount of highly educated people and resources.
As an example I will suggest to look at friction stir welding(welding without actually melting the material), I think your friends would found it strange but it's being used in aerospace industry ;)
Bottom line, there all trolls and people who just say stupid stuff in this forum, but I could also be the occasion to inform ourselves in something we've considered strange or impossible
From Wikipedia:
The solid-state nature of FSW leads to several advantages over fusion welding methods as problems associated with cooling from the liquid phase are avoided. Issues such as porosity, solute redistribution, solidification cracking and liquation cracking do not arise during FSW. In general, FSW has been found to produce a low concentration of defects and is very tolerant of variations in parameters and materials.
Nevertheless, FSW is associated with a number of unique defects. Insufficient weld temperatures, due to low rotational speeds or high traverse speeds, for example, mean that the weld material is unable to accommodate the extensive deformation during welding. This may result in long, tunnel-like defects running along the weld which may occur on the surface or subsurface. Low temperatures may also limit the forging action of the tool and so reduce the continuity of the bond between the material from each side of the weld. The light contact between the material has given rise to the name "kissing-bond". This defect is particularly worrying since it is very difficult to detect using nondestructive methods such as X-ray or ultrasonic testing. If the pin is not long enough or the tool rises out of the plate then the interface at the bottom of the weld may not be disrupted and forged by the tool, resulting in a lack-of-penetration defect. This is essentially a notch in the material which can be a potential source of fatigue cracks.
No wonder it has failed to replace conventional welding methods. If you knew anything about welding, you'd know that NDT is essential to verify the weld is free from surface / subsurface defects.
-
Are u and your fellow welders also aerospace engineer?
Cause Space Flight implies design problem that the majority of us wouldn't even think about and requires solution that have been developed in university and research center and took a huge amount of highly educated people and resources.
As an example I will suggest to look at friction stir welding(welding without actually melting the material), I think your friends would found it strange but it's being used in aerospace industry ;)
Bottom line, there all trolls and people who just say stupid stuff in this forum, but I could also be the occasion to inform ourselves in something we've considered strange or impossible
From Wikipedia:
The solid-state nature of FSW leads to several advantages over fusion welding methods as problems associated with cooling from the liquid phase are avoided. Issues such as porosity, solute redistribution, solidification cracking and liquation cracking do not arise during FSW. In general, FSW has been found to produce a low concentration of defects and is very tolerant of variations in parameters and materials.
Nevertheless, FSW is associated with a number of unique defects. Insufficient weld temperatures, due to low rotational speeds or high traverse speeds, for example, mean that the weld material is unable to accommodate the extensive deformation during welding. This may result in long, tunnel-like defects running along the weld which may occur on the surface or subsurface. Low temperatures may also limit the forging action of the tool and so reduce the continuity of the bond between the material from each side of the weld. The light contact between the material has given rise to the name "kissing-bond". This defect is particularly worrying since it is very difficult to detect using nondestructive methods such as X-ray or ultrasonic testing. If the pin is not long enough or the tool rises out of the plate then the interface at the bottom of the weld may not be disrupted and forged by the tool, resulting in a lack-of-penetration defect. This is essentially a notch in the material which can be a potential source of fatigue cracks.
No wonder it has failed to replace conventional welding methods. If you knew anything about welding, you'd know that NDT is essential to verify the weld is free from surface / subsurface defects.
FSW it's not meant to replace conventional welding, it,s a method of welnding introduce in aerospace industry in which traditional welding techniques it's not well suited to join the alloy usually used in this industry. Traditional welding is still the best for steel but for particular titanium and alluminium alloy it's not always possible
-
if your welder buddies think that we're spouting nonsense, then I'd rather hear it from them than from you
I already told you, Humpty Dumpty; they think you're a nutter.They don't care what you think.
And we only have your word for that.
Because you talk like a nutter.
Yeah, you talk like a nutter too, so I guess that makes us even.
Why would a professional welder join a flat earth forum just to try & talk sense into nutters who write nutter-stuff like that?
I don't know. Why did you join?
-
Secondly, the coolant running through the tubes is a cryogenic liquid, not a gas.
Apprently, the LOX will only be liquid when under the extreme high pressure found within the fuel tank.
As soon as it is released from the high-pressure tank it will immediately revert to gaseous form.
Yup, LOX is only ever a liquid when under pressure.
! No longer available (http://#)
It seems like your welder buddy is an idiot too.
-
Papa - could you explain why exactly the LOX undergoes a large enough pressure drop to vaporise?
-
Mainframes: answer tappet's question, ignoramus.
Markjo: how does your unpressurised & cryogenically frozen LOX get out of the cylinder for use in welding?
Magic?
Tell you what - knock the valve off a cylinder of welders LOX & see whether a gas or a liquid comes out...
Hopefully it'll kill you, but in the event you survive here is the latest text from the 'idiot' welder you seem so obsessively determined to refuse to allow me to have as a mate:
'Paris 13/11 - NEVAR BAGUETTE!'
Oh; & if you think that your b.s. cryogenic LOX can survive being pumped through a paper-thin steel tube heated to 3500C without becoming a gas lickety-spit you're even more insane than everyone thinks you are.
Which is very insane indeed.
& we ain't even started on the hydrogen yet; most combustible gas around - perfect for cooling an engine!
It'll work juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Secondly, the coolant running through the tubes is a cryogenic liquid, not a gas.
Apprently, the LOX will only be liquid when under the extreme high pressure found within the fuel tank.
As soon as it is released from the high-pressure tank it will immediately revert to gaseous form.
Yup, LOX is only ever a liquid when under pressure.
! No longer available (http://#)
It seems like your welder buddy is an idiot too.
Beat me to it.
-
Markjo: how does your unpressurised & cryogenically frozen LOX get out of the cylinder for use in welding?
Who cares? The J2 rocket engine burns liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. How a oxy/hydrogen torch works is completely irrelevant.
As for how the cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen get from the pressurized tanks to the engine... Turbopumps.
Oh, look. You started a new page. All of your arguments are invalid.
-
Markjo: how does your unpressurised & cryogenically frozen LOX get out of the cylinder for use in welding?
\
Welding gases aren't usually in cryogenic state. You need an insulated dewar for that. Regular gas cylinders just contain the gas phase and are also much higher pressure than dewars. An oxygen cylinder could be 3,000 psi or more whereas a dewar would have a safety vent valve at more like 350 psi. Liquid dewars come in handy because they hold so much more than a gas cylinder since the element is stored as a liquid. Dewars do need some pressure to move the liquid out if you wanted it. They have a pressure building valve you an turn and they will then slowly pressurize to the set pressure.
Little trivia, liquid helium dewars vent off so much they don't even have a way to close them tightly.
-
You finished your little shitpost rampage?
Feeling pretty pleased with the sheer amount of manure you spread all over everything?
Good.
Now; back to the matter at hand.
Focusing an oxy-acetylene torch creates a tip with a temperature of 3,500C; exactly the same temp as in a 'spayze-rokkit' combustion chamber.
The tip also needs to be Oxygen-rich; a mix of about 6:1 LOX to Fuel.
& funnily enough, the mix the J2 engine uses is 5.5:1 LOX to Fuel... near enough identical again.
All of which is allegedly being blasted at hypersonic speed & enormous pressure against a steel tube with a melting point of 1600C max, one third of a millimetre thick & filled with highly combustible pressurised gas, for 8 solid minutes.
Now; you can tell me that flimsy little tube would not melt like butter as long, loud & often as you like; but I am used to your brainwashing ways by now so will simply ignore you.
Because it is Physically Impossible; there is no 'cooling system' imaginable that could protect it from such extreme temperatures.
Okay?
Unlike all of you Raown Derfer desk-jockeys & wiki-spammers, I have actually used an OA cutter; I know what that kind of gas mix at those kind of temperatures does to metals & it is not pretty.
Feel free to spam some more youtubes of water-filled cups, bowls of LOX & anything you like; it will not change a thing...
So; Carry On Lying!
-
I have actually used an OA cutter; I know what that kind of gas mix at those kind of temperatures does to metals & it is not pretty.
So, why doesn't the torch head melt? As you said, the flame gets to 3500 degrees. Brass, the main metal used in the head, melts below 2000 degrees. How would the torch head survive the 3500 degree flame? According to your logic, the torch head should melt fairly quickly. And as you just stated, you have seen what the flame does to metals.
-
LOL!!!
The Derfers must be getting desperate if they gotta rope an old nag like you in ain't they?
If the combustion of the gases was occurring within the torch head then it would be problematic.
But it is not.
Unlike a shpayze-rokkit combustion chamber, where it most decidedly is.
What's more, the internal pressure is enormous, & it is being forced through the nozzle throat at supersonic velocity.
Of course, a mere One Third of a millimetre of steel tubing can easily withstand all this colossal heat & pressure...
Why?
Because it is Shpayze-Shteeel Toobinng, made by Rokkit Scintistses & is orl shpeshal & stuf!
-
LOL
What a fwaderfer!!!
Torch burns 3500 brass melts 2000
Torch melted in hand
Derpderderp
LOL
-
Focusing an oxy-acetylene torch creates a tip with a temperature of 3,500C; exactly the same temp as in a 'spayze-rokkit' combustion chamber.
The tip also needs to be Oxygen-rich; a mix of about 6:1 LOX to Fuel.
& funnily enough, the mix the J2 engine uses is 5.5:1 LOX to Fuel... near enough identical again.
All of which is allegedly being blasted at hypersonic speed & enormous pressure against a steel tube with a melting point of 1600C max, one third of a millimetre thick & filled with highly combustible pressurised gas, for 8 solid minutes.
Now; you can tell me that flimsy little tube would not melt like butter as long, loud & often as you like; but I am used to your brainwashing ways by now so will simply ignore you.
Because it is Physically Impossible; there is no 'cooling system' imaginable that could protect it from such extreme temperatures.
Okay?
So, not only are you saying that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum, now you're saying that rocket engines can't even work in the atmosphere? What about all of those test videos showing the rocket engines not melting?
-
Firstly when the LOX tanks are opened the system as a whole is still under pressure so there is no reason why the oxygen would vaporise.
Secondly to find out if the stainless steel melts you need to calculate the net amount of energy that the stainless steel absorbs. This means the amount added by the combusting fuel and oxidiser in the combustion chamber and the amount taken away by the cryogenic coolant. To calculate this (even approximately) you need mass flow rates, heat capacities inlet temperatures, heat transfer coefficient and an idea of the Reynolds numbers of the two fluids. Given you are so confident that the chamber will melt presumably you can provide these figures easily....?
Thirdly whilst LOX is highly reactive, it must be in the presence of a reactant and at a sufficient temperature to undergo a reaction. What temperature does the LOX reach when it exits the cooling circuit.
Fourth the ratios you quote aren't some magic number it is simply the mass ratio of oxygen to hydrogen to get the correct reaction stoichiometry so that the reaction is as efficient as possible ie 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O . Twice as many hydrogen atoms but oxygen weighs about 16 times more.
-
What a fwaderfer!!!
Yeah; knew you'd be too dumb to get it.
Too dumb to know I'm not a flat earther too, as well as too dumb to think up your own insults...
So, not only are you saying that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum, now you're saying that rocket engines can't even work in the atmosphere? What about all of those test videos showing the rocket engines not melting?
God, you're dumb too...
I am saying that the figures we are quoted for 'shpayze-rokkit enjinnz' are all bullshit; the temps, the speeds, the thrust, the burn-time - everything.
And your beloved 'test videos' are of crappy pimped-up flamethrowers that look impressive but are in fact useless.
Fake engines; Fake data; Fake footage; Fake Rokkitz, ALL Fake, right the way back to the gimcrack German V2 that started this whole woeful business off...
Military. Propaganda.
Speaking of which, don't you claim to be ex-military, markjo?
LOL!!!
Secondly to find out if the stainless steel melts you need to calculate the net amount of energy that the stainless steel absorbs.
What a mighty shitpost from you; been beavering away at the wiki in an attempt to convince us you really ARE a pwoper scientist, have we?
But no; to find out if a paper-thin steel tube will melt when blasted by 3500C gas I don't need to calculate a damn thing.
I just need to rely on my own experience.
Have fun with your mathematical masturbation & verbal diahrrea though; maybe some sucker'll fall for it?
'Stoichiometry' - LOL!!!
Here's a tip; if you really want to stink the place out try just filling a post with Navier-Stokes equations...
Easily copy-pasta'd from wiki & no-one will know.
Toodle-pip, dingbats!
-
yep, u're just ignoring hundreds of liters per second of fluid at -200° c on the other side of the wall.
just out of curiosity, where did u find the figure of 0.3mm? i'm not saying that, without a proper cooling system, the thickness will make difference, but i'm really curious about the desing of the nozzle but could find anything satisfactory on the internet.
-
yep, u're just ignoring hundreds of liters per second of fluid at -200° c on the other side of the wall.
just out of curiosity, where did u find the figure of 0.3mm? i'm not saying that, without a proper cooling system, the thickness will make difference, but i'm really curious about the desing of the nozzle but could find anything satisfactory on the internet.
To be fair the figure of 0.3mm is correct. It is the wall thickness of the tubing used to construct the combustion chamber.
-
'Stoichiometry' - LOL!!!
Aw. Did the nasty man use a big word that you didn't understand....?
That's what happens when you go to University and learn how things work instead of being an uneducated cretin like yourself.
-
yeah yeah, not doubting that, i just want a reference cause i wanna know how the chamber is desing. the colling pipes are of that thickness but the rest of the nozzle? i know the principle but i'm iterested about the detailed desing
-
If you are interested in the F-1 rocket engine nozzle construction ...
(http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-thrust-chamber/inspecting-fuel-manifold-sm.jpg)
Here we see the tubes open, before "the other end" was placed to close the circulation.
It consists of 178 primary tubes and 356 secondary tubes, for a total length of over 3000 feet - not all, but about 70% of the total fuel was first directed through these tubes to cool the thrust chamber and nozzle.
Here we see a close look at the primary tubes splitting into the secondary ones.
(http://heroicrelics.org/ussrc/896x600/dsc59894.jpg)
The special X-750 tubing high-nickel, stainless steel alloy allowed for thinner walls and thereby greater inner diameter of the tubes (outside diameter of the secondary tubes was 1 inch).
Much more detail and many more pictures are found here ... http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-thrust-chamber.html (http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-thrust-chamber.html)
Here is a 112 page public NASA document about Liquid rocket engine nozzles (including the F-1 one) ... http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009165.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009165.pdf)
And a 35 page document from 1965 about the material (X-750) and generally the flow and temperature properties of that F-1 nozzle ... http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/UAHDC/Furnbrazf1thrucham_082007094528.pdf (http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/UAHDC/Furnbrazf1thrucham_082007094528.pdf)
Is that enough for now?
-
thanks ;)
-
Aw. Did the nasty man use a big word that you didn't understand....?
That's what happens when you go to University and learn how things work instead of being an uneducated cretin like yourself.
LULZ!!!
You are totally delusional & never went to any kind of University, anywhere, ever...
Have you forgotten you wrote this?
It was only a day ago, Walter Mittty...
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Two of my mates read it & wouldn't believe that it wasn't YOU who was the flat earther; THAT'S how utterly insane you come over to normal people.
So just stop Pretending that you have any Intellectual authority here, okay?
Lunatic...
Oh, & soulblood/twelve steps; we're talking about the J2 engine, not the F1.
Drunk again?
Not that it matters, cos they're both so fake a child could see through them...
The Saturn V: a 3,000-tonne rokkit-szhypp to teh munn!!!
Yeah; 3,000 tonnes; that's the same as two WW2 destroyers; why not send a couple of them to teh munn too?
Or a third of the Eiffel Tower?
Or 4,500 VW Beetles?
Christ, what a bunch of clowns you all are...
-
LOL
What a fwaderfer!!!
Torch burns 3500 brass melts 2000
Torch melted in hand
Derpderderp
LOL
It doesn't burn inside the tube. It ignites and burns OUTSIDE of that tube and nozzle just like a rocket does but we are told to believe a rocket has an internal combustion chamber.
-
Hey, I am sure PL is right, it's not like it's rocket science ...
I always wanted to say this ;D
-
Hey, I am sure PL is right, it's not like it's rocket science ...
Yes; I am.
Thanks for noting that, even in your sozzled state!
Because what we are Told is 'rocket science' is complete bullshit.
Just understanding how a De Laval nozzle functions completely destroys all notions of 'space flight'...
Try finding out; wise yourselves up a bit, maybe?
-
Hey, I am sure PL is right, it's not like it's rocket science ...
Yes; I am.
Thanks for noting that, even in your sozzled state!
Because what we are Told is 'rocket science' is complete bullshit.
Just understanding how a De Laval nozzle functions completely destroys all notions of 'space flight'...
Try finding out; wise yourselves up a bit, maybe?
How about you post some links to sites that you believe are incorrect of manufacturers, universities etc.
-
How about you post some links to sites that you believe are incorrect of manufacturers, universities etc.
Sorry, could you repeat that in English please?
I'm not as fluent in Gibberish as you Raown Derfer Trolls...
-
How about you post some links to sites that you believe are incorrect of manufacturers, universities etc.
Sorry, could you repeat that in English please?
I'm not as fluent in Gibberish as you Raown Derfer Trolls...
You believe space flight is not possible. Post some links of organisations that claim to be involved.
-
Test-firing of the Saturn V stage one F-1 rocket engines ... especially interesting the slow-motion close-up of one F-1 firing starting at 10:35 ...
(http://)
-
You believe space flight is not possible. Post some links of organisations that claim to be involved.
1: I do not 'believe' anything; I KNOW 'space flight' is not possible.
2: Don't tell me what to do, Thought-Cop.
Note to neutrals; research De Laval nozzles; note how nozzle design has to be tuned to specific ambient pressure outside nozzle in order to function efficiently; note that ambient pressure will drop to only 30% that of sea level at just 5 miles in altitude; understand why 'shpayze-rokkits' are impossible.
& Twelve steps; that's just a big flamethrower.
Grow up & lay off the booze.
-
You believe space flight is not possible. Post some links of organisations that claim to be involved.
1: I do not 'believe' anything; I KNOW 'space flight' is not possible.
2: Don't tell me what to do, Thought-Cop.
Note to neutrals; research De Laval nozzles; note how nozzle design has to be tuned to specific ambient pressure outside nozzle in order to function efficiently; note that ambient pressure will drop to only 30% that of sea level at just 5 miles in altitude; understand why 'shpayze-rokkits' are impossible.
& Twelve steps; that's just a big flamethrower.
Grow up & lay off the booze.
De laval nozzles are optimized for a specific altitude... So what? At other altitudes they are less efficient but they still produce a lot of thrust, 50% or more than the altitude for which they're designed. For example the j2, meant to be used in the second and third stage of the Saturn 5 though optimized for maximum thrust in vacuum(cause by the time u ignite the second stage u're definitely at very high altitude) they still produce half of their thrust at sea level.
Designs of engines that can change the geometry in order to be optimized at every altitude do exist and are being developed but in the 60's they were heavier more complicated and potential more unreliable. It's a trade-off (normal practice in engineering) they chose light and reliable but less efficient instead of efficient but heavy and unreliable, I would say a sane choice considering that Saturn V were used for manned missions
-
De laval nozzles are optimized for a specific altitude... So what?
Sloppy researcher ain't you?
What's your Imaginary Qualification in?
De Laval nozzles will only accelerate gases above mach 1 at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
See the problem here?
So if they're designed to work best at sea level they will stop accelerating gases above mach 1 within a couple of thousand feet.
By the time they're up to, say, 50,000 feet they'll be practically useless.
And good luck getting to teh munn at subsonic velocity!
Like Twelve Steps said; it's not rocket science...
-
I am saying that the figures we are quoted for 'shpayze-rokkit enjinnz' are all bullshit; the temps, the speeds, the thrust, the burn-time - everything.
You know this for a fact because you've done the math to prove it, right?
And your beloved 'test videos' are of crappy pimped-up flamethrowers that look impressive but are in fact useless.
I don't know about that. They look pretty useful on launch day.
Fake engines; Fake data; Fake footage; Fake Rokkitz, ALL Fake, right the way back to the gimcrack German V2 that started this whole woeful business off...
The V2 didn't use regenerative cooling. It used an alcohol/water and LOX mix to keep the chamber temperature at a manageable level.
Military. Propaganda.
Speaking of which, don't you claim to be ex-military, markjo?
LOL!!!
Once a Marine, always a Marine. Ooh rah.
What have you done for your country?
-
De Laval nozzles will only accelerate gases above mach 1 at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
Obviously, PL's thoughts have nothing to do with rocket science ...
Mass flow and dimensions of the nozzle must make sure that the achieved pressure is above the ambient pressure to reach supersonic exhaust speeds ... if this is achieved at ground level this is of course also achieved at higher level, against lower ambient pressure (or even vacuum).
There is an ideal ambient pressure value for each nozzle shape (expansion factor), operating above or below that height means a loss in efficiency ... first stage rockets are generally designed so they are over-expanding at sea level and under-expanding in vacuum, reaching optimal efficiency somewhere in between. Later stage rockets can be optimized for vacuum use.
Here is a document (from the university of Rome) explaining this in a little more detail, including formulas and even values and charts for different rocket engines (including the F-1).
http://www.ingaero.uniroma1.it/attachments/617_PSP%20Lez.%2007%20SUMMARY%20OF%20ROCKET%20NOZZLE%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf (http://www.ingaero.uniroma1.it/attachments/617_PSP%20Lez.%2007%20SUMMARY%20OF%20ROCKET%20NOZZLE%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf)
BTW, did I read that right and PL is claiming that Nazi Germany did not fire 3.200 V-2 rockets at targets in England, France, Belgium, Netherlands and even 11 at their own city of Remagen, late in WW2, killing around 8.000 people?
-
No need to do Math; Yes need to Observe & Experiment.
The substitution of Geometrical Abstractions for Empirical Evidence is how we all got into this sordid sci-fi mess in the first place.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
You said it.
Thus, as NASA is a Military organisation promoting Military Propaganda, I am quite justified in believing you are here to uphold that Propaganda at all costs.
Anyhow; De Laval nozzles can only accelerate gases beyond supersonic velocity at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
This has rather grave implications for NASA's 'shpayze-fllyte' claims, do you not think?
LOL!!!
Of COURSE you 'do not think'; that's your purpose here ain't it?
Semper Fi, Sister!
Oh, & Twelve Step's post is b.s; this part is just a massive, desperate lie:
if this is achieved at ground level this is of course also achieved at higher level, against lower ambient pressure (or even vacuum)
LULZ!!!
Research the subject yourselves, neutrals; you'll see I'm correct.
Toodle-pip, Liars & Propagandists!
-
LOL
Poopoo Loser needed to call in his enforcer Schleptimatic to defend him.
All because they both think that if you use an a-shit-elyne douche that they will be walking around with melted brass on their hands!!!!!
LOL
The great PooPoo Baggins is also upset, about me using his insults. Thinking that they are so O-Rig-I-Nal.
Then he goes and cwies wike a bwubbery baby to his wittwe fweind shitimatic. Wahwahwah!!
LOL
-
De Laval nozzles can only accelerate gases beyond supersonic velocity at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
No.
Research the subject yourselves, neutrals.
Indeed.
-
LOL!!!
You're all desperate ain't you?
De Laval nozzles, like Newton's 3rd Law, are another bit of bluster that NASA likes to hide behind; like a crooked poker player bluffing behind a bad hand.
The last few posts prove my point nicely.
-
No need to do Math; Yes need to Observe & Experiment.
The substitution of Geometrical Abstractions for Empirical Evidence is how we all got into this sordid sci-fi mess in the first place.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
You said it.
Thus, as NASA is a Military organisation promoting Military Propaganda, I am quite justified in believing you are here to uphold that Propaganda at all costs.
Anyhow; De Laval nozzles can only accelerate gases beyond supersonic velocity at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
This has rather grave implications for NASA's 'shpayze-fllyte' claims, do you not think?
LOL!!!
Of COURSE you 'do not think'; that's your purpose here ain't it?
Semper Fi, Sister!
Oh, & Twelve Step's post is b.s; this part is just a massive, desperate lie:
if this is achieved at ground level this is of course also achieved at higher level, against lower ambient pressure (or even vacuum)
LULZ!!!
Research the subject yourselves, neutrals; you'll see I'm correct.
Toodle-pip, Liars & Propagandists!
From Wiki:
Conditions for operation
A de Laval nozzle will only choke at the throat if the pressure and mass flow through the nozzle is sufficient to reach sonic speeds, otherwise no supersonic flow is achieved, and it will act as a Venturi tube; this requires the entry pressure to the nozzle to be significantly above ambient at all times (equivalently, the stagnation pressure of the jet must be above ambient).
In addition, the pressure of the gas at the exit of the expansion portion of the exhaust of a nozzle must not be too low. Because pressure cannot travel upstream through the supersonic flow, the exit pressure can be significantly below the ambient pressure into which it exhausts, but if it is too far below ambient, then the flow will cease to be supersonic, or the flow will separate within the expansion portion of the nozzle, forming an unstable jet that may "flop" around within the nozzle, producing a lateral thrust and possibly damaging it.
In practice, ambient pressure must be no higher than roughly 2–3 times the pressure in the supersonic gas at the exit for supersonic flow to leave the nozzle.
So if you actually bother read Papa, the pressure in the De Laval must at least be at minimum operating pressure, not exactly at the operating pressure.
-
Sorry, but I've already told you once today that I am not fluent in Gibberish.
Could you please repeat that in English?
-
De laval nozzles are optimized for a specific altitude... So what?
Sloppy researcher ain't you?
What's your Imaginary Qualification in?
De Laval nozzles will only accelerate gases above mach 1 at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
See the problem here?
So if they're designed to work best at sea level they will stop accelerating gases above mach 1 within a couple of thousand feet.
By the time they're up to, say, 50,000 feet they'll be practically useless.
And good luck getting to teh munn at subsonic velocity!
Like Twelve Steps said; it's not rocket science...
nope, u got your facts wrong.
the de laval nozzle will have mach=1 in the throat, so critical conditions, when combustion chamber pressure Pc and exit pressure at the nozzle Pe have a particular ratio.
considering a mono-dimensional isentropic flow that ratio for sonic flow at the throat of the nozzle is
Pe/Pc=(1+(gamma-1)/2)^(-(gamma/(gamma-1)))
where gamma is a property of the fluid you're considering, for example ideal gasses have a gamma of 1.4 and a ratio of 0.528.
whenever the ratio Pe/Pc is below the one given by the formula above u have sonic condition at the throat of the nozzle.
(if u're not used to the terminology throat is the section between the convergent and divergent part of the nozzle)
optimizing a nozzle means that at the exit of the nozzle u have the outside pressure, this is optimization cause the thrust is obtained by giving an increment of velocity to the fluid and if u convert all the pressure and thermal energy in kinetic energy u've optimized the nozzle cause u cannot give the fluid a higher velocity.
if one optimizes a nozzle at sea level u have that the pressure at the exit of the nozzle Pe is equal to the ambient pressure Pa but as u climbing the exit pressure remains the same(cause u're nozzle has been designed to expand up to a certain point) but theambient pressure decreases so u're not using all the energy of the fluid and u're not efficient.
if u on the other end optimize a nozzle for very high altitude and u use it at sea level u have a much worse scenario, cause u're actually over expanding u're flow and it creates a system of shock wave to return to the ambient pressure, and this reduces a lot your trhust.
btw rocket do not accelerate external fluid like jet engines so the thrust is given only by the the flow rate and velocity exiting the nozzle(plus a term dependet on presssure difference between exiting condition and ambient pressure if the nozzle is not optimize) so it really doesn't matter if u have an subsonico o supersonic flow, thrust is always produced, of course since the trhust depend directly on the speed of exiting fluid the higher the better.
morevoer u know speed of sound do depend on temperature right?? the higher the temperature the higher the speed of sound so even a subsonic flow at very high temperature has a speed greater than the speed of sound at ambient temperature.
-
No need to do Math;
Wrong. Very, very wrong.
Yes need to Observe & Experiment.
How can you do a proper experiment without math?
Thus, as NASA is a Military organisation promoting Military Propaganda, I am quite justified in believing you are here to uphold that Propaganda at all costs.
No, no and no.
No, NASA is not a military organization. It is a civilian government organization that works with the military.
No, NASA is not promoting military propaganda. It is promoting scientific research.
No, I am not here to uphold anyone's propaganda at any cost. I'm here because there's nothing like a good argument from time to time. Sadly, you are nothing like a good argument.
Anyhow; De Laval nozzles can only accelerate gases beyond supersonic velocity at the specific back-pressure they are designed for.
What makes you think that De Laval nozzles can't be optimized to operate at vacuum pressure? Have you done the math?
-
nope, u got your facts wrong.
Well, you say that, but then the rest of your tortuously rambling post seems to agree with what I say.
In a sloppily-written, typo-filled manner...
Don't tell me - is English not your first language?
Or are you typing from your phone in a hurry?
Because no Troll has ever claimed THAT before!
Anyway; is your first language in fact Gibberish?
If so, mainframes may need your help as an interpreter...
No, NASA is not a military organization.
ROFLMFAO!!!
You are beyond any doubt a total shill; now GTFO.
Raown Derf Borg-Clan - ASSEMBLE!!!
-
nope, u got your facts wrong.
Well, you say that, but then the rest of your tortuously rambling post seems to agree with what I say.
In a sloppily-written, typo-filled manner...
Don't tell me - is English not your first language?
Or are you typing from your phone in a hurry?
Because no Troll has ever claimed THAT before!
Anyway; is your first language in fact Gibberish?
If so, mainframes may need your help as an interpreter...
No, NASA is not a military organization.
ROFLMFAO!!!
You are beyond any doubt a total shill; now GTFO.
Raown Derf Borg-Clan - ASSEMBLE!!!
no, i'm saying the opposite. u're saying that de laval nozzles will not work( don't reach sonic condition of the flow in the throat) when atmospheric pressur decreases, i'm saying that they do work only less efficiently cause they are under expanding the fluid, thus not producing all the trhust they're capable of
-
no, i'm saying the opposite. u're saying that de laval nozzles will not work( don't reach sonic condition of the flow in the throat) when atmospheric pressur decreases, i'm saying that they do work only less efficiently cause they are under expanding the fluid, thus not producing all the trhust they're capable of
Actually, it's the other way around. As atmospheric pressure decreases, the exhaust gasses tend to over expand, thereby reducing efficiency.
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/figures/fig11a.jpg)
-
no, i'm saying the opposite. u're saying that de laval nozzles will not work( don't reach sonic condition of the flow in the throat) when atmospheric pressur decreases, i'm saying that they do work only less efficiently cause they are under expanding the fluid, thus not producing all the trhust they're capable of
Actually, it's the other way around. As atmospheric pressure decreases, the exhaust gasses tend to over expand, thereby reducing efficiency.
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/figures/fig11a.jpg)
I think there was a misunderstanding, i'm talking about what happens in the nozzle so by saying it under expands I mean that the pressure at the exit of the nozzle is greater than atmospheric pressure so I expands after the nozzle thus wasting those energy which, in an optimize nozzle, should have become kinetic energy of the fluid.
-
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Plus, your silly little drawing is kindergarten bullshit.
Like, it doesn't even put numbers on what 'optimal' & 'high' altitude actually are...
I'll give you a clue; neither of them are anywhere close to 'space'.
Idiots.
-
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Plus, your silly little drawing is kindergarten bullshit.
Like, it doesn't even put numbers on what 'optimal' & 'high' altitude actually are...
I'll give you a clue; neither of them are anywhere close to 'space'.
Idiots.
That's because it's a generic diagram not specific design you halfwit.
-
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Plus, your silly little drawing is kindergarten bullshit.
Like, it doesn't even put numbers on what 'optimal' & 'high' altitude actually are...
I'll give you a clue; neither of them are anywhere close to 'space'.
Idiots.
No need to do Math;
Which is it? Do you need to do math or don't you?
-
That's because it's a generic diagram not specific design you halfwit.
And you couldn't have found a more detailed one?
Suuure you couldn't...
Halfwit.
Atmospheric pressure at 30,000 feet (5 miles) altitude is only a third of that at sea level.
So if you think a De Laval nozzle that is designed to function optimally at sea level will also function at 30,000 feet you are...
What's the word I'm looking for?
A Halfwit.
And remember; after 30,000 feet there's only another 55 miles to go to shpayze!
Halfwits.
Still; you'll ignore the obvious conclusions from this, won't you?
Why?
Cos you're Halfwits.
Now; Carry On Lying!
This is my shitpost Kingdom of Nothing; Everything I say is a lie & I am dead inside.
Don't forget that you are also 100% Shill too!
-
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Plus, your silly little drawing is kindergarten bullshit.
Like, it doesn't even put numbers on what 'optimal' & 'high' altitude actually are...
I'll give you a clue; neither of them are anywhere close to 'space'.
Idiots.
U want proper graphs and equation?! Go study the link provided by Soulblood. Or it's too complicated for welders?
U might even discover that while climbing a rocket optimized at see leve produces the same thrust, actually even more cause the pressure gradient between the exit of the nozzle and the external condition, multiplied by the nozzle's area, produces a positive contribution to thrust. It becomes less efficient cause that same pressure gradient would have been better used by transforming pressure in kinetic energy of the propulsive fluid
-
Sorry; don't speak Gibberish.
Get a translator, or a brain transplant, or just go away & stop Trolling...
Whatever works.
-
Oh, & see what you wrote below?
u're saying that de laval nozzles will not work( don't reach sonic condition of the flow in the throat) when atmospheric pressur decreases
Well, I never said that.
Which makes you a fucking Liar as well as a Gibberish-spamming Troll.
Desperate bunch of Creeps, ain't you?
-
That's because it's a generic diagram not specific design you halfwit.
And you couldn't have found a more detailed one?
How's this? Lots of details in the document, but I like this slide in particular:
De Laval Nozzle Dynamics (Cont.)
• To accelerate gasses beyond Mach 1, there there
must be a chocked condition at the throat of the nozzle
– Chocked flow occurs when the exhaust velocity at
the throat is Mach 1.
– In chocked conditions, a further increase of
pressure in the combustion chamber will not
accelerate gasses in throat beyond Mach 1
– Acceleration beyond Mach 1 is caused by a drop in
ambient pressure, or back pressure
-
Learn to spell, shill.
Cos I got no idea what this 'chocked' flow you're on about is.
Why do you think every real rocket launch you see runs out of puff & starts keeling over sideways after only a few thousand feet?
Cos the nozzle's stopped working.
Rockets are dumb & useless.
Like you.
-
You guys give PL too much attention, that's what he wants ... it's impossible to communicate with him, I just post information to let literate people make up their own mind about PL's childish gibberish.
And I just broke my own rule ...
-
Learn to spell, shill.
Cos I got no idea what this 'chocked' flow you're on about is.
Sorry, but your ignorance is not a valid argument.
Why do you think every real rocket launch you see runs out of puff & starts keeling over sideways after only a few thousand feet?
Because orbit is more about horizontal speed than altitude.
Cos the nozzle's stopped working.
Then how did a Soviet surface to air missile shoot down a high flying U2? Or was that more just more military propaganda?
Rockets are dumb & useless.
Yeah, I bet that's what your welder "buddies" say about you too.
-
Grab a beer, gather your welder friends, read this
http://www.ingaero.uniroma1.it/attachments/617_PSP%20Lez.%2007%20SUMMARY%20OF%20ROCKET%20NOZZLE%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf (http://www.ingaero.uniroma1.it/attachments/617_PSP%20Lez.%2007%20SUMMARY%20OF%20ROCKET%20NOZZLE%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf)
And then u can begin to talk about rocket engines
-
Sorry, but your ignorance is not a valid argument.
MY ignorance?
YOU are the one who repeatedly mis-spelt the word 'choked'!
Because deliberately mis-spelling key words & names in order to make them harder to google is Shill Tactics 101.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah & a shitty propaganda link...
And then u can begin to talk about rocket engines
I've talked about little else other than rocket engines throughout this entire thread, retard.
But you already know that, don't you?
Because parachuting a sock ID into a thread & forcing people to go over old ground is also Shill Tactics 101.
Jesus Christ, you are all pathetic.
-
it's impossible to communicate with him
You don't 'communicate', Twelve Steps; you Lie.
So, what you're really saying is 'it's impossible to Lie to him'.
Which is why you are all so frustrated with me, ain't it, Liars?
-
Sorry, but your ignorance is not a valid argument.
MY ignorance?
YOU are the one who repeatedly mis-spelt the word 'choked'!
Because deliberately mis-spelling key words & names in order to make them harder to google is Shill Tactics 101.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah & a shitty propaganda link...
And then u can begin to talk about rocket engines
I've talked about little else other than rocket engines throughout this entire thread, retard.
But you already know that, don't you?
Because parachuting a sock ID into a thread & forcing people to go over old ground is also Shill Tactics 101.
Jesus Christ, you are all pathetic.
lol
u mad?
lol
-
Sorry, but your ignorance is not a valid argument.
MY ignorance?
YOU are the one who repeatedly mis-spelt the word 'choked'!
Because deliberately mis-spelling key words & names in order to make them harder to google is Shill Tactics 101.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah & a shitty propaganda link...
And then u can begin to talk about rocket engines
I've talked about little else other than rocket engines throughout this entire thread, retard.
But you already know that, don't you?
Because parachuting a sock ID into a thread & forcing people to go over old ground is also Shill Tactics 101.
Jesus Christ, you are all pathetic.
I saw this thread and I read u're post about rocket engines. Since I know a couple of things about rocket engines I've simply pointed out u're mistakes.
Also avoiding taking in consideration link that will prove u wrong and start just accusing is quite a simple trick.
It's not a propaganda link, it's part of the course material used by aerospace engineering students at university of Rome, don't just shit over things u cannot understand
Lastly I'm pretty sick of your insults, I've never attacked u or insulted.it's not gonna work if u try to bully people into believe u're nonsense claims
-
u mad?
Incorrect.
Since I know a couple of things about rocket engines
Incorrect.
-
Oh look, as a matter of fact i studied on the slides provided in the previous link for my Course of propulsion.... What a shame u bounced into someone who actually have studied the things u're talking about.... Maybe u'd better talk about welding and carpentry
-
Sorry, but your ignorance is not a valid argument.
MY ignorance?
Ignorance, laziness, deliberate misrepresentation. Take your pick.
YOU are the one who repeatedly mis-spelt the word 'choked'!
If you had actually followed the link provided in the quote, you would have noticed that I copied and pasted one of the slides (slide number 6, to be exact). If any words in that quote were misspelled, it was from the original presentation. Or do you not understand the concept of a quote?
Because deliberately mis-spelling key words & names in order to make them harder to google is Shill Tactics 101.
Harping on spelling errors is a lot easier than actually refuting the content, isn't it?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah & a shitty propaganda link...
And then u can begin to talk about rocket engines
I've talked about little else other than rocket engines throughout this entire thread, retard.
And you've been wrong about rocket engines throughout the entire thread.
-
Oh look, as a matter of fact i studied on the slides provided in the previous link for my Course of propulsion.
Studying bullshit only makes you an expert on bullshitting.
I copied and pasted one of the slides
Maybe you should have read it before slavishly doing so?
Because quoting an alleged authority on choked flow who doesn't even know how to spell the word 'choked' makes you look dumb.
Or deceitful.
Or both.
Anyhoo; the Fact that convergent-divergent nozzles have to be tuned to specific back-pressures, & NASA's rocket nozzles are fixed to only one configuration, is yet another nail in the 'shpayze-flfyte' coffin...
For those who are capable of independent thinking, at least.
But we have seen that our Raown Derfer pals are sadly incapacitated when it comes to freedom of thought, have we not?
Indeed, they seem actively hostile to anyone who displays such a trait.
So, as ever, they will Carry On Lying!
-
Oh look, as a matter of fact i studied on the slides provided in the previous link for my Course of propulsion.
Studying bullshit only makes you an expert on bullshitting.
I copied and pasted one of the slides
Maybe you should have read it before slavishly doing so?
Because quoting an alleged authority on choked flow who doesn't even know how to spell the word 'choked' makes you look dumb.
Or deceitful.
Or both.
Anyhoo; the Fact that convergent-divergent nozzles have to be tuned to specific back-pressures, & NASA's rocket nozzles are fixed to only one configuration, is yet another nail in the 'shpayze-flfyte' coffin...
For those who are capable of independent thinking, at least.
But we have seen that our Raown Derfer pals are sadly incapacitated when it comes to freedom of thought, have we not?
Indeed, they seem actively hostile to anyone who displays such a trait.
So, as ever, they will Carry On Lying!
first i'm not an expert on rocket engines, I'm more focused on aerospace structures than engine but nevertheless I know much more than u do and most of all i've got the fundamentals of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics to be able to read and undestand those slides and be able to grasp the basics of how a rocket engine works.
and stop talking about de laval nozzle cause u're embarassing yourself, u clearly don't understand that they function(means that they accelerate the fluid at supersonic speed) if there's sonic condition at the throat and this condition does depend on the pressure ratio between outside pressure and combustion chamber's pressure. once this ratio is below a certain critical level u always have sonic flow at the throat of the nozzle. since the pressure inside the combustion chamber is constant and the outside pressure decreases with altitude, if u set your nozzle to have sonic flow at sealevel it will accelerate the fluid to supersonic speed at whichever altitude.
again tuning a nozzle means only being capable of converting all the thermal energy of the fluid into kinetic energy. if u tune u're engine for sea level it will provide the same thrust even in vacuum(actually a bit more cause there's a pressure gradient) but i will be inefficient cause potentially it could generate more thrust in vacuum.
there are nozzle capable of adjusting themselves to produce the maximum thrust in every condition but they are heavy and complicated, it's a trade-off, they're made every time. do u wanna know all the trade offs being made while designing an airplane or u don't care cause u don't believe in them as well?
ah i was forgetting, there were also plane that used rocket engines. x15 planes for example, they used a convergent-divergent nozzle and regenerative cooling. they were optimized for 17000 ft but the planes reached it's top speed at an altitude of 19 miles...
but i guess u doubt even these numbers cause according to your comprehensive knowledge about rocket engines they're impossible
-
i'm not an expert on rocket engines
We've noticed.
But you clearly are an expert in speaking Gibberish.
And, as I have repeatedly told you that Gibberish is a language in which I am not fluent, I must ask why you choose to continue addressing me with it?
Luckily, I am in no particular hurry to find out your answer; no, my preference would be for you to simply STFU & GTFO, whilst taking this LMFAO!!! with you.
Is that too much to hope for?
-
Please point out the phrases u don't understand "cause I'm talking gibberish" and I'll be glad to rewrite them trying to make myself more clear.
-
Anyhoo; the Fact that convergent-divergent nozzles have to be tuned to specific back-pressures, & NASA's rocket nozzles are fixed to only one configuration, is yet another nail in the 'shpayze-flfyte' coffin...
Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at a specific altitude? Again, how can a surface to air missile fired from sea level shoot down a U2 spy plane flying over 65,000 feet high?
-
Please point out the phrases u don't understand
Please don't ask me to waste my time parsing your Gibberish.
That is also Shill-Tactics 101.
A silk purse cannot be made from a sow's ear.
Now; the STFU-ing & GTFO-ing I requested; I take it you aren't budging on that?
In that case, I will not budge on simply Mocking your Gibber-Posts.
See how it works, Troll?
I don't 'debate' with Liars.
how can a surface to air missile fired from sea level shoot down a U2 spy plane flying over 65,000 feet high?
If you are referring to the Gary Powers incident, it was Fake.
Not too bright, are you?
-
Please point out the phrases u don't understand
Please don't ask me to waste my time parsing your Gibberish.
That is also Shill-Tactics 101.
A silk purse cannot be made from a sow's ear.
Now; the STFU-ing & GTFO-ing I requested; I take it you aren't budging on that?
In that case, I will not budge on simply Mocking your Gibber-Posts.
See how it works, Troll?
I don't 'debate' with Liars.
how can a surface to air missile fired from sea level shoot down a U2 spy plane flying over 65,000 feet high?
If you are referring to the Gary Powers incident, it was Fake.
Not too bright, are you?
let just assume gary powers was fake...and what about the x15 speed record?
since it's apparent that u're ignoring me i'll repeat myself.
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft yet the plane reached it's maximum speed at 19 miles, how come if those kind of nozzles work only at their designed altitude?
let me guess it's fake even this fact, right? cause since now u've not debated, u've simply insulted and attacked everyone and u have ignored every fact against your beliefs
-
how can a surface to air missile fired from sea level shoot down a U2 spy plane flying over 65,000 feet high?
If you are referring to the Gary Powers incident, it was Fake.
Not too bright, are you?
Oh, of course it's fake. Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
-
Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
LOL!!!
You got ninety-nine problems, markjo, but the Shitposts aint one!
LMFAO!!!
-
Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
LOL!!!
You got ninety-nine problems, markjo, but the Shitposts aint one!
LMFAO!!!
That's right, shitposting is your problem, not mine.
By the way, you didn't answer the question: Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at that specific altitude?
-
since it's apparent that u're ignoring me i'll repeat myself.
I'm not ignoring you; that's another Lie.
As I said, I'm mocking you for being a time-wasting Liar.
Have you not noticed?
As for your repeating your Lies; that's also Shill-Tactics 101.
Got anything new to show us?
-
since it's apparent that u're ignoring me i'll repeat myself.
I'm not ignoring you; that's another Lie.
As I said, I'm mocking you for being a time-wasting Liar.
Have you not noticed?
As for your repeating your Lies; that's also Shill-Tactics 101.
Got anything new to show us?
see, u've ignored my question.
u didn't even answered me with "it's all fake, it's a conspiracy, it's military propaganda"
i'd really like to know the truth about the x15 from a world rocket engine expert as u are
-
i'd really like to know the truth about the x15 from a world rocket engine expert as u are
No you wouldn't.
Your Lies just never stop, do they?
By the way, you didn't answer the question: Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at that specific altitude?
That wasn't your question.
Your question was this:
Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
To which I replied; you got ninety-nine problems but the Shitposts ain't one!
Which was Correct.
Now; Carry On Lying!
-
By the way, you didn't answer the question: Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at that specific altitude?
That wasn't your question.
Your question was this:
Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
To which I replied; you got ninety-nine problems but the Shitposts ain't one!
Which was Correct.
That isn't the post that I was referring to. This is the one:
Anyhoo; the Fact that convergent-divergent nozzles have to be tuned to specific back-pressures, & NASA's rocket nozzles are fixed to only one configuration, is yet another nail in the 'shpayze-flfyte' coffin...
Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at a specific altitude? Again, how can a surface to air missile fired from sea level shoot down a U2 spy plane flying over 65,000 feet high?
Now; Carry On Lying!
Yes, I'm sure that you will.
-
i'd really like to know the truth about the x15 from a world rocket engine expert as u are
No you wouldn't.
Your Lies just never stop, do they?
By the way, you didn't answer the question: Do you honestly think that a de Laval nozzle being tuned for a specific altitude means that it only works at that specific altitude?
That wasn't your question.
Your question was this:
Anything that proves you wrong is fake, right?
To which I replied; you got ninety-nine problems but the Shitposts ain't one!
Which was Correct.
Now; Carry On Lying!
still no answer.
since u won't give me the truth may a ask for an opinion on the subject?
-
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
Spot the Lie.
-
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
Spot the Lie.
The lie is you claiming to know anything.
-
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
Spot the Lie.
I asked for your opinion so...what do u think it's a lie?
-
I asked for your opinion
I asked you to stop Lying.
You have not.
We are at an impasse.
Again, for neutrals; Spot The Lie:
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
I've given you a Clue this time...
-
I asked for your opinion
I asked you to stop Lying.
You have not.
We are at an impasse.
Again, for neutrals; Spot The Lie:
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
I've given you a Clue this time...
U're saying 17000ft was a lie? Mmm I see, what if I say I've found this data on a report talking about optimizing the nozzle for 40000ft instead of the designed 17000ft?
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0256165 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0256165)
In any case, just to go beyond the usual answer of being a military propaganda, I'll point out another fact. The x15 reached it's top speed at 19 miles but it's altitude record was 67 miles. Let even consider that is engine was designed for 19 miles how did I reach three times that altitude?
-
It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that I Do Not Speak Gibberish.
Thus, I cannot reasonably reply to your quite extraordinarily garbled & self-contradictory Nonsense.
For example:
Let even consider that is engine was designed for 19 miles how did I reach three times that altitude?
I have no idea how you reached three times that altitude, Troll...
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about at all.
I just know that as long as you keep on spamming your Insanity I will keep Mocking it.
Now; Carry On Lying!
-
XLR99 was optimised for 17000ft. Where's the lie?
-
Ok i'll rephrase.
17000ft is the designed altitude for the xlr99 engine. Source:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0256165 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0256165)
Another question.
Hypotesis: Xlr99 engine optimized for 19 miles.
X15 altitude record 67 miles.
How it's possible?
-
Time-wasting Troll is Time-wastingly Obvious.
And Hiya Walter Mitty!
Still Pretending to be a scientist, eh?
-
U've pointed out my grammar errors, u've done your accusation but still NO ANSWER....just saying
-
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
I've found this data on a report talking about optimizing the nozzle for 40000ft instead
Hypotesis: Xlr99 engine optimized for 19 miles.
Told you; I don't debate with Liars.
-
Time-wasting Troll is Time-wastingly Obvious.
Agreed. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is an obvious waste of time.
-
hey hey, don't quote only what's convenient for u.
Xlr99 engine is optimized for 17000ft.
I've linked a report the subject of which was the optimization of the engine for 40000ft.
I've made a best case scenario.
but let's get back to reality then. The engine is optimized for 17000ft how it's possible it has reached 67 miles?
Still stalling, and still not answering
-
x15 uses a xlr99 engine ( rocket engine with both de laval nozzle and regenerative cooling) which is optimized for 17000 ft
I've found this data on a report talking about optimizing the nozzle for 40000ft instead
Hypotesis: Xlr99 engine optimized for 19 miles.
Told you; I don't debate with Liars.
The XLR99 was optimised 17,000ft.
There is a report discussing possibility of changing this to 40,000ft.
LuckyFred was discussing a hypothetical scenario where it is optimised to 19 miles but can still operate at over 60 miles.
No lies. You're just a retard or deliberately misrepresenting the discussion.
Oh btw MEng in Biochemical Engineering at University of Bath.
Did you you get past key stage 3....?
-
LULZ!!!
All the Shills are here...
Clearly they got nothing better to do with their saturday night than gang up on & Police the Thoughts of anyone on the Internet who doubts Military Propaganda Bullshit...
Cos that's logical!
You make it too easy, you know that?
Anyhoo; rather than read - let alone 'debate' - the Lies of Liars with the Liars that Lied them, let us instead look at a film of a large model flame-thrower.
Note the laughable over-dubbed sound effects: Scary Klaxons! The Popping & Banging of a Fireworks Display! DRAMA!!!
Enjoy...
! No longer available (http://#)
[/quote]
-
Still no answer.
Considering your claimed knowledge on rocket engine should be very simple to give an answer
-
LULZ!!!
All the Shills are here...
Clearly they got nothing better to do with their saturday night than gang up on & Police the Thoughts of anyone on the Internet who doubts Military Propaganda Bullshit...
Cos that's logical!
You make it too easy, you know that?
Anyhoo; rather than read - let alone 'debate' - the Lies of Liars with the Liars that Lied them, let us instead look at a film of a large model flame-thrower.
Note the laughable over-dubbed sound effects: Scary Klaxons! The Popping & Banging of a Fireworks Display! DRAMA!!!
Enjoy...
! No longer available (http://#)
[/quote]
You're on here as well....
I think you'll find the klaxons are often used prior to highly dangerous processes as a final warning to anyone in the vicinity.
You truly are getting desperate.
Also. Lol. You ran from the XLR99 discussion just like you ran from regenerative cooling discussion. Pwned!
-
Incorrect.
-
Incorrect.
Yes you are.
-
Remember this, Walter Mitty?
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
So, when you say I have been 'pwned', or that you have a University education, your word does not carry much weight.
I do not debate with Liars; if you do not like that, then stop Lying.
Also, you seem very keen indeed for me to click on your dubious-looking link, rather than simply quoting from it yourselves.
I have learnt the hard way that clicking on Raown Derfer - or any NASA-affiliated - links is a good way to download malware.
Take Note, neutrals!
-
Incorrect.
yet again no asnwer.
how it's possible that a rocket engine optimesed for 17000ft propelled an airplane up to 67 miles?
since it's a lie and not everyone in the forum has your knowledge of rocket engine,
can u make it clear how it's possible?
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
If the pipe you are soldering keeps dripping, ball up a piece of bread and push it in the pipe. Then solder it quickly, then the bread will dissolve.
-
Indeed.
I'd say the Moral of the last few pages is: If you want anything Practical doing, under no circumstances allow a Raown Derfer to do it!
-
u won't get away that easy, still waiting buddy
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
If the pipe you are soldering keeps dripping, ball up a piece of bread and push it in the pipe. Then solder it quickly, then the bread will dissolve.
What if the water is still running at full pressure and you can't shut off the supply?
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
If the pipe you are soldering keeps dripping, ball up a piece of bread and push it in the pipe. Then solder it quickly, then the bread will dissolve.
What if the water is still running at full pressure and you can't shut off the supply?
Technically, if the water is at full pressure, it would not be flowing. Think about it.
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
If the pipe you are soldering keeps dripping, ball up a piece of bread and push it in the pipe. Then solder it quickly, then the bread will dissolve.
What if the water is still running at full pressure and you can't shut off the supply?
Technically, if the water is at full pressure, it would not be flowing. Think about it.
If you insist on being a pedantic twat, then let me rephrase: What if the water is flowing at a high rate and you can't shut off the supply?
-
Remember saying this, Walter Mitty?
Seems like tappet spotted it too; anyone who's ever done any welding will know, beyond all doubt, that you are a complete buffoon & not to be taken seriously, by anyone, ever again, ever.
Have you ever tries welding a piece of metal that has the other end stuck in a bucket of ice cold water? Try it. I guarantee that the acetylene torch will not cut the metal as too much heat will be drawn away into the water. Once the water has boiled off then the acetylene will cut the metal.
Shitpost!
Now GTFO.
Apparently tappet has never tried to solder a pipe joint when the pipe still has water in it either. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work.
If the pipe you are soldering keeps dripping, ball up a piece of bread and push it in the pipe. Then solder it quickly, then the bread will dissolve.
What if the water is still running at full pressure and you can't shut off the supply?
Technically, if the water is at full pressure, it would not be flowing. Think about it.
If you insist on being a pedantic twat, then let me rephrase: What if the water is flowing at a high rate and you can't shut off the supply?
I love you too. :)
-
I love you too. :)
The feeling is mutual. (http://orig09.deviantart.net/7992/f/2011/156/0/8/double_middle_finger_emoticon2_by_tailsfan97-d3i61g9.gif)
-
I love you too. :)
The feeling is mutual. (http://orig09.deviantart.net/7992/f/2011/156/0/8/double_middle_finger_emoticon2_by_tailsfan97-d3i61g9.gif)
:-*
-
u won't get away that easy, still waiting buddy
Get away from what, psycho?
Your illiterate Lying & Trolling?
I'm not clicking on your malware-infested link, 'buddy'; never gonna happen.
Because if it does say the X-15 nozzle was optimised for 17,000 feet it's bullshit; the X-15 wasn't even released from its carrier aircraft until 45,000 feet, so why would it be optimised for an altitude it never even operated at?
You're just useless aren't you?
Oh, & markjo; got top post in again, eh?
This, too, is Shill-Tactics 101; you lot are really shitting on your own doorsteps today, ain't you?
Sloppy Fieldcraft, Agent!
LOL!!!
-
Papa Legba, do you believe that a de Laval nozzle works only at the altitude for which it's optimized?
-
I've already told you exactly how they work & why using one nozzle configuration cannot get you to 'shpayze'.
But you chose to ignore that & indulge in a desperate wiki-spamming operation until you finally found some ridiculous minutiae you could browbeat me with until you declared yourselves the 'winnarz'.
As you always do.
And now you are asking me to go right back to the start again.
Which is, unsurprisingly, Shill-Tactics 101.
So; Sucks To Be You is my conclusion.
Plus: LOL!!!
-
I've already told you exactly how they work & why using one nozzle configuration cannot get you to 'shpayze'.
That isn't what I asked and it doesn't answer my question.
Do you believe that a de Laval nozzle works only at the altitude for which it's optimized?
-
u won't get away that easy, still waiting buddy
Get away from what, psycho?
Your illiterate Lying & Trolling?
I'm not clicking on your malware-infested link, 'buddy'; never gonna happen.
Because if it does say the X-15 nozzle was optimised for 17,000 feet it's bullshit; the X-15 wasn't even released from its carrier aircraft until 45,000 feet, so why would it be optimised for an altitude it never even operated at?
You're just useless aren't you?
Oh, & markjo; got top post in again, eh?
This, too, is Shill-Tactics 101; you lot are really shitting on your own doorsteps today, ain't you?
Sloppy Fieldcraft, Agent!
LOL!!!
U don't think it's optimized for 17000ft, ok.
So, would u please explain How it's possible that x15 reached it's top speed at 19 Miles but could climb up to 67 Miles?
-
That isn't what I asked and it doesn't answer my question.
Just because you did not like my answer it does not entitle you to another one, sociopathic Thought-Inspector.
So, would u please explain How it's possible that x15 reached it's top speed at 19 Miles but could climb up to 67 Miles?
Told you, I don't debate with Liars.
Are you disappointed I never clicked on your malware-infested link?
However, as it is Shill-Tactics 101 to engage people in circular arguments over Fake data, I'd say your X-15 obsession is giving us some important clues here...
Which is both LOL!!! & Fail.
-
That isn't what I asked and it doesn't answer my question.
Just because you did not like my answer it does not entitle you to another one, sociopathic Thought-Inspector.
So, would u please explain How it's possible that x15 reached it's top speed at 19 Miles but could climb up to 67 Miles?
Told you, I don't debate with Liars.
Are you disappointed I never clicked on your malware-infested link?
However, as it is Shill-Tactics 101 to engage people in circular arguments over Fake data, I'd say your X-15 obsession is giving us some important clues here...
Which is both LOL!!! & Fail.
the only clue i gathered since now is that, despite your comprehensive knowledge of rocket engines, u haven't been able to answer a simple question.
prove me wrong, explain how does it work, please.
-
Personally I believe this X15 never flow anywhere, particularly in the atmosphere at >50 000 m altitude where there is no air. X15 was just military propaganda.
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
-
H has always the most profound explanations why things dont work in his world ...
-
the only clue i gathered
Well, we all knew you didn't have a clue; now you at least have One.
Good for you!
Personally I believe this X15 never flow anywhere, particularly in the atmosphere at >50 000 m altitude where there is no air. X15 was just military propaganda.
It certainly is looking that way, Heiwa.
Although the X-15's structure does appear suited to hypersonic flight, the data we are presented regarding its altitude capabilities is deeply dubious in my view.
Whether it was entirely fake, or just a high-speed research aircraft with fake high-altitude data bolted on, is a subject I may investigate further.
As ever, when we are dealing with Military Propaganda the truth is hard to discern.
H has always the most profound explanations why things dont work in his world ...
LOL!!!
Your 'explanations' all come straight from either wikipedia or the Shill Handbook, Twelve Steps.
However, as everyone on this forum knows you are yet another sock-puppet of the tiresome ausGeoff/Rayzor entity, that's enough time wasted on your sclerosis-riddled self.
-
the only clue i gathered
Well, we all knew you didn't have a clue; now you at least have One.
Good for you.
the clue it's becoming a proof. u don't know very much about rocket, otherwise prove me wrong and answer me.
u don't believe the x15 reached that altitude, ok let's take the V2 rocket as example.
it was launch from the ground and during its trajectory reached 50 miles of altitude. guess what, it also had convergent-divergent nozzle. how it's possible?
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
ever heard of control systems?
-
Personally I believe this X15 never flow anywhere, particularly in the atmosphere at >50 000 m altitude where there is no air. X15 was just military propaganda.
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
That's why rockets nozzles are mounted on gimbals....
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
ever heard of control systems?
Of course! But do they work in 3D space? What is up,down, left, right, fwd, aft? Relative to what?
The Sun! Good. The hot Sun attracts you towards it. Gravity, you know. So you have to adjust your control system!
Much easier to fake it.
-
I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
That's why rockets nozzles are mounted on gimbals....
Why not? You have to believe ...
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
ever heard of control systems?
Of course! But do they work in 3D space? What is up,down, left, right, fwd, aft? Relative to what?
The Sun! Good. The hot Sun attracts you towards it. Gravity, you know. So you have to adjust your control system!
Much easier to fake it.
even airplanes move following a 3d trajectory and they have control system.
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
ever heard of control systems?
Of course! But do they work in 3D space? What is up,down, left, right, fwd, aft? Relative to what?
The Sun! Good. The hot Sun attracts you towards it. Gravity, you know. So you have to adjust your control system!
Much easier to fake it.
even airplanes move following a 3d trajectory and they have control system.
For a new comer since two weeks at FE forum your posts are not very intelligent, clever, interesting, funny, etc. You have to improve!
-
That's why rockets nozzles are mounted on gimbals....
The idea of gimballed thrust is ridiculous on any but small, fast-accelerating rockets equipped with fore-&-aft stabilising fins.
Exhaust vanes are by far the simplest & most effective method of thrust vectoring, but as they demonstrate an action-reaction pairing being created outside the nozzle NASA replaced them with their silly 'gimballed thrust' system.
But wait; haven't we already done thrust vectoring on this thread?
Why yes, we have!
Starting on page 54.
Here is what Walter Mitty said about the thrust vectoring system of the V2:
The thrust itself is not being vectored
LULZ!!!
A thrust vectoring system that somehow does not vector thrust!
What University did you go to again, Mr. Mitty?
But whatever; forcing the thread to retread old ground is - guess what?
That's right - our old friend Shill Tactics 101.
LOL!!!
-
How do you vector thrust?
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
ever heard of control systems?
Of course! But do they work in 3D space? What is up,down, left, right, fwd, aft? Relative to what?
The Sun! Good. The hot Sun attracts you towards it. Gravity, you know. So you have to adjust your control system!
Much easier to fake it.
even airplanes move following a 3d trajectory and they have control system.
For a new comer since two weeks at FE forum your posts are not very intelligent, clever, interesting, funny, etc. You have to improve!
No seriously what's the problem of having a control system in space? U have accelerometers which can register movement in a coordinated system solidal to the space ship, plus u have inertial system to measure the movement of your spaceship with respect to an exterior coordinate system and in orbit around earth u have communication with the earth to adjust error of the inertial system.
Since papa seems to have some problems answering my question, would u help him?
-
How do you vector thrust?
U change the direction of the thrust vector with respect to the ship/plane.
-
How do you vector thrust?
By altering the angle at which the exhaust column interacts with the atmosphere.
Same way as you steer a car by altering the angle at which the wheels interact with the road...
It's not Rocket science you know!
Of course, the main method of steering real rockets is through the use of control fins, which also stabilise it.
But, as these rely on atmosphere to work, of which there is none in 'shpayze', NASA had to get creative with their Imagineering.
As you said, the whole silly business is just Military Propaganda though; still, it's fun picking apart the Lies, isn't it?
How do you vector thrust?
U change the direction of the thrust vector with respect to the ship/plane.
Well, that was helpful; you REALLY know your stuff don't you?
LOL!!!
Also:
U have accelerometers which can register movement in a coordinated system solidal to the space ship, plus u have inertial system to measure the movement of your spaceship with respect to an exterior coordinate system and in orbit around earth u have communication with the earth to adjust error of the inertial system.
Please find a Gibberish-to-English translator as soon as possible.
Until then I will be unable to respond meaningfully to your gobbledy-gook.
Thank you!
-
Re topic I am always impressed by the fantastic steering capabilities of any Spaceship. You just push the accelerator, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the ass and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. Same when braking. You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction. Fantastic. I wonder why anybody believes the nonsense.
I guess I see your logic! You can't understand it, so it can't be true! There are lot's of things I don't understand, but I initially put that down to MY lack of knowledge till I can investigate further!
Wherever did you get the stupid idea that "You just push the accelerator... etc ... slow down in the exact direction."
I suppose you get all your ideas from Sci Fi films like Gravity and "The Martian"!
Navigation in space to dock with another vehicle takes a lot more than "push the accelerator... and off you go in the exact direction never missing the target. ... You just push the brake pedal, the Spaceship flips 180°, a rocket engine fires up and spews out hot gases from the nose and off you slow down in the exact direction." It is virtually impossible without computer calculation of required trajectories.
You are just so laughable you make some of papa legba's statements sound almost logical.
While we're on papa legba. He seemed to doubt that the "de Laval nozzle" would work above its "optimum altitude". Well it not only does work fine, but the thrust actually keeps on increasing as the outside pressure falls off. The point of optimisation is that a bit more thrust still could be obtained, but the large nozzle diameter tneeded means that de Laval nozzle can't be "optimised" for (almost) vacuum conditions, but they still operate well. Undoubdtedly everyone arguing about this topic has studied:
http://www.rocket-propulsion.info/resources/articles/NozzleDesign.pdf (http://www.rocket-propulsion.info/resources/articles/NozzleDesign.pdf). Likely!
I think it was papa legba that commented he would not want me designing rockets etc. Don't worry, everyone can rest easy, I simply do not have the expertise to go anywhere near a task like that!
-
Shill-Tactics 101: when presenting Illogical & Implausible data that your victim refuses to accept, say this to try belittle their Intelligence:
You can't understand it, so it can't be true!
Really, you are creating a veritable sewage-farm on your own doorsteps today, Disinfo-things...
Got anything new?
-
I apologize for solidal, I mean fixed to.
U have no clue how propulsion works do u? Acting on atmosphere has nothing to do with rocket propulsion.
The propellant is accelerated through the nozzle, so a force is acting on it( force=mass*acceleration). same force is acting on the nozzle but in the other direction, propelling the spaceship.
If u have really studied rocket propulsion u would have read that the main term in the thrust equation for rocket is given by the mass flow of propellant exiting the nozzle times the velocity at which it's exiting.
Don't try BS like "first u talk about acceleration and then u say velocity" cause if u perform a dimensional analysis (if u know what it means and can perform one) u would realize that mass flow*velocity has the same measurement unit as mass*velocity.
Ps still waiting on the V2 thing.....
-
I apologize for solidal, I mean fixed to.
Me. No. Speak-y. Gibberish.
Do. You. Understand. Me?
Yes. Or. No?
-
I apologize for solidal, I mean fixed to.
Me. No. Speak-y. Gibberish.
Do. You. Understand. Me?
Yes. Or. No?
Previous post talking about coordinate system. I used the word solidal instead of fixed to.
What about the rest of the post in which I point out that u know nothing about rocket propulsion?!?!
And the V2 thing?
-
mass flow*velocity has the same measurement unit as mass*velocity.
Try Harder...
Fail Harder...
Make us all Laugh harder.
That's what Clowns are for.
-
mass flow*velocity has the same measurement unit as mass*velocity.
Try Harder...
Fail Harder...
Make us all Laugh harder.
That's what Clowns are for.
Finally!!!!!
Definitive proof u have no education in basic physics let alone rocket design.
They are both measured in kg*meter/s^2.
I'll let u do the math.. Hint... Mass flow is the time derivative of mass
-
Don't try BS like "first u talk about acceleration and then u say velocity" cause if u perform a dimensional analysis (if u know what it means and can perform one) u would realize that mass flow*velocity has the same measurement unit as mass*velocity.
Still Trying...
Still Failing...
Audience getting Bored now.
Got any New tricks?
-
Ok typed it in a hurry. Mass flow*velocity same measurement unit as mass*acceleration.
Still it goes against what u claim is rocket propulsion.
Still no answer about v2.
U can continue to point out my spelling mistakes but it remains the fact that u do that cause u're arguments have no substance and u're defensive cause u don't know how to answer me
-
Ok typed it in a hurry.
You 'typed it in a hurry'...
LULZ!!!
Along with 'English is not my first language', this is, as ever, Shill-Tactics 101 as an Excuse for presenting False Information.
And, as we are all quite agonisingly aware by now that your first language is Gibberish, you are batting 100%.
Still; keep up your preposterous Mummery...
It may still be good for a few Laughs, though frankly you appear to be pumping a dry hole.
On which unpleasant metaphor, I will offer you a LMFAO!!! & bid you good-day.
-
Ok typed it in a hurry.
You 'typed it in a hurry'...
LULZ!!!
Along with 'English is not my first language', this is, as ever, Shill-Tactics 101 as an Excuse for presenting False Information.
And, as we are all quite agonisingly aware by now that your first language is Gibberish, you are batting 100%.
Still; keep up your preposterous Mummery...
It may still be good for a few Laughs, though frankly you appear to be pumping a dry hole.
On which unpleasant metaphor, I will offer you a LMFAO!!! & bid you good-day.
No answer, only excuses.
Sorry but I have to think that u and your welder buddies, despite your knowledge, cannot give an answer....
Maybe cause your knowledge of rocket is zero?!?!?!
I must assume that construction workers are not able to design a rocket... What a pitty, always thought that aerospace engineers loose their time at university
-
No answer, only excuses.
So now I'm the one 'making excuses'?
LOL!!!
Remember writing this 'excuse', in your very last post, psycho?
Ok typed it in a hurry.
Of course, accusing your Victim of the same Offence you have just been found guilty of is - wait for it - Shill-Tactics 101.
*Yawn!*
You really are a very silly little disinfo-thing, are you not?
But thanks for giving neutral readers a play-by-play run-through of all the dirty tricks in your repugnant Troll-Handbook.
You've been useful for that, at least, if Nothing else.
This should be post 19; why not show them another Shill-Tactic 101, i.e. grabbing top post on every page?
Toodle-Pip, Loser!
-
Let's recap.
U claim that in order to have propulsion u need atmosphere.
U claim that de Laval nozzles work only at the design altitude.
I said u're wrong, explained to u how it works in reality.
I presented u some examples that are against your claims and asked u how u would explain them.
U haven't replied on that matter so I must assume u and your welder buddies, which is a category of workers famous for its knowledge of rocket engines, cannot explain those example with what u know about propulsion. So your claims about rocket propulsion are worthless since they cannot explain what happens in reality.
-
A full recap would be:
Papa spouts crap about a certain part of the space program and spams garbage hoping we'll give in.
We all point out where he is wrong until he switches to a new point.
Repeat as necessary.
-
Along with 'English is not my first language', this is, as ever, Shill-Tactics 101 as an Excuse for presenting False Information.
I thought that only Americans were arrogant enough to think that the entire world spoke English as their first language.
-
Let us not forget that Poopoo Looser also thinks that acetylene torches should melt in his hand.
-
Remember me saying this to unluckyfred?
This should be post 19; why not show them another Shill-Tactic 101, i.e. grabbing top post on every page?
Well, look what he did...
LOL!!!
As for the rest of you cranks; your posts show exactly why every one of my mates who've looked in on this thread think it's YOU who are the Flat Earther weirdos.
'Poopoo Loser' - LMFAO!!!
This place is like a mental asylum...
-
Is refusing to answer simple questions another trick that they taught you in Shill-Tactic 101?
Do you believe that a de Laval nozzle only works at the altitude that it's optimized for, or can it work, but less efficiently, at other altitudes as well?
-
Is refusing to answer simple questions another trick that they taught you in Shill-Tactic 101?
LOL!!!
-
Is refusing to answer simple questions another trick that they taught you in Shill-Tactic 101?
LOL!!!
I'll take that as a yes.
-
No answer yet again.
Ok it's official, u don't know how to respond cause u don't know anything about rocket engine.
Good to know, go back to build houses and let the rocket science to aerospace engineer.
Everyone has its own area of expertise and shouldn't denigrate other people's work, especially since u have no idea what u're talking about.
-
No answer yet again.
No answer to What?
All you've done in your last few shitposts is tell me how very, very Wrong I am.
Fact is that I said all I need to say on this subject pages ago & you've spent all your time since Lying that I haven't while I took the piss out of you for doing so.
This is why every neutral thinks you're mental.
-
Nope, u've never told me how the de laval nozzle on the v2 allowed it to climb to 50 miles.
So since i've been telling how wrong u are and u've never responded i must assume u're admitting that u are wrong.... making all u've said previously basically worthless.
-
No answer yet again.
No answer to What?
To this, among other things:
Do you believe that a de Laval nozzle only works at the altitude that it's optimized for, or can it work, but less efficiently, at other altitudes as well?
-
See; this is the only tactic you have left, ain't it?
Just turn the page & Pretend that the previous 193 pages of lulz & humiliation never happened.
I've already answered all your questions; Pretending I haven't won't change that.
Like I said; this is why normal people think you're mental.
-
See; this is the only tactic you have left, ain't it?
Just turn the page & Pretend that the previous 193 pages of lulz & humiliation never happened.
I've already answered all your questions; Pretending I haven't won't change that.
Like I said; this is why normal people think you're mental.
No dude, never answered the v2 thing.
I thing the one who's left with nothing but tactics is u since u haven't answered my question Since page 189.
-
Sorry, the x15 question is at page 190. Guess this would make all the difference and u would use it to make some more excuses, wouldn't u?
-
Sorry, the x15 question is at page 190. Guess this would make all the difference and u would use it to make some more excuses, wouldn't u?
No, it would make no difference at all.
Because I do not care what you think.
Nobody does.
Because you're a Liar.
-
and we're back to the insults..... ahahahahhaha
asking u again, what i'm saying wrong?
u claim that de laval nozzle works only at a specific altitude but i've heard of the v2 rockets, which, during their trajectory, could reach 50 miles.
was i teached wrong? v2 never existed?
-
and we're back to the insults.
When I call you a Liar I am not insulting you.
I am simply stating a Fact.
So; when you say that I am insulting you by calling you a Liar you are in fact Lying.
Quite the habit with you, ain't it?
-
and we're back to the insults.
When I call you a Liar I am not insulting you.
I am simply stating a Fact.
So; when you say that I am insulting you by calling you a Liar you are in fact Lying.
Quite the habit with you, ain't it?
still no answer.
come on, should not be difficult by someone with your expertise
-
This is post 19.
Do what you need to do, Lying Troll Psychopath...
-
This is post 19.
Do what you need to do, Lying Troll Psychopath...
no problem.
i want to know what u think about v2 cause it appears to me that their perfomance goes against your claims.
i'm giving u the possibility of proving me wrong. are u gonna take it?
cause is simple, i've presented u with a proof that what u're saying is not true, not asnwering only means that u are indeed wrong.
-
Papa you a complete retard and a waste of the space you take up.
I am not insulting you, just simply stating a fact......
-
Papa you a complete retard and a waste of the space you take up.
I also have an Imaginary Qualification in Aspirational Jackanapery from the University of Ramalamadingdong in Brobdignagshire...
Which makes us Frat-bros, doooooooooooood!
i've presented u with a proof that what u're saying is not true
You've presented me with nothing but Lies, Lulz & a vast amount of evidence that you are a massively incompetent noob Shill...
Now; Carry On Lying!
-
Papa you a complete retard and a waste of the space you take up.
I also have an Imaginary Qualification in Aspirational Jackanapery from the University of Ramalamadingdong in Brobdignagshire...
Which makes us Frat-bros, doooooooooooood!
i've presented u with a proof that what u're saying is not true
You've presented me with nothing but Lies, Lulz & a vast amount of evidence that you are a massively incompetent noob Shill...
Now; Carry On Lying!
in which sense i lied? v2 never existed?
-
in which sense i lied? v2 never existed?
Is the V2 now the only thing you have spammed about in this thread?
No, it is not.
Thus, you are exposed as a Liar yet again...
Damn!
You are Comedy Gold...
Just get another job; you are terrible at this one.
-
I also have an Imaginary Qualification in Aspirational Jackanapery from the University of Ramalamadingdong in Brobdignagshire...
Did you go the same year as Sceptimatic?
-
the v2 was only the last thing left not answered. so it was not a lie. it does exist and it has the perfomance i claimed?
if it is the case u're proven wrong and everything u've said so far about rocket engine is meaningless cause u're ignorant and shuold not been listened to as for rockets.
-
the v2 was only the last thing left not answered. so it was not a lie. it does exist and it has the perfomance i claimed?
Emergency! Gibberish-to-English Translator Required!
-
I don't mind write it again.
V2 was not the only proof that u should only talk about plywood but it was the last thing u haven't still answered.
Since u haven't said anything about it I must presume all my claims are right.
My claims are against your hypothesis.
My claims are right u're wrong....
-
Since u haven't said anything about it I must presume all my claims are right.
LULZ!!!
I have Gutted your Fake self like a goddamned CIS autopsy, you ridiculous disinfo non-entity...
But yeah; Black is White, Up is Down, LOOK INTO MY EYES WHAT I SAY IS TRUE...
Whatever you say, Psycho!
ROFLMFAO!!!
-
Since u haven't said anything about it I must presume all my claims are right.
LULZ!!!
I have Gutted your Fake self like a goddamned CIS autopsy, you ridiculous disinfo non-entity...
But yeah; Black is White, Up is Down, LOOK INTO MY EYES WHAT I SAY IS TRUE...
Whatever you say, Psycho!
ROFLMFAO!!!
quoting only what's convenient for u, are u that desperate?
i was referring to the v2. and no, u haven't said anything about it
-
i was referring to the v2. and no, u haven't said anything about it
Yes I have. Liar.
Read the thread.
-
i was referring to the v2. and no, u haven't said anything about it
Yes I have. Liar.
Read the thread.
I brought up the v2 at the end of page 192.
Here's what u've talked about after
Page 193 recap
Thrust vectorin argument
don't understand gibberish
Shill tactics
Page 194 recap
We are ignoring what happened before
Call me a liar
Page 195 recap
still calling me a liar
Among all these "liar" and "gibberish" i must have lost it.
Please quote where u've explicitly referred to the v2.
-
Do you think this thread is all about you, psycho?
Read it from the start; there's plenty about your dumbass V2 in it.
But the fact that I've pushed you so far onto the defensive that you even have to refer to the primitive, 70-year old V2 as proving anything whatsoever about NASA's 'shpayze-ecksplurayshun' claims shows just how utterly desperate you all are.
Now GTFO & read every single page of this goddamned thread before you get back to me, Troll.
Kabisa!
-
i have to go back before NASA cause u think that everything that has to do with nasa is fake.
btw, i can back up everything i say with articles, reports and books from universities and space agencies.
what have u got? right, your welder buddies!!!!!
but of course, all scientist and engineers are part of the conspiracy aren't they?
can we at least have the first names of a couple of your welder buddies? it'll give your source more crediility...
u can use even fake names. i don't know, something like Papa, Ignores and Physics... yes i like those fake names, do u?
-
Wow! You read the entire thread fast...
Found the bits where I discussed the V2 yet?
No?
Troll...
-
This is post 19.
Incorrect. The default number of posts per page is 20. If you can't even count to 20, then you have no business calling others names.
-
This is post 19.
Incorrect. The default number of posts per page is 20. If you can't even count to 20, then you have no business calling others names.
Just can't stop your bitch-slap shitposting, can you?
Neutrals; check the last few pages to see who managed to get the top post in the most.
It'll be LOL!!!
-
This is post 19.
Incorrect. The default number of posts per page is 20. If you can't even count to 20, then you have no business calling others names.
Just can't stop your bitch-slap shitposting, can you?
Neutrals; check the last few pages to see who managed to get the top post in the most.
It'll be LOL!!!
Are you saying that we should stop the discussion at the end of a page? ???
-
I'm saying you should stop being a control-freak thought-cop psychopath.
Please?
LOL!!!
-
Firstly, try learning how to apply Newtons 3rd law correctly to a device as simple as a rocket (clue: a rocket's exhaust column Pushes against an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere; no outside Mass, no Push).
I don't need to read all the thread to understand that u know nothing about rocket propulsion. this is from page one.
rocket do not push against an outside mass. rocket accelerates the propellant through the nozzle, which results in a force acting on the propellant. same force, opposite direction, acts on the nozzles, propelling the rocket.
often is more practical to consider the mass flow of the propellant, in that case the thrust is given by mass flow*speed of the propellant exiting the nozzle.
if u aren't satisfied and u want the math supporting my statement: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
don't worry, u need to read only the first five pages and there are a couple of pictures as well.
no bs about the link being unsafe, is from MIT, not from military or government agencies.
-
I'm saying you should stop being a control-freak thought-cop psychopath.
Please?
LOL!!!
So asking you to learn to count, answer simple questions and to act in a civil manner makes me a "control-freak thought-cop psychopath"?
ROTFLMAO!!
-
So asking you to learn to count, answer simple questions and to act in a civil manner makes me a "control-freak thought-cop psychopath"?
You mean 'simple questions' like this one, control-freak sock-puppeting Thought-Gestapo psychopath?
How can you honestly say if something tastes like shit if you don't know what shit tastes like?
& phuckyfred; so now YOU want to go over the rockets in a vacuum b.s. again too?
All the shills do...
Is your name really chtwrone?
*Yawn!*
Tell you what; nobody on this entire forum has ever quoted Newton's 3rd Law, as written by the man himself, in its entirety.
Funny, that, as you all seem to be such experts in it...
Why don't you start by doing that?
In a good English translation, please!
-
I have for long time wondered why Papa Leba is so "enslaved" to his often illogical ideas. I think I have finally worked out why! His parting message "To Believe in another man's System is to be Enslaved." says it all.
He is so enslaved to the Flat Earth doctrine in Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Sacred Texts that anything that might conflict simply cannot be true!
So he simply cannot accept the possibility of :
1) Globe Earth, hence Pythagoras and thousands since then were mistaken,
2) Rotating Earth, hence Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler etc, were mistaken,
3) Gravity, hence Newton, Cavendish and others confirming gravity, have to be mistaken,
4) Space Flight, and hence rockets cannot work in a vacuum,
5) South Pole, and hence Amundsen, Scott and the thousands of others who have visited were mistaken,
etc, etc talk about enslaved!
Mind you if Papa were writing this he would write "liars" everywhere I have written "mistaken".
So glad I worked this out, will make his posts so much easier to read!
-
I have for long time wondered why Papa Leba is so "enslaved" to his often illogical ideas.
What 'long time' is that?
You've only been here three months & made 63 posts.
LOL!!!
Sock-puppet self-incrimination!
He is so enslaved to the Flat Earth doctrine in Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Sacred Texts
I've never read it & I'm not a flat-earther.
The Fail piles up...
talk about enslaved!
Talk about Wrong...
& bizarrely obsessed with enslavement too; is it an S&M thing?
So glad I worked this out,
Very nice for you; no-one else is though...
Guess you're kinda 'special'?
-
So asking you to learn to count, answer simple questions and to act in a civil manner makes me a "control-freak thought-cop psychopath"?
You mean 'simple questions' like this one, control-freak sock-puppeting Thought-Gestapo psychopath?
How can you honestly say if something tastes like shit if you don't know what shit tastes like?
& phuckyfred; so now YOU want to go over the rockets in a vacuum b.s. again too?
All the shills do...
Is your name really chtwrone?
*Yawn!*
Tell you what; nobody on this entire forum has ever quoted Newton's 3rd Law, as written by the man himself, in its entirety.
Funny, that, as you all seem to be such experts in it...
Why don't you start by doing that?
In a good English translation, please!
If u want it in english i cannot quote newton himself.
So here's the original latin
Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
But let me guess, u cannot understand latin can u?
Luckily
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
And know i will quote u. GTFO ignorant
-
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
-
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
But newton talked about "things" not about discussion or forum reactions :D
-
But newton talked about "things" not about discussion or forum reactions :D
So?
Read again:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
-
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
propellant's particles what are? lollipos? unicorn?
no, bodies. if particles of fluid are not bodies with their own mass, how would u explain pressure?
-
propellant's particles what are? lollipos? unicorn?
no, bodies. if particles of fluid are not bodies with their own mass, how would u explain pressure?
How many times must I tell you that I do not speak Gibberish?
-
Propellant's particles are bodies!!!!!!
If particles of a fluid are not bodies to which Newton 3rd law can be applied how would u explain pressure?
-
Propellant's particles are bodies!!!!!!
If particles of a fluid are not bodies to which Newton 3rd law can be applied how would u explain pressure?
I'm not sure what your point is, but try this:
*Buy a firework rocket.
*Look at it.
*Count the Number of objects it is.
If the Number you count to is higher than One, then there's not much to be done for you.
-
My point: Propellant->combustion->propellant becomes a high temperature high pressure fluid->nozzle accelerates fluid hence nozzles applies a force on the fluid, the fluid applies an equal and opposite force on the nozzle->propulsion.
If u really believe in what u say about the firework it means that u have the mental faculties of a two years old child
-
I discovered an endless time-loop ... aargh ...
-
really believe in what u say about the firework it means that u have the mental faculties of a two years old child
So; when you look at ONE firework rocket you see MORE than one Object?
Interesting take on counting...
I discovered an endless time-loop ... aargh ...
That'll be the Delirium Tremens kicking in; try Librium.
-
Yep... Gasses coming out of said firework are made of millions of bodies. It's physics ignorant
-
Yep... Gasses coming out of said firework are made of millions of bodies. It's physics ignorant
Again; when you look at an UNLIT firework rocket, how many objects do you count it as?
More than One?
-
Yep... Gasses coming out of said firework are made of millions of bodies. It's physics ignorant
Again; when you look at an UNLIT firework rocket, how many objects do you count it as?
More than One?
Papa, are you asking in terms of a kids counting game, then yes, it is one.
Congratulations, you are two years old.
If u really believe in what u say about the firework it means that u have the mental faculties of a two years old child
If you are asking about a firework in context of propulsion, then no, it is not one solid object.
It is made up of many specific components, some of it being propulsion fuel.
Ignoring all of that is ignoring the system, which is the thing in discussion.
-
yes, it is one.
Good; a rocket is ONE object.
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
Remember this?
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
*Yawn!*
-
Yep... Gasses coming out of said firework are made of millions of bodies. It's physics ignorant
Again; when you look at an UNLIT firework rocket, how many objects do you count it as?
More than One?
Unlit rockets are not propelled, aren't we talking about propulsion?
-
Unlit rockets are not propelled, aren't we talking about propulsion?
Stop pretending my last post didn't exist, psycho.
Look; here it is:
yes, it is one.
Good; a rocket is ONE object.
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
Remember this?
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
*Yawn!*
Btw; good work getting top post in yet again...
Obvious Laughably noob Shill is Laughably noobularly Obvious!
-
Anyone arguing that a rocket is propelled by pressure on the air is talking an absolute impossibility with any rocket where the exhaust velocity at the bell mouth is supersonic.
Ever heard of pressure differentials?
Pressure gradient forces?
Do these not exist in your tiny little world?
Oh, & nice to see you've come round since your last post; you sounded kinda... different in it.
Kinda foreign; like English may not have been your first language maybe?
LOL!!!
-
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
When something is dismantled, is it still one object? - No, it, like a locket and everything else is made up of divisible components.
Between all of those components momentum is maintained. Meaning if any one or more parts had to be ejected using force from with in that system, the rest of the system will react in the way described by newton.
Simple examples.
A gun with bullets can be seen as one object -> as a gun fires a bullet it becomes more than one body, but its overall momentum needs to be maintained, some of the overall objects mass is now being ejected, the result is that the gun itself moves in the opposite direction.
A rocket is similar, instead of bullets they use rocket fuel because there is more energy in it. The mass of the rocket fuel being ejected is the other body.
-
A gun with bullets can be seen as one object -> as a gun fires a bullet it becomes more than one body, but its overall momentum needs to be maintained, some of the overall objects mass is now being ejected, the result is that the gun itself moves in the opposite direction.
THERE you go; 'a rocket is like a gun'!
I knew it!
You know, I have just the thread for you to expound your theories of how the recoil effect can explain rocket propulsion...
I'll just go fetch it; please use it & stop spamming me with your Lies.
Thank you!
-
I have no idea why you are so excited about my statement that a rocket maintains momentum similar to a gun, or everything else?
I suggest you go read this anyway. (seriously, its kinda funny too)
https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/ (https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/)
TLDR, if you had a enough AK47's shooting downwards with enough bullets you could build a jetpack.
-
xkcd are the best ...
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/actually.png)
-
TLDR, if you had a enough AK47's shooting downwards with enough bullets you could build a jetpack.
Bullshit.
The mass of the bullets needed would make it too heavy to lift off.
If you want to spam your unscientific nonsense please do so on the correct thread.
You won't, will you?
But it's worth an ask...
-
TLDR, if you had a enough AK47's shooting downwards with enough bullets you could build a jetpack.
Bullshit.
The mass of the bullets needed would make it too heavy to lift off.
If you want to spam your unscientific nonsense please do so on the correct thread.
You won't, will you?
But it's worth an ask...
I never said it will be a good jetpack, It will however be able to provide lift for a little bit until you run out of bullets. Similar to how other jetpacks work until they run out of propellant. Did you read the link? Its really easy reading
-
It will however be able to provide lift for a little bit until you run out of bullets.
Still bullshit.
Still the wrong thread.
-
Is it BS because you said so?
On what authority do you say this?
Maths suggests that an AK47 can lift itself, if you can provide some counter evidence or calculation then I will take notice.
There is good reason why no one is making jetpacks out of them as I am sure you can imagine.
If you are just saying it is BS without a reasonable explanation then why are you trying to discuss science?
-
Firstly, try learning how to apply Newtons 3rd law correctly to a device as simple as a rocket (clue: a rocket's exhaust column Pushes against an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere; no outside Mass, no Push).
I don't need to read all the thread to understand that u know nothing about rocket propulsion. this is from page one.
rocket do not push against an outside mass. rocket accelerates the propellant through the nozzle, which results in a force acting on the propellant. same force, opposite direction, acts on the nozzles, propelling the rocket.
often is more practical to consider the mass flow of the propellant, in that case the thrust is given by mass flow*speed of the propellant exiting the nozzle.
if u aren't satisfied and u want the math supporting my statement: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
don't worry, u need to read only the first five pages and there are a couple of pictures as well.
no bs about the link being unsafe, is from MIT, not from military or government agencies.
This is how rocket propulsion work. Are u missing how the propellant is composed by millions of bodies to which 3rd law is applied?
Pay attention cause this is chemistry 101 and physics 101, they don't teach them to welder school apparently.
Hypothesis: solid rocket fuel
Millions of bodies make up the propellant.
There are very strong chemical bonds among them, they act as a single solid body.
Combustion occurs
Combustion reaction destroys strong chemical bonds
Each body is now free to move independently.
Solid propellant has become a gas.
Each particle of that gas is an independent body on which Newton's 3rd law can be applied.
Nozzle accelerates gas.
Nozzle produce a force on gas particles and gas particles produce an equal and opposite force on the nozzle.
Rocket is propelled
No atmosphere involved
-
Anyone arguing that a rocket is propelled by pressure on the air is talking an absolute impossibility with any rocket where the exhaust velocity at the bell mouth is supersonic.
Ever heard of pressure differentials?
Pressure gradient forces?
Do these not exist in your tiny little world?
Oh, & nice to see you've come round since your last post; you sounded kinda... different in it.
Kinda foreign; like English may not have been your first language maybe?
LOL!!!
1) Yes, I must retract my earlier post, but I was looking for some logical reason for your simply acting like an utterly despicable character who calls everyone a liar at the slightest provocation. You have dispelled that notion and I am sorry to say I am finally convinced that must be an utterly despicable character who just loves to call all and sundry liars! Well, it's nice to know where we stand.
2) Yes, I know about pressure differentials and pressure gradient forces, but they still cannot propagate faster than the speed of sound - go look up a bit on supersonic aerodynamics. Now, I am not saying a rocket requires a supersonic exhaust velocity, it's just that when it is there can be no possibility of relying on "pushing" on the air.
It's no point carrying on with this of course, you know your position will not be changed and from all I have read I can't see me being readily convinced by anything I have seen from you. Of course I have done NO practical "rocket science" - apart from a few trivial episodes of doubtful legality many many years ago - and they were not "science", pure hands on. Must have been successful as I still have both hands - ear drums - that's another matter!
3) No, I am afraid my native language is Strine, so I have to try hard to translate these posts into English. Occasionally I break into Academic, but I'm trying to get over it!
-
Yes, I know about pressure differentials and pressure gradient forces, but they still cannot propagate faster than the speed of sound
The speed of sound changes with temperature.
Which is good news for supersonic jet aircraft.
Because they push on the air.
-
Firstly, try learning how to apply Newtons 3rd law correctly to a device as simple as a rocket (clue: a rocket's exhaust column Pushes against an outside Mass, such as the atmosphere; no outside Mass, no Push).
I don't need to read all the thread to understand that u know nothing about rocket propulsion. this is from page one.
rocket do not push against an outside mass. rocket accelerates the propellant through the nozzle, which results in a force acting on the propellant. same force, opposite direction, acts on the nozzles, propelling the rocket.
often is more practical to consider the mass flow of the propellant, in that case the thrust is given by mass flow*speed of the propellant exiting the nozzle.
if u aren't satisfied and u want the math supporting my statement: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
don't worry, u need to read only the first five pages and there are a couple of pictures as well.
no bs about the link being unsafe, is from MIT, not from military or government agencies.
This is how rocket propulsion work. Are u missing how the propellant is composed by millions of bodies to which 3rd law is applied?
Pay attention cause this is chemistry 101 and physics 101, they don't teach them to welder school apparently.
Hypothesis: solid rocket fuel
Millions of bodies make up the propellant.
There are very strong chemical bonds among them, they act as a single solid body.
Combustion occurs
Combustion reaction destroys strong chemical bonds
Each body is now free to move independently.
Solid propellant has become a gas.
Each particle of that gas is an independent body on which Newton's 3rd law can be applied.
Nozzle accelerates gas.
Nozzle produce a force on gas particles and gas particles produce an equal and opposite force on the nozzle.
Rocket is propelled
No atmosphere involved
Papa, nothing to say about this?
-
This is how rocket propulsion work. Are u missing how the propellant is composed by millions of bodies to which 3rd law is applied?
For someone who claims to be conversant with fluid mechanics not to have heard of the Continuum Assumption is rather odd...
But for a laughably inept shill-entity it is par for the course.
-
This is how rocket propulsion work. Are u missing how the propellant is composed by millions of bodies to which 3rd law is applied?
For someone who claims to be conversant with fluid mechanics not to have heard of the Continuum Assumption is rather odd...
But for a laughably inept shill-entity it is par for the course.
continuum assumption is only use full as a simplification of reality. Would be more correct to model every single molecule and their reciprocal interaction but u would end up with to many variables for practical calculations.
Btw continuum assumption is only valid for low value of the Knudsen's number.
-
This is how rocket propulsion work. Are u missing how the propellant is composed by millions of bodies to which 3rd law is applied?
For someone who claims to be conversant with fluid mechanics not to have heard of the Continuum Assumption is rather odd...
But for a laughably inept shill-entity it is par for the course.
Sorry Papa. Continuum assumption is a just method of simplifying the modelling for materials. Using the concept of millions of separate particles is what happens in reality but is harder to model.
-
Would be more correct to model every single molecule and their reciprocal interaction but u would end up with to many variables for practical calculations.
Would it?
Funny how no-one ever does that, though, & just uses continuum mechanics
But whatever; here we go again...
Mainframe's 'tiny billiard balls banging about in a box' analogy rises from the grave.
Speaking of whom; hiya Walter Mitty!
How odd that you should pop up right now...
Still Pretending to be a scientist, are we?
LOL!!!
-
Propellant's particles are bodies!!!!!!
If particles of a fluid are not bodies to which Newton 3rd law can be applied how would u explain pressure?
I'm not sure what your point is, but try this:
*Buy a firework rocket.
*Look at it.
*Count the Number of objects it is.
If the Number you count to is higher than One, then there's not much to be done for you.
Papa Legba claims to work in construction yet doesn't understand the concept of a bill of materials.
-
Aaand markjo gets top post in again, with a typically inane shitpost.
You lot have given up even trying, haven't you?
Sad bastards.
-
Anyhoo; I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
-
Would be more correct to model every single molecule and their reciprocal interaction but u would end up with to many variables for practical calculations.
Would it?
Funny how no-one ever does that, though, & just uses continuum mechanics
But whatever; here we go again...
Mainframe's 'tiny billiard balls banging about in a box' analogy rises from the grave.
Speaking of whom; hiya Walter Mitty!
How odd that you should pop up right now...
Still Pretending to be a scientist, are we?
LOL!!!
Continuum assumption is more practical for fast calculations but... Have u ever heard of computational fluid dynamics CFD and finite element model FEM. They basically divide your object into many parts, continuum then becomes a union of discrete elements. This is done in order to give a better approximation of reality and allows more precise calculations
-
Have u ever heard of computational fluid dynamics CFD and finite element model FEM.
Yes, & it's still based on the continuum assumption...
Do you have a point?
Or are you, as I suggested you would earlier, simply working your way towards filling a whole post with Navier-Stokes equations in order to really stink the place out?
-
Yes, & it's still based on the continuum assumption...
Emphasis on assumption! It's an assumption they use to make modelling simpler. Reality shows that everything (including fluids we are discussing) is made from many discrete particles.
-
The concept of tiny billiard-ball molecules banging off each other has no place in Fluid Mechanics.
So stop trying to crow-bar it in there so you cann hazz spayze-shippz.
-
Body of rocket
Propellant
That's two objects. Why are we going backwards?
-
Body of rocket
Propellant
That's two objects. Why are we going backwards?
So the propellant of an unlit rocket is outside the body of the rocket?
Idiot.
Still; strange how you & Walter Mitty seem to always come as a pair, isn't it?
LOL!!!
No, it isn't!
-
Have u ever heard of computational fluid dynamics CFD and finite element model FEM.
Yes, & it's still based on the continuum assumption...
Do you have a point?
Or are you, as I suggested you would earlier, simply working your way towards filling a whole post with Navier-Stokes equations in order to really stink the place out?
of course i have a point.
fem uses continuum mechanics, in which u need to solve less equations, in a very small volume in order to represent better the reality which is not made up by continuum material but by atom and molecules.
think of concrete. continuum mechanics approximates it as a single material, fem uses the continuum mechanics model of cement and aggregate in order to reproduce the concrete as the interaction of every single grain of cement and aggregate.
u prefer continuum mechanics. no problem: the mass flow of propellant gains speed through the nozzle, this means that thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
do u want proper math, as u prefer:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
u're not scared by intregals and derivates, right?
I'm sure u've been taught integrals and derivatives while u're following the course "how not to hit your thumb with the hammer".
-
Body of rocket
Propellant
That's two objects. Why are we going backwards?
So the propellant of an unlit rocket is outside the body of the rocket?
Idiot.
Still; strange how you & Walter Mitty seem to always come as a pair, isn't it?
LOL!!!
No, it isn't!
Lol
Objects can touch each other and still be separate objects.
Lol
-
Body of rocket
Propellant
That's two objects. Why are we going backwards?
So the propellant of an unlit rocket is outside the body of the rocket?
Who said that the second body needs to be outside the first? ???
-
Objects can touch each other and still be separate objects.
Great - I get two fireworks for the price of one!
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
LOL!!!
What a Loser.
Who said that the second body needs to be outside the first?
Dunno; a gynaecologist maybe?
GTFO, Shitpost King!
-
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
LOL!!!
What a Loser.
why i'm a loser?
do u mean that mass flow*velocity is not a force?!?
-
why i'm a loser?
You don't even know, do you, poor sod...
That's why you're a Loser I guess.
-
why i'm a loser?
You don't even know, do you, poor sod...
That's why you're a Loser I guess.
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
-
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
-
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
so i'm right and you're wrong, thank u for your admission.
now u can't stop playing with the quote.
really dude? that's all u've got? u have no valid argument against what i've said?
and u were claiming i'm the one using shill tactics 101. all u have done in the last ten pages is evanding and insulting.
little Liar I challenge u to bring up evidence against my claims...
make clear to everybody on this forum that i know nothing about rocket and that u're right, come on
u've got none cause u're ignorant?
next time debate whether it's better the hammer or the nail gun, that's more on your level
-
make clear to everybody on this forum that i know nothing about rocket and that u're right
I already have done.
& if they've been paying close attention I proved you're a Shill too.
Toodle-Pip, Loser; I'm off to grate some cheese for my pasta.
Using your unique interpretation of Newton's 3rd the Cheese can be both itself AND the Grater...
Extra Cheese all round!
-
make clear to everybody on this forum that i know nothing about rocket and that u're right
I already have done.
& if they've been paying close attention I proved you're a Shill too.
Toodle-Pip, Loser; I'm off to grate some cheese for my pasta.
Using your unique interpretation of Newton's 3rd the Cheese can be both itself AND the Grater...
Extra Cheese all round!
yeah is unique, sure..... execpt is the one u should have been taught in chemistry and physics.
btw if my knowledge is so fundamentally wrong, how come i can rely on MIT professor to support my claim and u can rely on welders?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
dude, suggestion, just stop answering.
i won't let u get away with this. too many people have dedicated their lives to achieve flight and space flight, i just won't let u saying BS about their lives' work.
just stop answering this thread, i don't care about solar eclipses and other stuff, u can continue trolling on every other thread on this forum, just stop answering in this one... just a suggestion
-
The concept of tiny billiard-ball molecules banging off each other has no place in Fluid Mechanics.
So stop trying to crow-bar it in there so you cann hazz spayze-shippz.
In breaking news Papa Legba does not accept reality......
-
Who said that the second body needs to be outside the first?
Dunno; a gynaecologist maybe?
GTFO, Shitpost King!
If I'm the shipost king, what does that make you? God Emperor of the Shitpost?
-
Objects can touch each other and still be separate objects.
Great - I get two fireworks for the price of one!
LOL!!!
You do if you buy them in Wyoming.
Lol
A firework is made up of many components. A car is also made up of many components.
-
i won't let u get away with this.
DRAMA!!!
In breaking news Papa Legba does not accept reality......
Says the man who Lies about everything.
If I'm the shipost king, what does that make you?
As usual, NO U!!! is markjo's best effort.
A firework is made up of many components. A car is also made up of many components.
Oh, now sock-arul rocks up to complete the shill-set.
Still can't tell the difference between the numbers ONE and TWO though...
Sloppy toilet training, idiot?
GTFO, Losers.
-
Yet again, I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
-
If I'm the shipost king, what does that make you?
As usual, NO U!!! is markjo's best effort.
It's no worse than your shitspamming.
A firework is made up of many components. A car is also made up of many components.
Oh, now sock-arul rocks up to complete the shill-set.
Still can't tell the difference between the numbers ONE and TWO though...
1 cardboard tube + 1 propellant charge = 1 firework
Wow. TWO separate parts to make ONE firework.
Mind blown.
-
i won't let u get away with this.
DRAMA!!!
In breaking news Papa Legba does not accept reality......
Says the man who Lies about everything.
If I'm the shipost king, what does that make you?
As usual, NO U!!! is markjo's best effort.
A firework is made up of many components. A car is also made up of many components.
Oh, now sock-arul rocks up to complete the shill-set.
Still can't tell the difference between the numbers ONE and TWO though...
Sloppy toilet training, idiot?
GTFO, Losers.
U find satisfying insulting random People on internet?
It's because u cannot accept that there are smarter people than u out there?
Dear papa, call one of your welder buddy and tell him how intelligent u are, how u've invented new laws of physics, how u can explain everything without knowing math , otherwise u'll end up crying in the shower like a little girl tonight
FYI i won't GTFO from this thread honey, you know what, i should find u a new name petulant child, i should call u Cindy from now on.
FYI u apply 3rd law considering a couple of bodies, but u can applied it easily to multibody systems by simply diving your system in subsystems. Example, petrol engines, action reaction between the piston and the ignited air-fuel mixture, action-reaction conrod-piston, action reaction conrod-crankshaft
-
ONE firework.
Exactly: ONE object.
Idiot.
U find satisfying insulting random People on internet?
'U find satisfying' Lying to random people on internet for a living?
-
Just to remind all you psychopaths:
A rocket is ONE object.
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
Remember this?
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
Now; Carry On Lying!
-
Just to remind all you psychopaths:
A rocket is ONE object.
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
Remember this?
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
Now; Carry On Lying!
One object u say.... No problem.
Since nothing is acting on a rocket in vacuum, the center of mass should not move right?
No force, no acceleration, center of mass in the same position.
So when gasses are ejected from the nozzle, part of the mass of the rocket is going in one direction and, in order to have the center of mass still in the same position, the other part of the mass should move in the opposite direction. So gasses go in one direction and rocket goes in the other, they're still one object and its center of mass should not move since in vacuum u have no force acting on it.
See i can make the rocket move considering it one object, without mentioning 3rd law and without an atmosphere.
Don't know what u think about gravity, just to be safe consider the rocket millions of light years away from everything else, in this case u basically have no gravity and there aren't any forces acting on the rocket
-
Yet again, I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
They don't have to touch each other......
-
It really, truly, can NOT be emphasised strongly enough that I DO NOT SPEAK GIBBERISH!
Okay?
For example:
So gasses go in one direction and rocket goes in the other, they're still one object...
GTFO, lunatic.
Yet again, I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
They don't have to touch each other......
Making up the Laws of Physics as you go now?
Nothing new there eh, Walter Mitty?
-
ONE firework.
Exactly: ONE object.
Made up of 2 objects.
Someone claiming to work in construction should be familiar with that concept.
You know, using smaller objects to make one big object.
How many objects does it take to make 1 house?
Idiot.
How mature. ::)
-
Reductio ad absurdum; is that your best shitpost tactic now?
What a Loser.
-
First of all
Haisfracassatolaminchiacoltuogibberishdelcazzo.
That's proper gibberish.
So Cindy..... Gasses being ejected by the rocket are a different object than the rocket?
Cause in that case gasses are being ejected cause they are accelerated by the nozzle.
Gasses have a mass.
Mass*acceleration is a force.
So the nozzle is producing a force on the gasses and it's receiving an equal and opposite force from them.
Look, it's what the MIT professor has been saying.
Oh god, never expected he was right
-
Reductio ad absurdum;
??? What's absurd about one rocket being made up of a number of different objects?
BTW, reductio ad absurdum, in and of itself, is not necessarily a fallacy, but it can be useful in pointing out the fallacy in your arugument.
-
It's obvious papa legba is just trolling the fuck out of you dumbshits. 199 pages of bite after bite.
Underneath all the trolls/insults he seems well educated and is probably just here to have some fun.
-
What makes u think i'm not Here for fun as well?
I've seen better trolls btw. Too aggressive, pages of insults and no real substance.
I don't think is that well educated. If he really is he should put a little more effort. Reminds me of thebigone
-
Newton's 3rd Law specifically speaks of the interaction of TWO objects.
Look:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
So; the sooner all you shitposting psychopaths decide how many objects a rocket in fact consists of (lol it's one!), the sooner we can begin discussing how it works.
Of course, everyone who is not a Paid Liar or Bedrock Madman already knows they push against the medium upon which they move - like every other thing on Earth that moves does - but let's have some Fun with Sociopaths first, eh?
In which case; Carry On Lying!
-
So; the sooner all you shitposting psychopaths decide how many objects a rocket in fact consists of (lol it's one!), the sooner we can begin discussing how it works.
A rocket consists of many parts, but the 2 relevant ones are the combustion chamber and the fuel/oxidizer mix that is burned to produce combustion gasses which are accelerated out the back end.
-
They don't have to touch each other......
Making up the Laws of Physics as you go now?
Nothing new there eh, Walter Mitty?
Magnets don't touch each and they exert force on each other.
-
A rocket consists of many parts, but the 2 relevant ones
Oh, no, no, no...
Is it MANY?
Or is it TWO?
Magnets don't touch each and they exert force on each other.
So rockets work by magnetism now?
Okay; just to humour you...
Do rockets consist of:
ONE magnet?
TWO magnets?
MANY magnets?
The number of Objects (magnetic or otherwise) from which a rocket is constituted is of Vital Importance here, psychotic Raown Derfers...
Can we at least get a consensus before moving on?
Is that too much to ask from Rational, Logical & Upright Men of Science such as your not-at-all disinfo-shill selves?
-
What makes u think i'm not Here for fun as well?
I've seen better trolls btw. Too aggressive, pages of insults and no real substance.
I don't think is that well educated. If he really is he should put a little more effort. Reminds me of thebigone
Not too agressive at all, just the right amount in fact, he's obviously getting under everyone's skin and that's just what he wants.
In fact I don't think Papa Legba gives a flying fuck about what is being discussed, he just wants to watch people squirm and he seems to be a doing a hell of a job lol
Of course he's smart, how else could he convince you all that he believes rockets aren't real.
If you guys haven't figured out yet that he is just playing devil's advocate to wind you all up then you're the ones with the problem not him lol.
-
A rocket consists of many parts, but the 2 relevant ones
Oh, no, no, no...
Is it MANY?
Or is it TWO?
Yes.
Many parts make up a rocket, but 2 are most relevant when discussing why they don't need to push off an atmosphere.
Apparently context is yet another concept with which Papa Legba is not familiar.
-
A rocket consists of many parts, but the 2 relevant ones
Oh, no, no, no...
Is it MANY?
Or is it TWO?
Magnets don't touch each and they exert force on each other.
So rockets work by magnetism now?
Okay; just to humour you...
Do rockets consist of:
ONE magnet?
TWO magnets?
MANY magnets?
The number of Objects (magnetic or otherwise) from which a rocket is constituted is of Vital Importance here, psychotic Raown Derfers...
Can we at least get a consensus before moving on?
Is that too much to ask from Rational, Logical & Upright Men of Science such as your not-at-all disinfo-shill selves?
I didn't say magnets had anything to do with rockets.
Anyway nice to see you are being deliberately obtuse about everything again.
A rocket is composed of many objects but can be simplified to one because of continuum mechanics.
The exhaust then becomes a sepsrate object after it has interacted with the rocket.
-
Be nice to get back to the topic
The OP contained "Anyone that grew up through the 40's, 50's and 60's were literally bombarded with promises of space travel, flying cars, shopping malls in space, you name it. With billions of planets to choose from the universe was all of a sudden a much bigger place."
I just wonder people with that idea got their information from? The nearest place I can find back there was first of all Flash Gordon and then the Jetsons. I don't think NASA made it sound easy - what the number of rockets that:
Exploded on the launch pad,
Simply became unstable and crashed back close by (watch you head!),
Lost guidance at high altitude and were made to self-destruct
or simply disappeared.
This does not include the numerous engine failures on the test-bed.
No, it's never been easy, of course not helped by the US approach of taking the lowest tender - I probably do them an injustice there, but you get the idea.
We can't really blame Wernher von Braun for all this but:
Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Tom Lehrer
-
What topic? This thread was started by a retarded based on his retatdedness. "Rockets push of the atmosphere", how stupid can one be?
-
I actually think the threads true origin is from the disappointment that its still not easy to get into space.
Although the topic It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
is not correct, we are all closer to getting into space, the price of sending a kg up has more than halved in the last 5 years and should half at least once more in the next 5, this is all excluding inflation. Real world rockets are getting cheaper relative to everything else.
Thing is, rockets where unfathomably expensive back then, now they are only ridiculously expensive. The Flat Earth Society dies when they become only exceptionally expensive
-
Many parts make up a rocket
You use the phrase 'A rocket'; does this not give you a clue as to how many objects 'A rocket' in fact is?
What with it being a Singular Noun and all?
This thread was started by a retarded based on his retatdedness.
If you're going to accuse someone of retardedness you should at least learn how to spell it.
A rocket is composed of many objects but can be simplified to one because of continuum mechanics.
Oh, look - I taught you a New Word!
And you're already mis-applying it...
Strange, cos if you had a degree in Chem. Eng. you would be very unlikely to do so.
LOL!!!
Real world rockets are getting cheaper relative to everything else.
Yes; the costs of CGI are indeed getting cheaper.
*Yawn!*
Now; back to the fun and games: How many Objects is A Rocket (singular noun)?
I count ONE; yet you shpayze-tards seem somewhat visually impaired.
Do let us know how the Magic happens & your Rocket miraculously transforms from Singular to Plural in order to get to 'shpaaayzhhe'!
-
I find it fascinating how half a dozen more or less intelligent people desperately try to talk sense to a bully who doesn't care for content at all but is just flinging poo in every direction and delights in the attention he gets through that ...
... I hate to tell you all, but PL is the only winner in this thread.
-
I find it fascinating how half a dozen more or less intelligent people
The operative word in the above phrase is 'Less'.
Because forget 'half a dozen'; if half a BILLION people less intelligent than I tried to tell me that ONE Object is in fact TWO, or MANY, or whatever amount of Objects they need to sustain their ludicrous & fraudulent sci-fi fantasies, I'd still laugh in their faces.
Oh, & p.s: anonymous internet sock-puppet entities don't really count as 'people'.
So stop pretending they do, psycho.
-
Yet again, I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
-
I find it fascinating how half a dozen more or less intelligent people desperately try to talk sense to a bully who doesn't care for content at all but is just flinging poo in every direction and delights in the attention he gets through that ...
... I hate to tell you all, but PL is the only winner in this thread.
Papa Legba is the winner because he's being realistic. He's trying to tell you that rockets do NOT work in your space and instead of sitting there and thinking about all of what has been said by Papa and a few other's - including myself, you want to try and flex your supposed scientific prowess.
Instead of fighting the fight, try and clear your mind of the absolute garbage fed into it - for now - and look at what and why things are said that goes against mainstream indoctrinated so called science.
You will never gain a serious questioning mind of you carry on being a mainstream YES person who simply follows the masses under severe peer pressure, because life is so much simpler, doing so.
Now, just to get back to the simple basics.
Rockets work well in atmosphere, especially dense atmosphere. They use up their fuel in short order due to the continuous burn required at FULL thrust against atmospheric resistance/barrier to push the mass of the rocket vertically into the sky.
Search your brain and find the part where common sense and logic is hiding, because it's there, so grab it and use it.
Once you do this, you will see how silly it is for a supposed space rocket to have an internal combustion chamber to supposedly propel it vertically into the sky.
Understand that an internal combustion chamber (liquid fuel) is only worthwhile for operating something mechanical like a propeller or drive shafts - you know - stuff like that.
So the simple logical, common sense thought on rockets should be used to see that what is ejected out of it, MUST hit a barrier, CONSTANTLY, for that ejection of fuel to have any effect on pushing a rocket into the sky.
Now here's a really simple analogy of how a rocket stacks it's ejected burning fuel against atmospheric resistance.
Think of a telescopic aerial on a car. Notice how that aerial gets thinner and thinner as it opens up. Why is this?
It's because the higher something goes, the stronger the base has to be and the stronger each section has to be as it rises.
Think of that aerial as a rocket taking off and expelling it's fuel against atmosphere. You see a thicker plume at the bottom that sort of builds like a thinning tower of exhaust.
It's like a telescopic aerial just constantly opening up until the fuel is spent or energy ceases.
That's a simplistic analogy and I do realise that most tefal heads do not do analogies because they are too basic and simplistically logical to decipher.
Anyway, in a nutshell, space rockets are for the TV and fantasy comic books, etc. The prison you are locked into is not such a bad place, even if you can't escape it. It would be a better place if we didn't get lied to all the time and made to believe in amazing bullshit and also scare tactics employed against us, day after day.
I think I've covered the basic.
-
I find it fascinating how half a dozen more or less intelligent people desperately try to talk sense to a bully who doesn't care for content at all but is just flinging poo in every direction and delights in the attention he gets through that ...
... I hate to tell you all, but PL is the only winner in this thread.
you are 100% correct
but
many people are here for the argument itself
Yet again, I'll just leave this here for easy reference & the education of Walter 'mainframes' Mitty:
[Quote from: tomfi on 23 November 2015, 10:20:20]
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in
The lure of a well though out argument is just too much for many.
-
hi Papa
here, this also are for reference of how dumb u are:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
oh, sorry, i've almost forgotten, I must call u Cindy.
hope u're not gonna go cry in the shower cause i've forgotten your name.
-
Understand that an internal combustion chamber is only worthwhile for operating something mechanical like a propeller or drive shafts - you know - stuff like that.
basically u are disproving also ramjet and pulsejet. actually also jet engine....
how long before u're gonna disprove the model T?
ahahahahahaahahah
-
[Quote from: tomfi on 23 November 2015, 10:20:20]
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in
The fact that you deliberately butchered this quote of Newton's 3rd is conclusive proof of your intellectual dishonesty.
It is also Shill-Tactics 101.
Thanks, shill!
Blah blah blah blah blah bullshit blah...
Funny how you went on & on & on & on about ME 'avoiding' your inane questions, yet you avoid mine with impunity.
That, of course, is also Shill-Tactics 101.
Thanks, shill!
Btw; here is my question:
Now; back to the fun and games: How many Objects is A Rocket (singular noun)?
And here is the full, inconvenient version of Newton's 3rd that you all want to go away:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
LOL!!!
What utter, utter Losers you all are...
Still, as ever; Carry On Lying!
-
Papa. This can go back and forth to all of eternity.
Your interpretation of Newtons law contradicts the laws claimed positive by people who are actually designing and building not just rockets, but jet engines, car engines and everything else.
Before you can convince anyone that you are right you will need some credentials to prove you know what you are talking about.
Large claims require large amounts of evidence - All you have are large claims
I would rather believe the engineers responsible of actual working things opposed to some random guy on the internet opposing them.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
Large claims require large amounts of evidence
Evidence?
Okay; here's evidence of you deliberately butchering a quotation of Newton's 3rd in order to obscure how your claims violate it:
[Quote from: tomfi on 23 November 2015, 10:20:20]
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in
Also, I have provided vast amounts of evidence throughout this thread in support of my position, as well as simple experiments anyone can try at home.
If you'd read it all, rather than just dropping in at random to shitpost, you'd know this.
So; please read the entire thread before responding.
Or just Carry On Lying...
Makes no odds to me.
Oh, & Soulblood/Rayzor/ausGeoff: thank you for the insight into how your Troll-kind waste people's time & fritter away lives.
Very educational; you must feel so proud of yourself!
Oh, excuse me; your selves...
-
cindy...
either u're a troll or u're ignorant.
in both cases my answer is the same. u'll find everything u need here:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
read them, if there's something u don't understand feel free to ask.
good day little girl.
-
in both cases my answer is the same.
What answer?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf[/url (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
More malware-infested links?
No thanks!
read them
You REALLY want me to download your malware. don't you?
But again; No Thanks!
if there's something u don't understand feel free to ask.
Okay; I don't understand why you're trying to get me to download malware...
LOL!!!
Yes I do!
good day little girl.
Like little girls, do you?
Oookay... *walks slowly backwards whilst phoning police*
Anyhoo; this is the very simple question all the Raown Derfer trolls don't want to answer:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
And here is the full, inconvenient version of Newton's 3rd that they all want to go away:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
Anyone care to answer?
Toodle-pip, Losers!
-
oh cindy u're funny.
u don't trust the links.
ok search Hill Peterson Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion
read, learn and enjoy what knowledge means.
as always feel free to ask if something is not clear
good day
-
feel free to ask if something is not clear
Feel free to answer this question, psycho-troll:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
-
feel free to ask if something is not clear
Feel free to answer this question, psycho-troll:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
Are we counting rivets as well....?
Do individual molecules count....?
-
Many parts make up a rocket
You use the phrase 'A rocket'; does this not give you a clue as to how many objects 'A rocket' in fact is?
What with it being a Singular Noun and all?
It depends on what kind of rocket you're talking about. A simple bottle rocket might have 3 or 4 parts while a modern liquid fuel rocket might have several thousand parts. Either way, all rockets boil down to burning fuel and oxidizer in a combustion chamber and directing the exhaust gasses out the back.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf[/url (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
More malware-infested links?
No thanks!
.
What's wrong? Don't you know how to install anti-malware software on your computer?
-
yes, it is one.
Good; a rocket is ONE object.
So how, when it ignites its exhaust & becomes ONE object creating an action, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newton's 2nd Law only, does it somehow become TWO objects in order to fulfil the dictates of Newton's 3rd Law?
Remember this?
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
*Yawn!*
Why are you discussing how a rocket works here when there is plenty of information online?
-
Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
LOL!!!
-
Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
LOL!!!
What is an object....?
-
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
The reason why no one is answering is because it is too many too count.
The heaviest components, the fuel is also shown here
(http://i.imgur.com/NAok3jp.jpg)
-
Still waiting u're answer about v2 and de laval nozzle.... Cindy
Hope u're having fun as well Cause I find u soo hilarious.
-
What is an object....?
LOL!!!
Mainframes shows his lack of understanding of Newtonian definitions yet again...
The shitposts are Flooding in!!!
Every normal person reading this will know exactly what my question means; I can do nothing for abnormal readers though.
Again:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Because I only count One.
Then consider this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Objects; i.e. bodies.
Any non-trolls care to reply?
-
Oh look, no answer. Who's the troll Cindy?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-
Definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
So; I ask yet again:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
Because I only count One.
Then consider this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
Any non-trolls care to reply?
Because none have yet...
I wonder why?
LOL!!!
-
Papa is so scared of the simple questions he is peeing his pants.
-
No answer again? Who's the troll?
I need to stop laughing, I can't breath ahahahahahaha
Papa today u're amazing, thank u
-
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Because I only count One.
How many objects is a house?
How many objects does it take to make a house?
Subtle but significant difference.
Sure, a rocket is one object, but that one object is made up of a number of component objects.
A loaded gun is one object that includes a gun and a round of ammo in the chamber.
A round of ammo is one object that includes a cartridge, primer, propellant and a bullet.
See, singular things are made up of a number of component things.
Are we working our way back to your objects A, B and P drivel again?
Or have you run out of technical arguments and have been deduced to arguing semantics?
-
So apparently it is 2015 and we are all a little closer to be owning a spaceship.
Blue origin, happened to launch their penis shaped rocket today and reach 100km altitude. Although it is not orbital, it is technically still space.
This rocket is fully reusable, and in its current configuration, it would most probably only be used for tourist joy rides. The reusable part should make it affordable to millions of people.
I am sure the view of earth from 100km up is not too bad
here is the video of them launching yesterday
(http://)
If you are a FET person, I know it looks fake to you. We get it.
-
Sure, a rocket is one object, but
No 'buts'; that's all I need from your shitposting self.
have you run out of technical arguments and have been deduced to arguing semantics?
LOL!!!
I am trying to argue basic physics, psycho...
YOU are all trying to stop me.
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
This is not semantics, markjo; it is science.
And Boy! Do you Raown Derfers Hate it!
-
some random guy on the internet used nothing but bad interpretation and words to create science that changes everything about how we view the universe! Quick!, someone call the Nobel Science Prize guys!
-
Whatever...
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
-
You could always try to explain how the force is transferred from the air to the rocket. Or just keep pending your pants.
-
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Let me ask you a question now
Does rocket fuel have mass?
-
Or just keep pending your pants.
'Pending' my pants?
Are you practising your Gibberish on me?
I've already told you I don't speak it...
Do you know what the Continuum Assumption is btw?
I know you won't be able to spell it; but at least try to find out what it implies...
Does rocket fuel have mass?
Is the fuel inside the rocket?
If so, please read this:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then stop spamming irrelevancies.
Toodle-pip, Trolls!
-
Or just keep pending your pants.
'Pending' my pants?
Are you practising your Gibberish on me?
I've already told you I don't speak it...
Do you know what the Continuum Assumption is btw?
I know you won't be able to spell it; but at least try to find out what it implies...
Does rocket fuel have mass?
Is the fuel inside the rocket?
If so, please read this:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then stop spamming irrelevancies.
Toodle-pip, Trolls!
Are you too young or too poor to own a smart phone?
-
Are you too young or too poor to own a smart phone?
I am neither; I just know how to spell.
Unlike you.
Now; are you too illiterate to understand what the continuum assumption is?
Or has the dog eaten your homework on the subject?
-
To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
Is the fuel inside the rocket?
rocket fuel has mass at any location in the universe.
Okay. Lets ask it this way.
Saturn V
- Empty mass - 40 000 kg - Object A
- Fuel Mass - 2,730,000 kg - Object B
Now what do you think would happen to Object A if Object B pushed againstObject A?
Use your newton that you like to quote
seriously, Im done with this now. There are kids in Syria that have more hope than PL
-
Are you too young or too poor to own a smart phone?
I am neither; I just know how to spell.
Unlike you.
Now; are you too illiterate to understand what the continuum assumption is?
Or has the dog eaten your homework on the subject?
"Pending" wasn't spelled correctly? How is it spelled?
-
Saturn V
- Empty mass - 40 000 kg - Object A
- Fuel Mass - 2,730,000 kg - Object B
Now what do you think would happen to Object A if Object B pushed againstObject A?
So, in your crazed world the Saturn V was EMPTY when it's fuel was ignited, then ALL the fuel pushed against it at once, from outside?
I don't see your point here...
However, as the Saturn V was entirely Fake, & promoting discussion of Fake data is Shill-Tactics 101, I won't be wasting any time worrying about it.
So enjoy pondering the fate of Syrian children; you won't be missed...
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Oh, & sock-arul: nobody cares.
-
Destroyed once again.
Also he just destroyed you.
-
Destroyed once again.
Also he just destroyed you.
What a truly bizarre & psychotic little thing you are...
So; YOU 'destroyed' me through Bad Grammar, & MaNaeSwolf 'destroyed' me through Bad Science?
Oookay...
Now; back to the point:
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
-
P. S. The rocket fuel gets pumped to the nozzle and ignited. It is, outside of the rocket when it ignites. If they ignite the fuel inside the rocket it explodes.
-
Destroyed once again.
Also he just destroyed you.
What a truly bizarre & psychotic little thing you are...
So; YOU 'destroyed' me through Bad Grammar, & MaNaeSwolf 'destroyed' me through Bad Science?
Oookay...
Now; back to the point:
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Where was the bad grammar?
-
Destroyed once again.
Also he just destroyed you.
What a truly bizarre & psychotic little thing you are...
So; YOU 'destroyed' me through Bad Grammar, & MaNaeSwolf 'destroyed' me through Bad Science?
Oookay...
Now; back to the point:
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
So using your definition a rocket consists of one object until the turbopumps pump the fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber. At this point the fuel and oxidiser are no longer 'constrained to move together' with the rocket and can be considered a separate object as they can exit through the nozzle if the rocket is accelerated in anyway. the fuel and oxidiser will then be ignited and will strike the inside of the combustion chamber and will according to Newtons third push the rocket forward and be pushed out of the rocket as two objects (in reality many billions of objects).
-
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
-
Are you incapable of looking it up yourself?
-
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
The turbo pumps were powered by siphoning off a portion of the fuel and oxidiser mix. I couldn't quote the exit pressures do the thickness of the pipes. Why does that matter?
-
seriously, Im done with this now.
Then why have you returned?
Liar much?
Where was the bad grammar?
Nobody cares, psycho.
So using your definition a rocket consists of one object until the turbopumps pump the fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber. At this point the fuel and oxidiser are no longer 'constrained to move together' with the rocket and can be considered a separate object
INCORRECT.
At this point, the rocket can be considered as ONE object that is using internally stored energy to Create a Force (Newton's 2nd).
Without a second, extrinsic object with which to create an action/reaction pairing (Newton's 3rd), no motion can be produced.
Look:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Body One: Rocket.
Body Two: ?
We've been here before, shpayze-cultists; with no external body to react against, a rocket will go Nowhere.
And, as a Vacuum is the very definition of No body to react against, you got big problems...
Of course, you will never accept this; because it is not your Job to do so.
Thus; Carry On Lying!
-
So using your definition a rocket consists of one object until the turbopumps pump the fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber. At this point the fuel and oxidiser are no longer 'constrained to move together' with the rocket and can be considered a separate object
INCORRECT.
At this point, the rocket can be considered as ONE object that is using internally stored energy to Create a Force (Newton's 2nd).
Without a second, extrinsic object with which to create an action/reaction pairing (Newton's 3rd), no motion can be produced.
Look:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Body One: Rocket.
Body Two: ?
We've been here before, shpayze-cultists; with no external body to react against, a rocket will go Nowhere.
A person is sitting on a skateboard and is holding a medicine ball.
Person + skateboard + medicine ball = one physical body.
Person sitting on a skateboard throws medicine ball and is propelled backwards.
Person + skateboard = one physical body. Medicine ball = second physical body.
Context yet again eludes Papa Legba.
-
LOL!!!
I got just the thread for you, markjo...
Sit tight while I go fetch it!
-
Plus, here's what i wrote on the subject months ago on this very thread.
You Raown derfers have such short memories; no wonder you're so easily fooled!
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
Again; a child can tell the difference between SMOKE & FIRE.
But you lot can not...
LOL!!!
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).
See? Simple eh?
But a Rocket is not a gun, nor does it fire cannon balls; so let me fix your dumb analogy so it is more fitting to rocket propulsion.
Instead of having the man on his skateboard throw a ball, simply have him reach down & begin pushing himself backwards along the ground with his hands.
Thus, he will be interacting directly with the mass of the medium upon which he moves.
Just like a rocket exhaust does with the atmosphere.
Just like a rowing boat does with the water.
Just like the wheels of a car do with the road.
It will also be seen from my example that the velocity of the man on skateboard can NEVER exceed the velocity at which his arms are pushing on the ground.
Same goes for the boat & its oars.
Same goes for a car & its wheels.
& the same goes for a rocket & its exhaust.
It is all VERY simple, you know; Newton's 3rd is.
A child can see it.
Yet you cannot.
Why?
Who cares?
But if you disagree, please provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your case.
-
Incorrect.
-
Yeah, whatever...
Then there's this, too:
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
Once the fuel and oxidiser have been pumped into the combustion chamber they are no longer constrained to love with the rocket. They can drain out of the chamber. By the definition you keep quoting this means they are now a spectate object to the rocket and free to utilise Newtons 3rd.
-
and free to utilise Newtons 3rd.
LOL!!!
Are you still pretending you know anything about Newtonian mechanics?
Look what you said earlier today:
What is an object....?
And look what took me 1 minute to find on wikipedia:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Just GTFO; you have ZERO credibility in this 'debate'.
& take your shitposting sock-puppet 'sokarul' with you.
-
Lest we forget, here is Walter 'mainframes' Mitty's understanding on Newton's 3rd; note his use of sokarul's favourite word 'destroyed' too:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant you are of Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Yet he just won't stop spamming & lying to us about this subject, despite it being proven tthat he knows Nothing...
Why?
Because that is clearly his Job.
Neutrals be Warned.
-
Lest we forget, here is Walter 'mainframes' Mitty's understanding on Newton's 3rd; note his use of sokarul's favourite word 'destroyed' too:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out his schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant you are of Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Yet he just won't stop spamming & lying to us about this subject, despite it being proven tthat he knows Nothing...
Why?
Because that is clearly his Job.
Neutrals be Warned.
Still not prepared to reference links?
-
If I need to reference links to concepts that are covered in High School Physics you Raown Derfers are really in trouble!
Besides, describing things in my own words seems so much more... Honest, you know?
Whatever; nice shitpost, shpayzhe-tard!
-
If I need to reference links to concepts that are covered in High School Physics you Raown Derfers are really in trouble!
Besides, describing things in my own words seems so much more... Honest, you know?
Whatever; nice shitpost, shpayzhe-tard!
How about companies that manufacture rockets and university research?
-
How about companies that manufacture rockets and university research?
How about not asking me to either link to, or debate, Fake Data?
Cos that's Shill-tactics 101.
As is multiple derailing shitposting, like you are doing now.
Back to Reality:
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive has already got his in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
Incorrect
-
Again; whatever...
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive& sock-arul have already got theirs in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
Again; whatever...
Read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive& sock-arul have already got theirs in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
Care to explain how the rocket pushes off air yet?
-
Care to explain how the rocket pushes off air yet?
Already have, repeatedly, shitposting derailing psycho: pressure differentials.
Now; read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive, mainframes & sock-arul have already got theirs in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust;
-
Since you brought it up:
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
It's clear to a child that Santa Clause brings presents at Christmas time. What's your point?
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
How long does it take for combustING gasses to turn into combustED gasses?
Again; a child can tell the difference between SMOKE & FIRE.
Fire is a chemical reaction and smoke is a byproduct of incomplete combustion.
But you lot can not...
Sure I can, but apparently you can't tell the difference between combustion gasses and smoke. LOX/LH2 rockets don't produce smoke, they produce steam water.
LOL!!!
Yes, your understanding of rockets is quite funny, in a sad, pathetic sort of way.
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Actually, it can be both. Then again, we all know what a problem you have with duality.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).
See? Simple eh?
Yes, simple things for simple minds.
But a Rocket is not a gun, nor does it fire cannon balls;
Actually, it sorta is. The main difference is that, in a rocket, the cannon balls are microscopic combustion gas particles.
... so let me fix your dumb analogy so it is more fitting to rocket propulsion.
Instead of having the man on his skateboard throw a ball, simply have him reach down & begin pushing himself backwards along the ground with his hands.
How does a rocket grab and push off the air?
Thus, he will be interacting directly with the mass of the medium upon which he moves.
Just out of curiosity, how much air, by volume, must a 10 kg rocket interact with in order to accelerate to 10 m/s in 2 seconds at sea level?
Just like a rocket exhaust does with the atmosphere.
If the rocket's exhaust is interacting with the atmosphere, then what is the rocket interacting with? Is the atmosphere pushing the exhaust back into the combustion chamber in order to push the rocket?
Just like a rowing boat does with the water.
Just like the wheels of a car do with the road.
It will also be seen from my example that the velocity of the man on skateboard can NEVER exceed the velocity at which his arms are pushing on the ground.
Same goes for the boat & its oars.
Same goes for a car & its wheels.
Ooooookay.
& the same goes for a rocket & its exhaust.
See, that's why it's a good thing that you're in construction and not in aerospace. Did you know that a sail boat can move faster than the air pushing it?
America’s Cup: how the yachts go faster than the wind
The victory by Sir Ben Ainslie and his Oracle Team USA in the America's Cup is being ranked as one of the most astonishing comebacks of all time. The Telegraph’s science correspondent Richard Gray examines the technology that allows the boats to travel at up to three times the speed of the wind.
It is all VERY simple, you know; Newton's 3rd is.
A child can see it.
Would you trust a child to build your house? After all, Newton's third is used all over the place in construction.
Yet you cannot.
Why?
Because sometimes you need to look beyond what a child can see.
Who cares?
Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here, would you?
But if you disagree, please provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your case.
No problem. Fire off a bottle rocket in a vacuum chamber and see what happens.
You won't; because you can't; because it is impossible...
I did because it's very possible.
! No longer available (http://#)
-
Gutless bunch ain't you?
'Gutless BUNCH'?
There's only one of me...
Well, if you can't tell the difference between singular & plural nouns when it comes to rockets, how could I expect you to do the same with people?
Grammar really isn't your strong point, is it?
That'd be Lying, Shitposting & derailing!
Oh; & being 'ann unndifeetd raouwn dherrfer!!!11!1!'
Now go on; tell everyone you've 'disstroyd mi' again...
GOOD little psychologically-disturbed disinfo-thing!
& markjo: LOL!!!
BIGGEST!
BEST!!
SHITPOST!!!
EVAAAAAR!!!!!!!!
How long did that take you to write?
How long have you been lurking for just the right moment to plop it out, into the toilet-bowl of your foetid Kingdom Of Nothing?
What a joke you are!
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
Still no answers to this, either...
Now; read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive, mainframes, markjo & sock-arul have already got theirs in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
-
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
Aaaw - Boo-hoo, poor markjo!
Also: Incorrect.
-
Still no answers to this, either...
Now; read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
Any answers?
Oh, & let's not forget sceptimatic's questions that you all bailed out of answering; here they are again:
What kind of pressure is this supposed rocket fuel under when it's released and also what operates the supposed turbo pumps that also apparently pump it into the chamber and also how thick are the pipes that channel this fuel mix to the supposed, combustion chamber?
Assume we are dealing with the fictional Saturn V.
You're allowed to answer whilst calling me names and such as long as you give me some answers.
Gutless bunch ain't you?
I await your shitpost non-responses with keen disgust; Inquisitive, mainframes, markjo & sock-arul have already got theirs in; who's next!
Toodle-pip, Cowards!
-
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
-
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
Incorrect.
He 'took the time' to create a mighty Ten-Gallon shitpost.
Which I laughed at, quite rightly.
Then quickly grabbed top post on this page.
Which probably pissed him off even more...
Now GTFO, psychologically-messed up Loser who likes ganging up on people...
Oh; who else is it that likes ganging up on people?
That's right - Cowards!
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
Incorrect.
He 'took the time' to create a mighty Ten-Gallon shitpost.
Which I laughed at, quite rightly.
Then quickly grabbed top post on this page.
Which probably pissed him off even more...
Now GTFO, psychologically-messed up Loser who likes ganging up on people...
Oh; who else is it that likes ganging up on people?
That's right - Cowards!
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
It's only meaningless to you because you are so uneducated it's all over your head.
You really just need to shut the fuck up already. You clearly can't hang with us. Go back to playing with your dolls.
-
& markjo: LOL!!!
BIGGEST!
BEST!!
SHITPOST!!!
EVAAAAAR!!!!!!!!
So, I refute you point by point and that's the best you can do?
Pathetic.
How long did that take you to write?
More time than it was worth, seeing as all you ever do is just hand wave it all away.
How long have you been lurking for just the right moment to plop it out, into the toilet-bowl of your foetid Kingdom Of Nothing?
If you check, you'll find that I wasn't posting in this thread when you squeezed out that turd, so I didn't really give it any mind until you dredged it up today.
What a joke you are!
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Yeah, keep laughing. It's not like you have anything of substance to contribute.
-
Still no answers to this, either...
Oh, there have been lots of answers provided. You just keep ignoring them and keep shitspamming the same questions.
Now; read this definition of 'Physical Body' from wikipedia carefully please:
"A physical body or physical object is an identifiable collection of matter which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation in 3-D space".
Then bearing it in mind, answer this:
How many Bodies is a rocket (singular noun)?
By the wikipedia definition I only count One.
As has already been mentioned (and promptly ignored) the combustion gasses being pushed out the back of the rocket engine are not constrained to move with the rest of the rocket, the rocket is one physical body and the exhaust gasses produced by burning the fuel and oxidizer carried by the rocket are another physical body.
Then consider this, Newton's 3rd Law:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it refers to Two Bodies.
Yup. The rocket and the combustion gasses.
But we have already seen that a rocket is only One body.
And the exhaust gasses makes Two.
So; what is the other Body it creates force against in order to produce motion?
I'll give you a hint; what do you get when you burn lots of fuel and oxidizer in a confined space with a small opening at one end?
Any answers?
Yes, but none that you'll accept.
-
And again:
1) The rocket, it's components and the fuel and oxidiser in storage tanks are constrained to move together and are therefore one object. Any force will accelerate everything.
2) Any fuel and oxidiser that is in the combustion chamber is NOT constrained to move with the rocket. Therefore fuel and oxidiser in the combustion chamber can be treated as a separate object.
3) these two separate objects can interact and according to newtons third can push and pull each other.
And to clarify the point you think you have jumped on:
The statement to 'push off' something clearly implies that physical contact is required. The statement of newtons third stating push or pull merely uses those words in context of a force away or towards the object. As I mentioned Magnets are perfectly capable of interacting at a distance. Therefore they can push or pull but they do not push off.
Now bore off.
-
It's only meaningless to you because you are so uneducated it's all over your head.
Go ahead & show us your 'education' then...
You really just need to shut the fuck up already. You clearly can't hang with us. Go back to playing with your dolls.
LOL!!!
REAL 'educated', psycho-loser!
Still no answers to this, either...
Oh, there have been lots of answers provided.
See; that's a Lie right there.
There have been Lies provided, not 'answers'.
Who is it that I won't debate with again?
That's right - Liars!
So, I refute you point by point and that's the best you can do?
And another Lie...
But haven't we heard something like it before?
That's right; your Cowardly gang-stalking sock-puppet Gimp-Crony said it:
He took the time to make a proper response and you couldn't even refute one thing. Coward.
He was Lying too...
Think I'm starting to see a pattern here!
Anyhoo; I don't Debate with Liars, nor do I waste my time parsing the Lies of those Liars.
I just Mock their Dishonesty & post True Things for neutrals to read...
Oh look - mainframes posted JUST AS I WAS WRITING THIS!
LOL!!!
What a co-incidence!
Bet it's all lies too; he'll be trying to make a rocket be two objects, not one, the crook.
Oh; look:
2) Any fuel and oxidiser that is in the combustion chamber is NOT constrained to move with the rocket. Therefore fuel and oxidiser in the combustion chamber can be treated as a sepsrate object.
LMFAO!!!
He can't even spell 'separate', yet alone understand what it is...
Idiot.
Toodle-pip, maniacs!
-
So now your argument is that because I made a typo whilst trying to type on my phone in gloves I don't know what im talking about. Touch pathetic. I have now corrected my little error.
I notice that you didn't actually refute the substance of my post.
-
So now your argument is that because I made a typo whilst trying to type on my phone in gloves
LOL!!!
The dog eat your homework too?
I notice that you didn't actually refute the substance of my post.
I notice that you didn't even know the Newtonian definition of an 'object' until yesterday...
Look:
What is an object....?
But now you're an expert...
Anyone believe that?
Wanna buy some Magic Beans?
Grow yourself a giant beanstalk & climb right up to 'shpayzze'!
-
So now your argument is that because I made a typo whilst trying to type on my phone in gloves
LOL!!!
The dog eat your homework too?
I notice that you didn't actually refute the substance of my post.
I notice that you didn't even know the Newtonian definition of an 'object' until yesterday...
Look:
What is an object....?
But now you're an expert...
Anyone believe that?
Wanna buy some Magic Beans?
Grow yourself a giant beanstalk & climb right up to 'shpayzze'!
I course I know the definition of an object. I was trying to see what sort of response you would give.
-
You still haven't refuted my argument. Telling....
-
I course I know the definition of an object. I was trying to see what sort of response you would give.
LOL!!!
Yeah; right...
Were you typing in gloves again btw?
Cos you started your lying shitpost with the word 'I' rather than 'Of'.
Why are you wearing gloves anyway?
To protect your hands while you try to get your homework back off the dog?
We're gonna have some fun today; I can feel it!
-
I course I know the definition of an object. I was trying to see what sort of response you would give.
LOL!!!
Yeah; right...
Were you typing in gloves again btw?
Cos you started your lying shitpost with the word 'I' rather than 'Of'.
Why are you wearing gloves anyway?
To protect your hands while you try to get your homework back off the dog?
We're gonna have some fun today; I can feel it!
Personal abuse does not make you right.
-
Personal abuse does not make you right.
Tell sock-arul that, then.
Look:
You really just need to shut the fuck up already. You clearly can't hang with us. Go back to playing with your dolls.
And that's just from this page; I could go back through this thread & find 100s of similar comments from all you raown derfers.
I don't hear you complaining about them though; now why would that be, I wonder?
-
Personal abuse does not make you right.
Tell sock-arul that, then.
Look:
You really just need to shut the fuck up already. You clearly can't hang with us. Go back to playing with your dolls.
And that's just from this page; I could go back through this thread & find 100s of similar comments from all you raown derfers.
I don't hear you complaining about them though; now why would that be, I wonder?
Applies to all.
-
Applies to all.
So?
You still haven't refuted my argument. Telling....
Yes I have, repeatedly & at length on several different threads.
Pretending I have not won't change that.
Just like Pretending you're a scientist won't change how little you know about basic physical laws.
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
-
hi cindy....sorry, u're Mr physics now aren't u?
this is rocket propulsion with REAL physics.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
somehow u're gonna ignore them, aren't u?
not that i need more evidence that u're a TROLL
-
Being completely ignorant on rockets and technical thingos like that I need a little unbiased advice. Papa Legba argues till he is black and blue in the face (well his language is certainly heading that way) that rockets cannot work in a vacuum, but that ignorant mob at MIT seem to think that not only do they work in a vacuum by not only have less drag (obvious no air resistance), but actually have more static thrust as well!
There is of course from that publication quoted many times here: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/Propulsion.pdf)
In that on page 10 I believe they get a static thrust equation for a rocket:
T = ṁue + Ae (pe – po)
Where:
ṁ = momentum integral
ue = exhaust velocity
pe = exhaust pressure
po = ambient pressure
Maybe some intelligent person here can explain it to me. It sure seems that the rocket should work better in a vacuum. Maybe MIT is wrong.
BTW, I don't believe Newton's 3rd law came into it, you know the one Papa Legba insists we write as Newton did as:
"Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi."
The derivation of that equation was from his 2nd law, the one Newton wrote as:
"Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur."
Papa can translate.
-
*Yawn!*
W=pv.
When p=0, W=0.
Only equation needed.
Unless you allow yourself to be baffled by bullshit.
Back to trolling youtubes for you now, 'rab downunder' & pals.
I wonder who'll grab top spot on the next page?
Let's find out...
-
Applies to all.
So?
You still haven't refuted my argument. Telling....
Yes I have, repeatedly & at length on several different threads.
Pretending I have not won't change that.
Just like Pretending you're a scientist won't change how little you know about basic physical laws.
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
No you did not address the point about a rocket being one object and the fuel/oxidiser/exhaust in the combustion chamber being another object. This validates rockets as being consistent with Newton's 3rd.
-
*Yawn!*
W=pv.
When p=0, W=0.
Only equation needed.
Unless you allow yourself to be baffled by bullshit.
Back to trolling youtubes for you now, 'rab downunder' & pals.
I wonder who'll grab top spot on the next page?
Let's find out...
what that should prove?
oh no, i get it now, u keep ignoring REAL physics cause u're a troll and u don't know how to keep trolling when the truth is clear.
good day cindy
-
*Yawn!*
W=pv.
When p=0, W=0.
Only equation needed.
What happened to F=MA? Don't we need that one too?
-
No you did not address the point about a rocket being one object and the fuel/oxidiser/exhaust in the combustion chamber being another object.
Yes I did, Liar; months ago.
Look:
A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
Again; a child can tell the difference between SMOKE & FIRE.
But you lot can not...
LOL!!!
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.
Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).
See? Simple eh?
But a Rocket is not a gun, nor does it fire cannon balls; so let me fix your dumb analogy so it is more fitting to rocket propulsion.
Instead of having the man on his skateboard throw a ball, simply have him reach down & begin pushing himself backwards along the ground with his hands.
Thus, he will be interacting directly with the mass of the medium upon which he moves.
Just like a rocket exhaust does with the atmosphere.
Just like a rowing boat does with the water.
Just like the wheels of a car do with the road.
It will also be seen from my example that the velocity of the man on skateboard can NEVER exceed the velocity at which his arms are pushing on the ground.
Same goes for the boat & its oars.
Same goes for a car & its wheels.
& the same goes for a rocket & its exhaust.
It is all VERY simple, you know; Newton's 3rd is.
A child can see it.
Yet you cannot.
Why?
Who cares?
But if you disagree, please provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your case.
Must suck to be you right now, Walter Mitty.
what that should prove?
That a gas-powered rocket can do no work in a vacuum...
To anyone who's not a retarded troll-entity.
What happened to F=MA? Don't we need that one too?
I though your 'thrust equation' used F=m*v?
Make your minds up, shpayze-tards...
-
Legba, you are doing a good job standing up against all these sock puppets. I would not have patience you are having with these guys . I can clearly see that you are correct in your position on rocket propulsion. Keep up the good work.
-
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cindy, u're butchering physics in order to prove u're nonsense statement.
ps F is NOT m*v cause MASS FLOW is NOT MASS, mass flow is dm/dt.
mass flow is the time derivative of the mass.
so in case of rocket,
or in any case in which propulsion is given thanks to an accelerated fluid, thrust is more conveniently expressed as T=mass flow*velocity
pps work can also be expressed as W=force*displacement, don't u know?
i'm curious what are u gonna invent now?
but wait a second, weren't u trolling youtubers? what a busy life u've got cindy.
-
Papa Legba is 100% correct and most of these people know it and that's why they're trying like hell to batter him into submission.
Strong by numbers and weak as piss as singular or even paired.
When they're exhausted they pull out the bullying card and ask for bans by complaining to the mods which gets the desired result and the mods ban Papa Legba.
Crazy as hell.
-
Legba, you are doing a good job standing up against all these sock puppets. I would not have patience you are having with these guys . I can clearly see that you are correct in your position on rocket propulsion. Keep up the good work.
Cheers, Good hoppy, but to be honest it's fun anyway.
You gotta have a very thick skin & very low tolerance for Liars in my line of work, so all their shenanigans are water off a duck's back.
I'm glad to have confirmation that others see all the sock-ing going on, though; I don't care if the Derfers do it or not, frankly, just as long as neutrals know it's happening.
Anyhoo; back to the Fight!
Wonder who's chucked a shitpost in whilst I was writing this?
Oh, look - it's luckyfred, who I quoted as his sock-puppet tomfi for an entire day a few pages back without his dumb troll self even noticing until I rubbed it in his dumb troll face...
What's he got to say, I wonder?
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah; that & a bunch of other bullshit.
The formula for work done by a gas is: Work = pressure x change in volume.
How will that pan out when pressure = zero, as it must in a vacuum?
Not too well I'd say...
Butt Derfers wonnt theyr shpayze-shippz sso fyziks cann gho tu Hel!!!!!1111!1!1
-
No you did not address the point about a rocket being one object and the fuel/oxidiser/exhaust in the combustion chamber being another object.
Yes I did, Liar; months ago.
Look:
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
And I just refuted that point by point on the previous page.
What happened to F=MA? Don't we need that one too?
I though your 'thrust equation' used F=m*v?
You though wrong.
Again.
Big surprise.
Mass * velocity = momentum, which must be conserved in a rocket.
Make your minds up, shpayze-tards...
Take a physics course.
-
Her's the post where I finally woke luckyfred/tomfi up to the fact he'd been answeing to his sock-puppet name for two whole pages:
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
It's all back on pages 196-198 of this thread for those who want a good laugh; I was pissing myself every time the dumb troll replied...
But I'm sure he'll now claim he knew I was doing it all along; that, I suggest would be a Lie, from a proven Liar.
Enjoy!
-
The formula for work done by a gas is: Work = pressure x change in volume.
so u're telling me gas in combustion chamber and through the nozzle is at pressure=0?!?!
your butchering of physics is becoming pretty savage TROLL.
oh have u called your friends? are u scared of people who have and education Cindy?
-
Lol
So now rockets work by a pressure gradient?
Lol
Well at least you learned that pushing off the atmosphere was dumb.
Lol
And that "exhaust column" transferring the force was dumb.
Lol
So now rockets work like airplane wings?
Lol
Just more lol
Lol
Lol
-
What happened to F=MA? Don't we need that one too?
I though your 'thrust equation' used F=m*v?
You though wrong.
Again.
Big surprise.
Mass * velocity = momentum, which must be conserved in a rocket.
LOL!!!
You shpayze-tard trolls really need to confer more...
Look:
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
Got any more shitposting Lies you feel the need to inflict on us, Thought-Cop?
So now rockets work by a pressure gradient?
Yep; seems even a cowardly, gang-stalking, psychopath troll-entity can learn something!
-
Her's the post where I finally woke luckyfred/tomfi up to the fact he'd been answeing to his sock-puppet name for two whole pages:
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
It's all back on pages 196-198 of this thread for those who want a good laugh; I was pissing myself every time the dumb troll replied...
But I'm sure he'll now claim he knew I was doing it all along; that, I suggest would be a Lie, from a proven Liar.
Enjoy!
yep and it's since page 196 that u haven't been saying anything even remotly consistent with physics to disprove my claims.
gosh, wonder what's that......
troll tactics!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahaha
u've been a lot of fun in the last couple of days Cindy
-
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
THIS IS HOW ROCKET WORKS.
there's nothing to argue
-
Here you go, neutral readers & assorted sock-puppet disinfo entities; just in case you missed it, this is the post gibbering madman sock-arul found so very upsetting that it threw him into a full-blown seizure:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I have an inkling that anything the troll-things hate so very much must be worth a second look, eh?
They're not the cleverest of people, as well as being extremely poor Liars indeed...
-
Legba, you are doing a good job standing up against all these sock puppets. I would not have patience you are having with these guys . I can clearly see that you are correct in your position on rocket propulsion. Keep up the good work.
Ha.
The guy hasn't got a single part correct yet.
-
Here you go, neutral readers & assorted sock-puppet disinfo entities; just in case you missed it, this is the post gibbering madman sock-arul found so very upsetting that it threw him into a full-blown seizure:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I have an inkling that anything the troll-things hate so very much must be worth a second look, eh?
They're not the cleverest of people, as well as being extremely poor Liars indeed...
ahahahahahahahahahahahah
still ignoring everything that proves u wrong, this makes u what?
a TROLL!!!!!!!!
if anything atmospheric pressure is a penalty, rockets work better in vacuum
-
Her's the post where I finally woke luckyfred/tomfi up to the fact he'd been answeing to his sock-puppet name for two whole pages:
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
It's all back on pages 196-198 of this thread for those who want a good laugh; I was pissing myself every time the dumb troll replied...
But I'm sure he'll now claim he knew I was doing it all along; that, I suggest would be a Lie, from a proven Liar.
Enjoy!
LOL
Poopoo Looser can also put sentence structure on the list of things that he doesn't know.
LOL
That explains alot. He doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement.
LOL
That must be why he has such a hard time with more complicated tasks.
LOL
He probably still has him mommy tying his shoes.
-
The guy hasn't got a single part correct yet.
Like you got this 'correct', Walt the Science-pretender?
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
You really are engaged in a War on Science, ain't you?
And so is illiterate gibbering madman #2 luckyfred/tomfi:
ahahahahahahahahahahahah
if anything atmospheric pressure is a penalty, rockets work better in vacuum
Right; and Free Expansion does not exist?
Only the physics you want to does?
Try telling Newton, Joule & Thomson that; they may disagree...
Finally; this reasoned debate speaks for itself:
Poopoo Looser can also put sentence structure on the list of things that he doesn't know.
LOL
That explains alot. He doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement.
LOL
That must be why he has such a hard time with more complicated tasks.
LOL
He probably still has him mommy tying his shoes.
Oh dear...
Now; read this, neutrals - the trolls Really don't want you to, so there must be something in it:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Toodle-pip, raving nutters; I'm sure every neutral looking in will be swayed by the calm, reasoned nature of your argumentation...
LOL!!!
-
What happened to F=MA? Don't we need that one too?
I though your 'thrust equation' used F=m*v?
You though wrong.
Again.
Big surprise.
Mass * velocity = momentum, which must be conserved in a rocket.
LOL!!!
You shpayze-tard trolls really need to confer more...
Look:
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
Got any more shitposting Lies you feel the need to inflict on us, Thought-Cop?
You thought that mass * velocity was the thrust equation.
You though wrong.
Mass * velocity is momentum.
The thrust equation uses mass flow, not momentum.
Mass flow and momentum are related, but are not the same thing.
Where did I lie?
Please be specific, if you can.
-
You thought that mass * velocity was the thrust equation.
No I didn't.
I said that you lot claimed it was.
And I was right; look:
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
Yet again you are shown to be a Liar & a Shitposter.
But at least you got top post in...
Cos that's what's most important to you, ain't it?
LOL!!!
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I know you hate this post; so it must have some merit, eh?
Toodle-pip, Losers!
-
And so is illiterate gibbering madman #2 luckyfred/tomfi:
ahahahahahahahahahahahah
if anything atmospheric pressure is a penalty, rockets work better in vacuum
Right; and Free Expansion does not exist?
Only the physics you want to does?
Try telling Newton, Joule & Thomson that; they may disagree...
ahahahahahahahaha
butchering physics like a boss Cindy.
free expasion, the one performed in a thermally isolated container?
in which universe a thermally isolated container is a rocket nozzle?
cindy take a look at the equation, atmospheric pressure has a negative contribution to thrust so yes, it's a penalty for rocket propulsion.
but u're gonna ignore even that aren't u? ahahahahahahah
how long will u keep on trolling?
i don't want u to stop saying BS, they are too much fun
-
Is 'space' a vacuum?
-
Here you go, neutral readers & assorted sock-puppet disinfo entities; just in case you missed it, this is the post gibbering madman sock-arul found so very upsetting that it threw him into a full-blown seizure:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I have an inkling that anything the troll-things hate so very much must be worth a second look, eh?
They're not the cleverest of people, as well as being extremely poor Liars indeed...
ahahahahahahahahahahahah
still ignoring everything that proves u wrong, this makes u what?
a TROLL!!!!!!!!
if anything atmospheric pressure is a penalty, rockets work better in vacuum
In red bold. This is why you people will always be naive.
Nothing works or moves without atmosphere. Try and learn this and you'll realise how stupid, space rockets are.
-
You thought that mass * velocity was the thrust equation.
No I didn't.
I said that you lot claimed it was.
And I was right; look:
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
Yet again you are shown to be a Liar & a Shitposter.
But at least you got top post in...
Cos that's what's most important to you, ain't it?
LOL!!!
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I know you hate this post; so it must have some merit, eh?
Toodle-pip, Losers!
LOL
Doesn't know the difference between mass and mass flow.
LOL
Emperor of shit posters hence the name Poopoo Looser.
LOL
-
*Yawn!*
Is 'space' a vacuum?
-
*Yawn*
Is Poopoo a Looser?
-
Again: is 'space' a vacuum?
What was that about me refusing to answer questions?
Hypocrites much?
-
Again: is 'Poopoo' a looser?
Is he also the Supreme Emperor of Shitposting on High?
-
One problem with any Spaceship is the fuel consumption. I cannot afford it taking my girlfriends just for a little trip around Earth.
I can probably afford the acceleration bit ... but the braking ... http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#D (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#D) . ;D
-
Very nice for all of you.
Is 'space' a vacuum?
-
Again: is 'space' a vacuum?
What was that about me refusing to answer questions?
Hypocrites much?
Is space a vacuum? Yes
Is space a enclosed container? No
Therefore Free expansion does not apply. You don't get what Free Expansion is trying to explain do you....
-
Very nice for all of you.
Is 'space' a vacuum?
All hail Supreme Emperor of Shit posting on High!!!!!
-
Is space a enclosed container? No
How do you know if 'space' is infinite or not?
Either way, it is irrelevant.
The only way that a vacuum can be created on earth is for it to be contained.
So experiments to prove Free Expansion on earth have no choice but to use a finite vacuum.
But the same results would be obtained in the far larger vacuum of 'space'.
*Yawn!*
Dinner-time; toodle-pip, Liars!
-
Here you go, neutral readers & assorted sock-puppet disinfo entities; just in case you missed it, this is the post gibbering madman sock-arul found so very upsetting that it threw him into a full-blown seizure:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
I have an inkling that anything the troll-things hate so very much must be worth a second look, eh?
They're not the cleverest of people, as well as being extremely poor Liars indeed...
ahahahahahahahahahahahah
still ignoring everything that proves u wrong, this makes u what?
a TROLL!!!!!!!!
if anything atmospheric pressure is a penalty, rockets work better in vacuum
In red bold. This is why you people will always be naive.
Nothing works or moves without atmosphere. Try and learn this and you'll realise how stupid, space rockets are.
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
this is why is so funny arguing with u.
u have no idea of what u're talking about and u keep saying BS and butcher what little physics u know in order to prove your point.
unfortunately in doing so u make yourself ridiculous
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
how come the thrust equation works perfectly even in vacuum(Pa=0)?
sure is a conspiracy, all universities in the world agreed on teaching something profoundly false, didn't they?
-
Is space a enclosed container? No
How do you know if 'space' is infinite or not?
Either way, it is irrelevant.
The only way that a vacuum can be created on earth is for it to be contained.
So experiments to prove Free Expansion on earth have no choice but to use a finite vacuum.
But the same results would be obtained in the far larger vacuum of 'space'.
*Yawn!*
Dinner-time; toodle-pip, Liars!
There is no experiment to prove free expansion. It is a theoretical concept. The proof of which requires an enclosed space as all forces net to zero.
The fact is a rockets combustion chamber has an exit and therefore means free expansion does not apply in any way, shape or form.
Anyway, enjoy you dinner. What's mummy making for you?
-
You thought that mass * velocity was the thrust equation.
No I didn't.
I said that you lot claimed it was.
And I was right; look:
thrust is produced since mass flow*velocity=force.
Yet again you are shown to be a Liar & a Shitposter.
Mass flow is not the same thing as mass and can not be used interchangeably in a formula.
You call me a shitposter and a liar, and yet you can't even tell the difference between mass, mass flow, and momentum.
Sounds like you're the shitposting liar, not me.
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
No, that isn't how they work, no matter how many times you say it.
Rockets work by applying Newton's 3rd law to the action of the expanding combustion gasses reacting against the rocket's combustion chamber.
-
Nobody cares, psycho.
Good work with the BJ1234 sock-puppet btw.
LOL!!!
-
There is no experiment to prove free expansion. It is a theoretical concept. The proof of which requires an enclosed space as all forces net to zero.
LOL!!! Think about what you just wrote, Loser...
-
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
-
Nobody cares, psycho.
Are you saying that nobody cares that you don't know the difference between mass, mass flow and momentum?
Or are you saying that you don't care, because that would explain a lot.
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Nice job grabbing the last post on the previous page and top post on the new page.
That must be advanced level shill tactics that you're using.
BTW, you're still wrong. Rockets do not rely on pressure differentials, they rely on Newton's 3rd.
-
There is no experiment to prove free expansion. It is a theoretical concept. The proof of which requires an enclosed space as all forces net to zero.
LOL!!! Think about what you just wrote, Loser...
How about you learn to read. You cannot prove free expansion with an experiment. It is proved in theory only. I did not say it is not proved at all.
-
Oh; plus this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
nope, and this is why:
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
have u got anything to support your statement?
ps i wonder how long will it take to reach 1000 pages, any guess?
-
Nice job grabbing the last post on the previous page and top post on the new page.
Yeah; I knew that'd piss you off.
All anyone has to do to see how important this tactic is to you & your sock-puppet army - which you proved includes BJ1234 today, thanks - is simply flick back a page at a time & see how often you or one of your socks grabs top post.
It ain't rocket science, psycho-shill!
You cannot prove free expansion with an experiment.
You REALLY need to tell that to James Prescott Joule, walter Mitty...
Cos he kinda did...
But as you're just another sock-puppet nothing, why do I bother?
I was trolling cluesforum under the name 'selene' & when I got banned I turned up here to troll you. I am an inept disinfo troll & have already been busted sock-ing as 'tomfi' here. But because the FES mods are useless I will carry on spamming shite & never stop until I turn every thread to shit...
Thanks for the info!
Plus, this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Have I missed anyone?
No; after all, how could I?
Because you're all the same person!
Toodle-pip, cranks!
-
Did you mean the James Prescott Joule who approximated free expansion experimentally but wasn't able to achieve actual free expansion because ideal gases don't actually exist. That James Prescott Joule?
-
nope, and this is why:
(images)
have u got anything to support your statement?
Can I ask after the source of those formulae? I agree with you in that rockets definitely would work in vacuum, Papa Legba's one of the more obnoxious trolls/morons, but that's very bad quality math, and I'd like to know where it came from. They didn't say what's being summed over, but went into enough detail to define a partial and regular derivative (Fx, ux, m-dot) which is just a bit suspicious to me.
It might be perfectly true, but take it with a pinch of salt. At best it's inconsistent.
-
Nice job grabbing the last post on the previous page and top post on the new page.
Yeah; I knew that'd piss you off.
Not at all. Just pointing out your own hypocrisy. It isn't that hard.
Plus, this:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Oh no, he used a bigger font. How can anyone argue with that?
Easy.
You're wrong, no matter how large a font you use.
Rockets rely on Newton's 3rd law.
-
Did you mean the James Prescott Joule who approximated free expansion experimentally but wasn't able to achieve actual free expansion because ideal gases don't actually exist. That James Prescott Joule?
Yep; the one who proves you a Liar, to within a couple of decimal places.
Just pointing out your own hypocrisy
LOL!!!
YOU pointing out another person's hypocrisy?
Wouldn't that create some kind of black hole of catastrophic ultra-hypocrisy that'd destroy the entire earth?
As that hasn't happened, I'd say you're just Lying - as usual.
I have done a runner now that it has been pointed out that I am in fact the recently-banned troll 'selene' from cluesforum, but I will return to shit on everything under a different username as soon as I can... Au Revoir!
Thanks for the info!
I am one of markjo's sock-puppets I turned up & shitposted everywhere to cover for the fact he got caught lying yet again. Markjo doesn't care if I get banned cos he has 28,000 more like me. Also I say poo-poo pee-pee poo-poo pee-pee a lot cos that is markjo's kink
Knew that already...
Toodle-pip, psychos!
-
nope, and this is why:
(images)
have u got anything to support your statement?
Can I ask after the source of those formulae? I agree with you in that rockets definitely would work in vacuum, Papa Legba's one of the more obnoxious trolls/morons, but that's very bad quality math, and I'd like to know where it came from. They didn't say what's being summed over, but went into enough detail to define a partial and regular derivative (Fx, ux, m-dot) which is just a bit suspicious to me.
It might be perfectly true, but take it with a pinch of salt. At best it's inconsistent.
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
that's only an extract from Hill Peterson mechanics and thermodynamics of propulsion.
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
watch
-
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
Yeah; still with the Gibberish...
This is what you did on cluesforum too.
Free Expansion kills shpayze-ecksplurayshun' dead in its tracks.
To be honest, being able to count to 'One' does if you understand Newton 1,2 &3...
But you disinfo-trolls will never get that; you'd lose your paycheck if you did.
Toodle-pip, sock-puppets!
-
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
Yeah; still with the Gibberish...
That might be why this thread has gone an an ungodly length of time. No understanding of anything.
-
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
Yeah; still with the Gibberish...
That might be why this thread has gone an an ungodly length of time. No understanding of anything.
Jrs, maybe if you read it slower you will be able to extract some understanding.
-
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
Yeah; still with the Gibberish...
That might be why this thread has gone an an ungodly length of time. No understanding of anything.
Jrs, maybe if you read it slower you will be able to extract some understanding.
It's Papa who admitted to understanding nothing. Bet he doesn't even know what a partial derivative is.
-
That might be why this thread has gone an an ungodly length of time. No understanding of anything.
Here's an example of your 'understanding' from this same thread a few months ago;
go fuck yourself.
Yeah; stay classy, JRowecesspit...
-
Just pointing out your own hypocrisy
LOL!!!
YOU pointing out another person's hypocrisy?
Wouldn't that create some kind of black hole of catastrophic ultra-hypocrisy that'd destroy the entire earth?
No, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work that way.
Free Expansion kills shpayze-ecksplurayshun' dead in its tracks.
Since when does free expansion apply to chemical reactions releasing large amounts of energy?
-
That might be why this thread has gone an an ungodly length of time. No understanding of anything.
Here's an example of your 'understanding' from this same thread a few months ago;
go fuck yourself.
Yeah; stay classy, JRowecesspit...
I stand by what I said.
-
the summatory should be of all the external force acting on the body in the x direction.
Yeah; still with the Gibberish...
sorry cindy but this one i cannot dumb it down to your level.
i have already told you that "haiscassatolaminchiacoltuogibberish" is proper gibberish, the other are just thing u pretend not to understand cause u're a troll
-
Since when does free expansion apply to chemical reactions releasing large amounts of energy?
Ever since that large amount of energy was in the form of a GAS, perhaps?
You know; what with it being called 'Free Expansion of GAS in a Vacuum' & all?
JRoweCesspit: gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Phuckyfred/selene/tomfi/etc... Nobody cares, because Nobody either speaks Gibberish or believes you are a real person.
Haven't you noticed?
Christ Above, what Losers you all are...
-
Since when does free expansion apply to chemical reactions releasing large amounts of energy?
Ever since that large amount of energy was in the form of a GAS, perhaps?
You know; what with it being called 'Free Expansion of GAS in a Vacuum' & all?
JRoweCesspit: gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Phuckyfred/selene/tomfi/etc... Nobody cares, because Nobody either speaks Gibberish or believes you are a real person.
Haven't you noticed?
Christ Above, what Losers you all are...
gosh, really?
or is it because u're a troll?
either way i just keep harrasing u cause is fun arguing with trolls and ever more fun arguing with petulant,childish,stupid trolls
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
Interesting admission...
But you're NOT a troll, right?
Anyhoo; none of you Derfers liked this post, so here it is again:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Now; Carry On Lying!
-
Sigh.
Gas in a open container will still exert pressure on the walls of said container for a period of time. Keep replenishing the gas and you maintain a constant amount of pressure. If the pressure is non-equal then a net force will move that container.
A gas exposed to vacuum does not move straight towards the vacuum.
-
Anyhoo; none of you Derfers liked this post, so here it is again:
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Now; Carry On Lying!
and this isn't your own admission of being a troll?
keep postin same stuff to keep people arguing with u.
let's play a game, u keep postin that and i keep postin this
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
the first to post on the 1000th page wins.
since u're a child u should like games, aren't u, cindy?
-
Well, as you said this:
either way i just keep harrasing u
And are also a proven Liar, Sock-puppeteer & disinfo-troll, I guess you'll do whatever you need to do in order to prevent any neutral reader from learning anything new...
So; let's just see what happens, eh?
Until then; Carry On Lying!
-
A gas exposed to vacuum does not move straight towards the vacuum.
Incorrect.
Where else would it move except directly towards the area of lowest pressure?
You know, like a vacuum?
Pressure-gradient forces & all that?
Ya know..?
Bit of a slow-poke, aintcha mainframes/markjo/sokarul/who-ever-the-hell-is-currently-typing-your-shitposts?
-
Since when does free expansion apply to chemical reactions releasing large amounts of energy?
Ever since that large amount of energy was in the form of a GAS, perhaps?
Nope. Guess again. If there is a change in the temperature of the system, then free expansion does not apply. Burning gas in a combustion chamber definitely changes temperature of the system.
-
Well, as you said this:
either way i just keep harrasing u
And are also a proven Liar, Sock-puppeteer & disinfo-troll, I guess you'll do whatever you need to do in order to prevent any neutral reader from learning anything new...
So; let's just see what happens, eh?
Until then; Carry On Lying!
neutral reader will believe u of course, why shouldn't believe to a troll who keeps evading any proof against him and u just poking everyone with his continuos insults?
what was i thinking when i posted link and images to articles and books used by engineers.........
we should all believe u, mighty papa/cindy, afterall is your word against all the scientific comunity, there's no doubt to whom we should believe.
ahahahahahahahahhahaah
-
Burning gas in a combustion chamber definitely changes temperature of the system.
Burning gas in a combustion chamber that is open to the vacuum of space?
Good luck with that, Psycho!
either way i just keep harrasing u
Yep; you weren't Lying there...
Makes a change, don't it?
No, space is not a vacuum!
LOL!!!
But wait!
So of course papa Legba is absolutely correct.
Oookay; you're just another shitposting Troll.
Carry On Lying, Losers!
-
Burning gas in a combustion chamber definitely changes temperature of the system.
Burning gas in a combustion chamber that is open to the vacuum of space?
Good luck with that, Psycho!
Mix fuel and oxidizer then put a spark to it.
How hard can that be to understand?
Or, easier yet, mix both parts of a hypergolic fuel.
You can even just run hydrogen peroxide through a silver mesh like the jetpack guys do.
-
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
Now; Carry On Lying!
Who could suggest Papa Legba of lying? He knows more about everything than all the experts, but there is a little logical point in what he says about pressure differential. He says "Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move."
We KNOW even outer space is not a vacuum, but just a very low pressure region, so surely he would get a bigger "pressure differential" and more thrust in outer space than under normal air pressure!
Of course a vacuum is just this extremely low pressure taken to its ultimate limit, so why would the rocket not work there too?
All the thrust equations I have seen have the thrust INCREASING as the ambient pressure falls, so what would suddenly stop it working in the limit.
Since Papa Legba says a rocket will NOT work in a vacuum, would he please tell us EXPLICITLY (yes with an equations - maths and stuff) just how ambient pressure affects thrust.
Mind you one of the few references I could find that were "similar" to his "Rockets work by creating a pressure differential" is:
"Contrary to popular belief, reaction motors do not obtain thrust by "pushing" against the medium in which they are operating. Thrust is developed by increasing the momentum of the working fluid and creating a pressure differential therein. Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle forms the basis for the motion of all self-propelled objects. Pressure differentials are employed to move propeller-driven aircraft as well as rockets and jet-propelled missiles. By definition, a reaction-propelled vehicle is one containing within its structure its own source of propulsion, i.e., a reaction-type motor. (http://Contrary to popular belief, reaction motors do not obtain thrust by "pushing" against the medium in which they are operating. Thrust is developed by increasing the momentum of the working fluid and creating a pressure differential therein. Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle forms the basis for the motion of all self-propelled objects. Pressure differentials are employed to move propeller-driven aircraft as well as rockets and jet-propelled missiles. By definition, a reaction-propelled vehicle is one containing within its structure its own source of propulsion, i.e., a reaction-type motor.)" from http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part16.htm (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part16.htm)
Of course they are just part of the "conspiracy"!
-
A gas exposed to vacuum does not move straight towards the vacuum.
Incorrect.
Where else would it move except directly towards the area of lowest pressure?
You know, like a vacuum?
Pressure-gradient forces & all that?
Ya know..?
Bit of a slow-poke, aintcha mainframes/markjo/sokarul/who-ever-the-hell-is-currently-typing-your-shitposts?
The gas doesn't move directly towards the vacuum, there is no force to change its direction. Each gas particle will continue in exactly the same direction as it was travelling before. Now, eventually the gas particles will find their way out of the container after having rebounded off the walls of said container.
Here's a hypothetical question. Answer honestly. If a container of gas was reduced to absolute zero such that each particle of gas was perfectly stationary and the container was then opened to vacuum. What would happen?
-
You can even just run hydrogen peroxide through a silver mesh like the jetpack guys do.
Jetpack Guys Innnnn Shpaaaaaayzhee!!!111!!1
THIS IS NOT A SHITPOST! REMAIN CALM! WE REPEAT - NOT A SHITPOST! DO NOT PANIC!
Who could suggest Papa Legba of lying?
You, I bet.
Let's see...
Blah blah blah time wasting fail & wrong & your life is wasted reading this & blah blah blah blah blah until you wish your eyes would melt & you would die all packaged with a shitty link cos I don't really know what I'm talking about...
Nothing new there...
But wait!
Of course they are just part of the "conspiracy"!
Aha - THERE it is!
GOOD little disinfo-thing!
GOOD little doggy!
Well done; have a scooby-snack, Fido...
Now, eventually the gas particles will find their way out of the container after having rebounded off the walls of said container.
BULLSHIT!
Continuum mechanics says you are WRONG.
The concept of billiard-ball molecules all banging against each other has NO place in Fluid Mechanics, Okay?
So stop trying to sneak your shitty FALSE analogy past me yet a-bloody-gain, sock-puppet disinfo-freak.
Now GTFO.
KABISA!
-
Continuum mechanics?
-
Now, eventually the gas particles will find their way out of the container after having rebounded off the walls of said container.
BULLSHIT!
Continuum mechanics says you are WRONG.
OH god cindy, this is the best one yet AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
do u wanna use continuum mechanics at extremely low pressure conditions? really?
come on, u're becoming like thebigone, not even trying trolling, just random shitposts.
-
You can even just run hydrogen peroxide through a silver mesh like the jetpack guys do.
Jetpack Guys Innnnn Shpaaaaaayzhee!!!111!!1
Why not? You do know that silver is a catalyst in hydrogen peroxide decomposition, don't you?
-
Continuum mechanics?
LOL!!!
do u wanna use continuum mechanics at extremely low pressure conditions?
Yes.
I'd like to use Free Expansion as well, but you Liars say it doesn't exist...
Still, if you & sock-arul both think continuum mechanics doesn't exist either, what can I do?
Seems you're systematically knocking off every single physical principle you find inconvenient...
Why not?
Why?
-
Continuum mechanics?
LOL!!!
do u wanna use continuum mechanics at extremely low pressure conditions?
Yes.
I'd like to use Free Expansion as well, but you Liars say it doesn't exist...
Still, if you & sock-arul both think continuum mechanics doesn't exist either, what can I do?
Seems you're systematically knocking off every single physical principle you find inconvenient...
Why not?
Why?
For all forum's users continuum mechanics is an APPROXIMATION of reality which is valid if knudsen number is below one.
in other words if u have a high density of molecules u can use continuum mechanics.
for cindy...
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH
i thought this was your best one yet, but it seems u're gonna improve on it.
i can wait to see what are u gonna come up with
-
For any neutral wondering why phuckyfred is such a very angry little troll, here is the post where I finally woke the dumbass up to the fact he'd been answering to his sock-puppet name of tomfi for two whole pages:
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
It was hilarious...
And helps explain why he later said this:
either way i just keep harrasing u
So; a proven sock-puppeting troll who has promised to 'just keep harassing' me...
You decide if anything he says is worth listening to.
I've already decided this: LOL!!!
-
oh look, u're ignoring the fact that i proved u wrong on continuum mechanics.
what's that? troll tactics 101
come on cindy, u were on the right path, i was laughing like never before, why did u resort to old tactics?
it seems that as soon as u try to put some content in your post u end up saying BS.
ask your mommy for a hot choco, maybe a little sugar we'll give u the energy to troll better
-
For any neutral wondering why phuckyfred is such a very angry little troll, here is the post where I finally woke the dumbass up to the fact he'd been answering to his sock-puppet name of tomfi for two whole pages:
am I a loser cause I've said something wrong?
No; it's a bit more obvious than that.
But at least you've admitted you ARE a Loser...
That's a start!
Now the healing process can begin.
It was hilarious...
And helps explain why he later said this:
either way i just keep harrasing u
So; a proven sock-puppeting troll who has promised to 'just keep harassing' me...
You decide if anything he says is worth listening to.
I've already decided this: LOL!!!
Calm down cindy
-
Again; if neutrals are wondering wtf is going on here, the following post may give some idea:
Legba, you are doing a good job standing up against all these sock puppets. I would not have patience you are having with these guys . I can clearly see that you are correct in your position on rocket propulsion. Keep up the good work.
And remember this, too:
either way i just keep harrasing u
The little fella's certainly trying!
Now:
Now, eventually the gas particles will find their way out of the container after having rebounded off the walls of said container.
Sadly, continuum mechanics suggest that this 'rebounding' would not occur.
Free expansion suggests that the gas would do no work as it left the container.
There is no resistance in a vacuum; thus the dictates of Newton's 3rd cannot be fulfilled.
Rocketry in a vacuum is a bust.
It is hopeless.
Still; if you enjoy the shrill shrieking of a frenzied foreigner; luckyfred's next few posts should be a treat...
Enjoy!
Oh, & pRophet; I suggest it is not I who needs to calm down...
Why would you turn up out of nowhere to imply such a thing?
Ooh... Right!
LOL!!!
-
There is no resistance in a vacuum; thus the dictates of Newton's 3rd cannot be fulfilled.
good girl cindy, i knew u could do better.
gather folks, and listen up, mighty Papa's gonna tell us the tale of newton 3rd law and resistance
PS how many threads have u opened on this subject? ahahahahahahahah
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
-
i'm really intrested in 3rd law and resistance, i'm looking forward to learning new physics.
ps come on, at least answer at "how many other threads have u opened?"
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
-
u're not a good troll cindy.
just for reference if someone is really interested in rocket propulsion
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/E739bU.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paE739bUj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/Gg8dFF.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5Gg8dFFj)
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
Rockets work by creating a pressure differential between themselves & the medium through which they move.
When that medium is removed - as in the case of a vacuum - then rockets cannot work.
This is absolutely elemental stuff; yet you will never, ever grasp it...
I leave the reason for your continued denials & ignorance up to neutral readers to deduce for themselves.
what happened to resistance and 3rd law? i was really curious
-
either way i just keep harrasing u
-
ATTENTION ALL POSTERS:
THIS TOPIC IS CONSTANTLY BEING REPORTED, THUS FILLING UP MY INBOX AND IS QUITE HONESTLY, ANNOYING ME TO NO END. CLEAN IT UP OR I WILL BE FORCED TO LOCK THIS TOPIC.
-
Now, eventually the gas particles will find their way out of the container after having rebounded off the walls of said container.
Sadly, continuum mechanics suggest that this 'rebounding' would not occur.
Citation please.
Are you seriously suggesting that continuum mechanics says that a gas under pressure does not exert a force on its containing vessel?
Free expansion suggests that the gas would do no work as it left the container.
Free expansion does not preclude the gas from doing work before it leaves the container, or even as the gas is leaving the container. Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
There is no resistance in a vacuum; thus the dictates of Newton's 3rd cannot be fulfilled.
It can if you apply Newton's 3rd to the combustion chamber and the burning propellant within.
Rocketry in a vacuum is a bust.
You keep saying that as if you actually believe it. I have a feeling that we both know better.
It is hopeless.
Yes, trying to get you to understand why you're wrong is looking hopeless.
-
There is no resistance in a vacuum; thus the dictates of Newton's 3rd cannot be fulfilled.
It can if you apply Newton's 3rd to the combustion chamber and the burning propellant within.
If vacuum is space, it is probably full of subatomic particles that affect the combustion chamber and the burning propellant within and outside = gravity, which pull the combustion chamber and the burning propellant within and outside in a certain direction. And after you run out of the propellant, only external gravity forces will affect your Spaceship that will sooner or later crash on, e.g. Earth or into the Sun or a Black Hole.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that continuum mechanics says that a gas under pressure does not exert a force on its containing vessel?
Nope.
And you know that.
It says that the 'rebounding billiard ball' molecules schtick mainframes needs for the terrible analogy he's attempting to foist on us is inapplicable.
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Thanks!
Good luck with a 'shpayze-shipp' that does zero work.
Are we done now?
Or can I expect more visits from the BJ1234/luckyfred goon-squad?
-
Are you seriously suggesting that continuum mechanics says that a gas under pressure does not exert a force on its containing vessel?
Nope.
And you know that.
It says that the 'rebounding billiard ball' molecules schtick mainframes needs for the terrible analogy he's attempting to foist on us is inapplicable.
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Thanks!
Good luck with a 'shpayze-shipp' that does zero work.
Are we done now?
Or can I expect more visits from the BJ1234/luckyfred goon-squad?
It is very apparent that you don't understand what continuum mechanics is. It is a method of simplifying reality in order to make modelling systems easier. Otherwise you have to start solving equations dealing with collections of particles and intermolecular forces. Continuum mechanics approximates by removing the need for the individual calculations. However in doing this it sacrifices accuracy.
A model describing individual particles is incredibly difficult to resolve but it describes what is actually happening. Continuum mechanics gives a best estimate but is far simpler to solve.
The upshot of this is that you cannot ignore an argument that explains how systems work by showing how individual particles behave.
-
It is very apparent that you don't understand what continuum mechanics is.
It is even more apparent, that, despite what Fluid Mechanics & the continuum assumption tell us, you do not wish to give up on your 'bouncing billiard balls in a tin can' terrible analogy.
Do I really need to fetch all the posts that prove you know nothing about basic physics again?
Besides, markjo has already said this, so the 'debate' would appear to be over:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
A rocket that does zero work?
That'll get you to teh munn!
-
It's continuum ASSUMPTION, u assume is that way to simplify math, but at very low pressure that assumption is not more true and u don't apply conventional fluid dynamics.
Cindy come on, invent something new, is getting repetitive. A little more effort would be appreciated
-
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
A rocket that does zero work?
That isn't what I said. First of all, the total of the positive work and negative work add up to zero. Yes, work is a vector quantity so there is really such a thing as negative work.
Secondly, the total is zero when the system reaches equilibrium. A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium (remember that pressure gradient that you love to shitspam about?), therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
-
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Think about what you just wrote...
-
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Think about what you just wrote...
Seems about right to me....
-
Seems about right to me....
Unsurprising.
Everyone else but minions, please read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
-
yet again, in which universe a rocket nozzle is an INSULATED CHAMBER?
cindy, stop butchering physics with ideaous assumptions that have nothing to do with reality.
stick to REAL physics...
but wait... sticking to real physics what u claim is wrong.
oh in that case keep on ignoring REAL physics and continue with the lecture about Cindy's own physics and trolling, u're doing a great job
-
Sorry, luckyfred/tomfi; I do not speak Gibberish.
Now; read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
-
yet again, free expansion has nothing to do with rocket propulsion.
u don't have a closed insulated chamber that suddenly opens into vaccum, u have a FLOW of gass from the combustion chamber.
u don't know what to invent next to defend your claims, do u...Cindy/troll?
-
free expansion has nothing to do with rocket propulsion.
So; free expansion of GAS in a VACUUM has nothing to do with how GAS powered rockets propel in the VACUUM of 'space'?
LOL!!!
You should probably tell markjo that...
Please read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
-
free expansion initialia condition: gas in a thermally insulated closed container.
cindy in which universe those conditions resemble the one in a rocket nozzle?
a little more effort trolling cindy
-
free expansion initialia condition: gas in a thermally insulated closed container.
Rocket fuel initial condition: also gas in a thermally insulated container.
A little more effort thinking, tomfi.
But enough of your buffonish derailing; read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
-
free expansion initialia condition: gas in a thermally insulated closed container.
Rocket fuel initial condition: also gas in a thermally insulated container.
A little more effort thinking, tomfi.
But enough of your buffonish derailing; read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
A working rocket is expelling mass and energy to an outside environment. It is not an insulated closed chamber. Free expansion is NOT an applicable process.
-
really?
since when there is not heat transfer between gas and combustion chamber/nozzle?
if this is the case u're claims about the melting of the nozzle are wrong.
so cindy, decide, on which one u're wrong?
-
It is not an insulated closed chamber.
Its fuel tank is.
Which is what I was referring to; please learn to read.
Free expansion is NOT an applicable process.
Okay; let's get this straight; does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
-
oh look, u've ignored the part in which i point out u're fails....
cindy, u're so bad at trolling....
ps fuel in fuel tanks is liquid, not yet a gas
-
It is not an insulated closed chamber.
Its fuel tank is.
Which is what I was referring to; please learn to read.
Free expansion is NOT an applicable process.
Okay; let's get this straight; does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Correct, the fuel tank is a closed chamber UNTIL they open the valves and start pumping fuel out. Either way the fuel tanks aren't propelling the rocket.
Plus the combustion chamber is most definitely not a closed chamber.
Pathetic argument PooPoo Logbrain. Try harder and at least challenge us with some decent physics and engineering challenges
-
Looks like you're becoming fluent in Gibberish too, Walt.
Plus, the way you refer to 'us' in your last sentence is particularly LOL!!!
Lastly, of course, neither of you answered my simple question: Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
-
How come i have to answer u and u almost never answer me Cindy?
If the combustion chamber is thermally insulated why u claimed it will melt?
-
LOL!!!
Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
-
Lol!!!!
Is the combustion chamber insulated yet u claim it will melt?
Ps stick to the physics u can butcher Cindy!!
Thermodynamics is definitely not your thing
-
More derailing & Gibberish...
Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Simple question.
-
ahahahaahahahah yeah sure....
since i asked first i think i should be answer first.
if combustion chamber is insulated, how come u claimed it would melt?
answer my question and i'll have the same courtesy and i'll answer yours
-
stop butchering physics
u can butcher
LOL!!!
Do you & 'frenat' have the same English tutor?
since i asked first
Incorrect.
Now; Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Simple question.
-
Okay; let's get this straight; does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
really?
since when there is not heat transfer between gas and combustion chamber/nozzle?
if this is the case u're claims about the melting of the nozzle are wrong.
so cindy, decide, on which one u're wrong?
cindy..look at the time, seems like i beat u for 4 minutes.
i've asked first.
i'm waiting my answer
-
*Yawn!*
Seems luckyfred has been assigned to specifically turn this entire thread to shit, by asking me irrelevant questions that have either already been answered or that refer to statements I never made...
So I'll ignore his Gibberish until he does something else funny, like start using the same words as 'frenat', or answer repeatedly to his sock-puppet's name, again...
Now; read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
Also: Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Simple question...
-
ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhaha
u're so desperate cindy.
u've been calling everyone a liar and then get caught lying yourself.
say goodbye to your credibility.
ps i will point out that that free expansion requires NO HEAT TRANSFER, which it's quite not the case of rocket combustion chambers
-
I don't want to lock a 210+ page topic, but it seems to have devolved into a name calling and trolling accusation match.
One last time:
ATTENTION ALL POSTERS:
THIS TOPIC IS CONSTANTLY BEING REPORTED, THUS FILLING UP MY INBOX AND IS QUITE HONESTLY, ANNOYING ME TO NO END. CLEAN IT UP OR I WILL BE FORCED TO LOCK THIS TOPIC.
-
What can I do?
Luckyfred keeps asking me to answer a question that refers to something I never said, i.e. that the combustion chamber is insulated.
I was referring to the fuel tank, & it's similarity to the initial conditions of experiments proving free expansion.
Look:
It is not an insulated closed chamber.
Its fuel tank is.
Which is what I was referring to; please learn to read.
If that's not trolling, what is?
Also, I have not reported anyone since your warning, & rarely did so before; so it's not me spamming you.
-
More derailing & Gibberish...
Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Simple question.
Simple answer.
No.
A rocket in space works by accelerating mass out the back. Whether that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma is irrelevant, the principle is the same.
-
in fuel tanks propallant is in liquid state.
free expansion talks about gas.
propellant becomes a gas in the combustion chamber, which is not insulated so u cannot apply free expansion to the nozzle.
-
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then have a think about it...
Can you see what he did there?
Yes, I showed that your free expansion argument does not apply to rockets in a vacuum.
Now would you care to add something to the discussion?
-
Does a rocket in 'space' work by introducing a Gas into a Vacuum?
Simple question.
Simple answer.
No.
A rocket in space works by accelerating mass out the back. Whether that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma is irrelevant, the principle is the same.
So a rocket in 'space' is NOT introducing a Gas into a vacuum?
Shouldn't you tell NASA that?
More importantly; how, exactly, does the rocket accelerate this irrelevantly-composed mass out the back?
I showed that your free expansion argument does not apply to rockets in a vacuum.
Quite the opposite.
Read what you wrote again:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
I see what you did there!
LOL!!!
-
So a rocket in 'space' is NOT introducing a Gas into a vacuum?
Yes a rocket introduces gas into a vacuum, but no, that isn't how it works.
A car introduces gas into the atmosphere, but that isn't what drives the wheels.
More importantly; how, exactly, does the rocket accelerate this irrelevantly-composed mass out the back?
By various methods depending on the type of rocket, but most commonly by the process of burning fuel and oxidizer in a combustion chamber.
I showed that your free expansion argument does not apply to rockets in a vacuum.
Quite the opposite.
Read what you wrote again:
I know what I wrote, and I stand by it. Perhaps you would care explain why you think I'm wrong instead of spamming the same thing over and over again.
-
This is assuming either he knows what he's talking about or he isn't an obnoxious troll.
-
More importantly; how, exactly, does the rocket accelerate this irrelevantly-composed mass out the back?
By various methods depending on the type of rocket, but most commonly by the process of burning fuel and oxidizer in a combustion chamber.
Oh; so a rocket works 'by various methods' does it?
Could you be a bit more vague?
Do any of these 'various methods' involve the creation of Pressure, perhaps?
I know what I wrote, and I stand by it. Perhaps you would care explain why you think I'm wrong instead of spamming the same thing over and over again.
LOL!!!
No; I'll just let you sweat on it...
Anyone intelligent will already know what I mean.
As for the unintelligent ones, they'll probably think there's 'rokkits' in 'shpayze' whatever I say...
So who cares about them?
Again, though, for lulz...
First, this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then, this:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
"not yet zero..."
*snicker!*
Anyhoo; does a rocket in a vacuum work by creating Pressure, markjo?
If not, then how is the Mass you state it throws out the back Accelerated?
-
The mass is accelerated out the back as a result of combustion of the vapour phase components that increase in energy and volume. Pressure is a result of the combustion.
-
More importantly; how, exactly, does the rocket accelerate this irrelevantly-composed mass out the back?
By various methods depending on the type of rocket, but most commonly by the process of burning fuel and oxidizer in a combustion chamber.
Oh; so a rocket works 'by various methods' does it?
Do you think that an ion rocket works the same way as a solid fuel rocket?
Do any of these 'various methods' involve the creation of Pressure, perhaps?
Do you have such a short attention span that you can't finish reading a sentence that you quoted? I said "most commonly by the process of burning fuel and oxidizer in a combustion chamber". So yes, rocket engines that burn fuel and oxidizer create pressure in a combustion chamber.
I know what I wrote, and I stand by it. Perhaps you would care explain why you think I'm wrong instead of spamming the same thing over and over again.
LOL!!!
No; I'll just let you sweat on it...
In other words, you can't. Good to know.
"not yet zero..."
*snicker!*
Correct. The burning of fuel and transferring heat to the rocket engine are considered work.
Anyhoo; does a rocket in a vacuum work by creating Pressure, markjo?
If not, then how is the Mass you state it throws out the back Accelerated?
Does it really matter how the mass being ejected out the back is accelerated? The fact that it is accelerated is the important part.
-
There are also other kind of propulsion. Ion propulsion for example works by accelerating ions thanks to an electrostatic or electromagnetic field.
Most common type of rockets works by burning fuel and oxidizer. Combustion increases the energy(high temperature and pressure) BUT the propulsion is created thanks to the nozzle, which turns this energy into kinetic energy. Which means that through the nozzle the gas decreases its pressure and temperature and accelerates
-
Do you think that an ion rocket works the same way as a solid fuel rocket?
Changing the subject to another sci-fi fantasy, are we?
That's not like you...
yes, rocket engines that burn fuel and oxidizer create pressure in a combustion chamber.
They both 'burn' AND 'create pressure'?
In a vacuum?
LOL!!!
Have you consulted the Laws of Physics on this matter?
In other words, you can't.
No; I can & I did.
You're just trying to pretend I didn't...
Or are you really too dumb to know?
Read again:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this again:
A rocket that is constantly ejecting large quantities of gas is not at equilibrium, therefore the total work being done is not yet zero.
Then note the words 'not yet zero...'
Then LOL!!!
Does it really matter how the mass being ejected out the back is accelerated?
I can't believe you wrote this; but then again, I can't believe you write anything...
YES, it does matter...
When you're trying to explain how motion can be produced in a Vacuum, which is the total absence of all mass, pressure, matter, or any other means of creating friction or resistance, I'd say that every single thing 'matters'.
Because such a concept sounds like complete baloney to myself & any other sane person out there...
Thus, I will keep grilling you on the details until you give a satisfactory explanation for your claims.
You haven't yet, & I doubt you ever will...
You know why?
Because it is Impossible.
-
What law of physics is it that prevents a fuel and oxidiser combusting when in close proximity?
-
yes, rocket engines that burn fuel and oxidizer create pressure in a combustion chamber.
They both 'burn' AND 'create pressure'?
In a vacuum?
If you introduce a gas into an evacuated chamber (such as a combustion chamber), then you no longer have a vacuum, do you?
Have you consulted the Laws of Physics on this matter?
Yes, and they agree with me.
In other words, you can't.
No; I can & I did.
If you say so. ::)
Then note the words 'not yet zero...'
Free expansion says that once the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero. Do you agree with that statement?
Is a rocket engine operating in a vacuum in a state of equilibrium?
When you're trying to explain how motion can be produced in a Vacuum, which is the total absence of all mass, pressure, matter, or any other means of creating friction or resistance, I'd say that every single thing 'matters'.
Again, if you introduce a gas into an evacuated space (such as the combustion chamber of a rocket), then you no longer have a vacuum.
Because such a concept sounds like complete baloney to myself & any other sane person out there...
Incredulity is not a valid argument.
Thus, I will keep grilling you on the details until you give a satisfactory explanation for your claims.
What do you consider a "satisfactory explanation"?
-
If you introduce a gas into an evacuated chamber (such as a combustion chamber), then you no longer have a vacuum, do you?
When it's open to a practically infinite vacuum?
LOL!!!
Have you consulted the laws of physics on this matter?
Free expansion says that once the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero. Do you agree with that statement?
I agree you're having difficulty understanding what 'total work done is zero' implies.
Again, if you introduce a gas into an evacuated space (such as the combustion chamber of a rocket), then you no longer have a vacuum.
Again; in a practically infinite vacuum, you are wrong.
Incredulity is not a valid argument
Well you won't accept the laws of physics so I have to try another tack...
What do you consider a "satisfactory explanation"?
Nothing you can offer.
Because 'Nothing' is what we are dealing with here: a total physical vacuum.
And you cannot get Something out of Nothing.
-
Are you aware a vacuum is not a force?
-
If you introduce a gas into an evacuated chamber (such as a combustion chamber), then you no longer have a vacuum, do you?
When it's open to a practically infinite vacuum?
If you can introduce the gas into the chamber faster than it can be evacuated, then yes. Why not?
Have you consulted the laws of physics on this matter?
Yes I have, and they agree with me.
Free expansion says that once the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero. Do you agree with that statement?
I agree you're having difficulty understanding what 'total work done is zero' implies.
Then explain it to me. Please. I especially want to hear about the part where the process of introducing gas in a vacuum considered a state of equilibrium.
Incredulity is not a valid argument
Well you won't accept the laws of physics so I have to try another tack...
I accept the laws of physics. It's your misinterpretation of those laws of physics that I have a problem with.
What do you consider a "satisfactory explanation"?
Nothing you can offer.
Because 'Nothing' is what we are dealing with here: a total physical vacuum.
Have you never heard the expression "nature abhors a vacuum"?
If you introduce gas to an evacuated combustion chamber, it will expand to fill that void before it escapes through the throat of the nozzle.
And you cannot get Something out of Nothing.
Have you never heard of vacuum energy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
-
Are you aware a vacuum is not a force?
LOL!!!
Think about what you just wrote...
-
Are you aware a vacuum is not a force?
LOL!!!
Think about what you just wrote...
A vacuum is not a force. You seem to think a vacuum can pull on objects.
-
If you can introduce the gas into the chamber faster than it can be evacuated, then yes.
Good luck doing that!
Have you consulted the laws of physics on this matter?
Yes I have, and they agree with me.
If that is so, I suggest that several of them did not wish to speak to you, for fear of being abused.
I do not blame them.
Free expansion says that once the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero. Do you agree with that statement?
I agree you're having difficulty understanding what 'total work done is zero' implies.
Then explain it to me. Please.
Nope; it's self-explanatory to anyone with a brain.
I'm not indulging those without any more...
I accept the laws of physics.
Evidence suggests otherwise...
Have you never heard the expression "nature abhors a vacuum"?
Yes & I have mentioned it on this thread already.
You should ponder its implications rather than just trying to sound clever with it.
If you introduce gas to an evacuated combustion chamber, it will expand to fill that void before it escapes through the throat of the nozzle.
No; it would leave via the path of least resistance, i.e. directly through the nozzle.
Unlike yourself, I am still on speaking terms with the laws of physics.
Have you never heard of vacuum energy?
That's the markjo we all know & love!
When on the spot, retreat into theoretical irrelevancies...
A vacuum is not a force.
Still can't work out why that's such a dumb thing to say, can you?
Logic's never been your strong suit has it?
Are there any other things that a vacuum Is Not which you feel you the need to inform me of?
Toodle-pip!
-
If you can introduce the gas into the chamber faster than it can be evacuated, then yes.
Good luck doing that!
Why should it be that hard? Large inlets, powerful pumps, propellants that expand quite a lot when burned and a small outlet would be a good start.
Free expansion says that once the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero. Do you agree with that statement?
I agree you're having difficulty understanding what 'total work done is zero' implies.
Then explain it to me. Please.
Nope; it's self-explanatory to anyone with a brain.
Is heat transfer considered work? If so, then the total work is not zero.
If you introduce gas to an evacuated combustion chamber, it will expand to fill that void before it escapes through the throat of the nozzle.
No; it would leave via the path of least resistance, i.e. directly through the nozzle.
If the combustion chamber is in a vacuum, then there is nothing to resist the gas from expanding to fill the combustion chamber as it makes it way to the nozzle.
-
A vacuum is not a force.
Still can't work out why that's such a dumb thing to say, can you?
Logic's never been your strong suit has it?
Are there any other things that a vacuum Is Not which you feel you the need to inform me of?
Toodle-pip!
Just think of how strongly you could destroy me by actually explaining why what I said was dumb. As of now you might as well just give jroa a reach around as you accomplished nothing.
-
Papa - a vacuum doesn't have some special power where it can suck all the contents out of any container instantaneously. The more you keep spouting the more of a fool you look.
When exposed to a vacuum gas will naturally exit the container when each molecule happens to pass by chance through the exit. If the exit is large then this will happen very quickly, if the exit is rather small then it will take longer. Start actively adding gas at an inlet and it will take longer.
All the time that there is still gas in the container it will exert pressure on the container walls.
A vacuum cannot exert force on objects, it cannot changer their movement. It is just an absence of matter.
-
Just think of how strongly you could destroy me by actually explaining why what I said was dumb.
I already did explain.
But you were too dumb to notice.
Because your ignorance is the only 'indestructible' thing about you.
Papa - a vacuum doesn't have some special power where it can suck all the contents out of any container instantaneously.
I never said it did.
You, however, do seem to have some special power where you can suck all the context out of my posts instantaneously...
Markjo has already randomly spouted the phrase 'nature abhors a vacuum' without truly pondering its meaning; why don't you all set aside a little pondering time before getting back to me?
Oh, & I haven't read markjo's last post; it's far too early in the day for me to have my brain bent by his convoluted blather, plus it's the weekend.
So if I have by some chance missed a garbage question or two from him, please do not go round trumpeting it as Total Victory for teh raown derf, eh?
Toodle pip, suckers!
-
Markjo has already randomly spouted the phrase 'nature abhors a vacuum' without truly pondering its meaning; why don't you all set aside a little pondering time before getting back to me?
If the combustion chamber is evacuated, then the gas being introduced to it will try to fill that void, will it not?
-
Don't worry, we all knew that u're gonna ignore everything that says u're wrong.
After all this is what u've been doing for this entire thread, everytime that someone proves u wrong u just change subject and mangle another part of physics.
Btw rocket will move also if u just open the tanks and let the gas out. Would be extremely inefficient but it will move.
Ps ion engine have already been used.
-
If the combustion chamber is evacuated, then the gas being introduced to it will try to fill that void, will it not?
I've already answered this, & perfectly correctly too.
Look:
If you introduce gas to an evacuated combustion chamber, it will expand to fill that void before it escapes through the throat of the nozzle.
No; it would leave via the path of least resistance, i.e. directly through the nozzle.
So; why are you asking me the same question again?
The laws of physics will not alter if you harass them, markjo; only the opinions of weak-willed & fearful people do that.
Yet I am neither; who, then, are you in fact aiming your posts at?
Who, markjo?
Enough of your loathsome brainwashing though; let's have a poem!
"How do you know but every Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?"
Toodle-pip, cultists; do try to expand your horizons beyond sci-fi propaganda & the bestial nightmares invoked by the sleep of reason.
True Humanity, & an immense world of delight, awaits you...
The Door is Open.
The Choice is Yours.
Vieux Legba, ever at the Crossroads...
-
i really don't see your point... the fuel and oxidizer introduce in the combustion chamber will tend to exit through the nozzle in vaccum... so what? even on the surface since the pressure at which they're injected are much greater than atmospheric pressure.
they won't go istantly outside, they will exit very fast yes but not istantly.
u just need to have the right mixture and the spark near the injectors to have the combustion
u don't need the entire combustion chamber to be filled with mixture, the gasses produced by the combustion need to have space to expand otherwise u'll and up with an explosion
as long as u can feed propellant at the same rate as it's leaving the combustion chamber u have a continuous combustion.
and yes it's possible since the fuel pumps have thousands of horsepower.
-
So; why are you asking me the same question again?
Because you seem to be under the impression that the gas being introduced into the combustion chamber is aimed directly at the throat. This is not the case. The gas is sprayed in a high pressure mist that expands in all directions. The vacuum of space doesn't grab the gas and pull it out the back, the gas has to find its way out on its own.
-
Because you seem to be under the impression that the gas being introduced into the combustion chamber is aimed directly at the throat.
No, I am not.
And I have given you no reason to make that assumption.
This is what I said:
If you introduce gas to an evacuated combustion chamber, it will expand to fill that void before it escapes through the throat of the nozzle.
No; it would leave via the path of least resistance, i.e. directly through the nozzle.
As you can see from the above, I stated that the gas would leave via the path of least resistance.
This would be directly through the nozzle & into the area of lowest pressure, i.e. the enormous zero-pressure vacuum of 'space'.
Why would the gas bounce around inside the combustion chamber, or even fill it, when that is clearly NOT the path of least resistance?
I thought you said you'd consulted the laws of physics on this matter?
Seems I was correct in thinking some of them avoided contact with you for fear of being abused.
-
fuel wuold fill the chamber if it's pumped in at an higher rate than the one at which it is exiting the chamber. having a vacuum on the other side does not mean that u have an infinite flow exiting the chamber.
yet again, chamber doesn't have to be full of propellant to have a combustion, on the contrary ignited propellant needs space to expand
-
As you can see from the above, I stated that the gas would leave via the path of least resistance.
This would be directly through the nozzle & into the area of lowest pressure, i.e. the enormous zero-pressure vacuum of 'space'.
Is the "enormous zero-pressure vacuum of 'space'" any different from the vacuum in the combustion chamber before the gas is introduced? Does that empty space not want to be filled just as much as space?
Why would the gas bounce around inside the combustion chamber, or even fill it, when that is clearly NOT the path of least resistance?
How much resistance is there in a vacuum? It isn't until the chamber fills up that there is any resistance.
Gasses naturally want to seek equilibrium by going from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure. The vacuum in the combustion chamber is most certainly an area of low pressure.
-
How much resistance is there in a vacuum?
None, clearly.
Tell me again about this consultation you had with the laws of physics?
It is sounding increasingly unlikely...
It isn't until the chamber fills up that there is any resistance.
Again; why would the chamber 'fill' when the path of least resistance is straight out of it?
And where would this 'resistance' come from anyway, as the vacuum in 'space' is practically infinite?
Really; if you don't stop asking me the same question, in the hope that you will receive an answer more suited to your 'space-travel' fantasies, I will have to ignore you & move on.
Also; you are unhappy when I don't answer your questions, yet now it seems you are unhappy when I do answer them.
Seems somewhat contradictory & hypocritical to me...
-
How much resistance is there in a vacuum?
None, clearly.
Then there's nothing to resist the gas from expanding into the chamber. Good to know.
It isn't until the chamber fills up that there is any resistance.
Again; why would the chamber 'fill' when the path of least resistance is straight out of it?
I think that you're confusing "path of least resistance" with "shortest path". They are not the same thing. There is no resistance anywhere within the vacuum of the combustion chamber, therefore the entire chamber is the path of least resistance.
Also; you are unhappy when I don't answer your questions, yet now it seems you are unhappy when I do answer them.
Seems somewhat contradictory & hypocritical to me...
Funny, I get the same impression about you.
-
Gases do not follow the path of least resistance. This is quite simply wrong. Nowhere in the laws of physics does it state this.
What will actually happen is the net flux will tend to be in the direction of the nozzle exit but this is not the same thing. Flux is is the overall net movement of mass if it is positive I one direction it is because the mass moving in that direction is greater than the mass mocing in the opposite direction.
This is important in fluids like gas because they are collections of fast randomly moving particles. In a closed container flux is zero as particles are bouncing around pretty evenly spaced. Open that container to space and the flux will then change towards the exit. This is because whilst particles will start finding their way out, there are no particles coming back in the opposite direction, due to empty vacuum.
This is the reason behind statement "nature abhors a vacuum"; the natural laws governing behaviour is fluids means that the particles behaving randomly will collectively tend to try and fill whatever container or area they are in, and will tend towards an even distribution. The free expansion experiment, for instance, shows this.
Im sure Papa will just LOL at this as he does have a clue how real matter behaves but there you go.
-
There is no resistance anywhere within the vacuum of the combustion chamber, therefore the entire chamber is the path of least resistance.
Why do you keep pretending that the chamber is not open to the vacuum?
It is, & therefore the gas will leave it by the path of least resistance, doing no work on the way.
Gases do not follow the path of least resistance.
When expanding into an area of lower pressure they do.
Which is what we're talking about.
the natural laws governing behaviour is fluids means that the particles behaving randomly will collectively tend to try and fill whatever container or area they are in
Particles that behave both randomly AND collectively?
Whatever; the 'container' or 'area' that a 'spayze-rokkit' is in, is the practically-infinite vacuum of 'space' itself.
So THAT'S what the gases from a 'rokkit-ennjyn' will be trying to fill.
Which is why they would all leave your silly 'combustion chamber' immediately...
By the path of least resistance.
Lastly, I will indeed LOL!!! at this:
Im sure Papa will just LOL at this as he does have a clue how real matter behaves but there you go.
Forgot to include the word 'not', Walt?
Bit of a Freudian slip there?
Toodle-pip!
-
It is, & therefore the gas will leave it by the path of least resistance, doing no work on the way.
yeah cindy, u're only forgettin the combustion and the heat generated. which is turned into propulsion by the nozzle
Which is why they would all leave your silly 'combustion chamber' immediately...
very fast yes, immediately no.
btw u argument is nonsense.
pressure in the combustion chamber is up to 250 bar.
do u really think that having 1 bar or 0 bar at the open end of the combustion chamber will make any difference?
-
There is no resistance anywhere within the vacuum of the combustion chamber, therefore the entire chamber is the path of least resistance.
Why do you keep pretending that the chamber is not open to the vacuum?
I'm not. You're the one pretending that a gas won't expand to fill its environment (the combustion chamber), no matter how briefly.
You're also the one pretending that gas can't be introduced into the chamber faster than it can escape into the vacuum of space, regardless of the physical dimensions of the inlet and outlet openings as well as the flow rate of the gas.
It is, & therefore the gas will leave it by the path of least resistance, doing no work on the way.
During their brief time in the combustion chamber the the gasses (fuel and oxidizer) have a chance to undergo the chemical reaction known as combustion which releases a great deal of energy and causes the gasses to expand even more. That sounds like work to me.
-
During their brief time in the combustion chamber the the gasses (fuel and oxidizer) have a chance to undergo the chemical reaction known as combustion which releases a great deal of energy and causes the gasses to expand even more. That sounds like work to me.
LULZ!!!
Well, as we've both already agreed that the amount of Work done by a Gas in a Vacuum sums to Zero, I'd say you & your whacky something-from-nothing 'shpayze-rokkit' Ponzi-fraud fantasies are in a bit of trouble, ain't you?
*Yawn!*
Time for you lot to answer one of my questions, don't you think?
Fair's fair, eh?
So; here's my question: Do any of you have a Girlfriend?
-
Just think of how strongly you could destroy me by actually explaining why what I said was dumb.
I already did explain.
But you were too dumb to notice.
Because your ignorance is the only 'indestructible' thing about you.
No you didn't.
As I said, you need to learn a vacuum is not a force.
-
Here's what I said, 'indestructible' slow-poke; bear in mind that a vacuum is the very definition of Nothing when you read it, whilst a force is a Thing:
Are there any other things that a vacuum Is Not which you feel the need to inform me of?
*Yawn!*
Also, here is my question which you have just avoided:
Do any of you have Girlfriends?
I have answered your questions; now answer mine.
Wouldn't want to look like hypocrites, would you?
-
oh cindy... i've lost count of all the time u didn't answer
here is the last one for example
btw u argument is nonsense.
pressure in the combustion chamber is up to 250 bar.
do u really think that having 1 bar or 0 bar at the open end of the combustion chamber will make any difference?
let me guess? u don't understand gibberish? or u've already answer before?
no i think u'll just ignore it, as always....
-
Here's what I said, 'indestructible' slow-poke; bear in mind that a vacuum is the very definition of Nothing when you read it, whilst a force is a Thing:
Are there any other things that a vacuum Is Not which you feel the need to inform me of?
So if you agree a vacuum is nothing, why do you keep insisting it's something special?
-
Well, as we've both already agreed that the amount of Work done by a Gas in a Vacuum sums to Zero, I'd say you & your whacky something-from-nothing 'shpayze-rokkit' Ponzi-fraud fantasies are in a bit of trouble, ain't you?
Amazing. I never cease to be surprised at how many things you can get wrong in such a small post.
First of all, no, I did not agree to your misguided interpretation of free expansion. Every reference that I've come across (except yours) describes free expansion in an insulated, closed environment and using an ideal gas (no mass). This does not describe a rocket in space.
Secondly... "Gas in a vacuum." That's an oxymoron, isn't it? If you introduce a gas into an evacuated space (say a combustion chamber), then it's not a vacuum any more, is it?
Thirdly, what makes you think that it's a "something-from-nothing". If it was just a matter of releasing gas into a vacuum, you might have a (rather weak) argument. But it isn't that way.
Did you ever notice that I keep referring to fuel/oxidizer, combustion, combustion chamber and combustion gasses? That's because the process of burning fuel and oxidizer releases a great deal of chemical energy. I wouldn't call all that energy released "nothing".
-
So, would each side accept that if this experiment was performed:
-
So, would each side accept that if this experiment was performed:
??? To which experiment are you referring?
-
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
LULZ!!!
Now; answer my question: Does any of you have a Girlfriend?
-
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
LULZ!!!
Is a rocket operating in a vacuum in a system in a state of equilibrium?
Now; answer my question: Does any of you have a Girlfriend?
Irrelevant, off topic and none of your damned business.
-
Is a rocket operating in a vacuum in a system in a state of equilibrium?
Wtf does that even mean?
You've just lost it now that I've shown you to be making shit up as you go along, ain't you?
Now; answer my question: Does any of you have a Girlfriend?
Irrelevant, off topic and none of your damned business.
Not irrelevant, markjo; ye gang know lots about me, yet I know next to nothing about you...
I'm just trying to establish exactly what kind of *ahem!* 'men' I'm dealing with, that's all.
So; answer the question: Do any of you have a Girlfriend?
I do.
See? Wasn't so hard, was it?
-
Is a rocket operating in a vacuum in a system in a state of equilibrium?
Wtf does that even mean?
Okay, let me rephrase that slightly.
Does a rocket engine operating in a vacuum resemble a system in a state of equilibrium?
So; answer the question: Do any of you have a Girlfriend?
You don't answer most of my on topic questions, so why should I answer any of your off topic questions?
If you want to discuss girlfriends, start a thread in The Lounge.
-
Here's what you wrote:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Yet now you're asking this:
Does a rocket engine operating in a vacuum resemble a system in a state of equilibrium?
Frankly, I have no idea wtf you are on about or where you are going with your nonsense...
Well, except 'yess i cann hazz spayze-shippz!', of course.
So; answer the question: Do any of you have a Girlfriend?
You don't answer most of my on topic questions, so why should I answer any of your off topic questions?
*Yawn!*
I'll take that blather as 'No; I do not have a Girlfriend'.
& add a LOL!!! for good measure.
So that's you out the way; do any of my other space-cultist tormentors have a girlfriend?
Or am I to understand that you are in fact non-people with non-lives, simply spamming me with non-truths in support of fraudulent non-events?
Cos that's how it's looking at the moment...
-
Here's what you wrote:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Yet now you're asking this:
Does a rocket engine operating in a vacuum resemble a system in a state of equilibrium?
Frankly, I have no idea wtf you are on about or where you are going with your nonsense...
What part do you not understand? Do you not understand the concept of equilibrium?
Better yet, you claim that rockets work using pressure gradients. Does a pressure gradient sound like a state of equilibrium to you?
-
Does a pressure gradient sound like a state of equilibrium to you?
LOL!!!
You have completely lost the plot today, haven't you?
Get some sleep.
Better yet, get a girlfriend & sleep with her...
Toodle-pip!
-
Are you old enough for a girlfriend Papa? And no your mum doesn't count.
FYI Getting married next year.
Back on topic. Why do you keep insisting on quoting free expansion when it clearly doesn't apply to a rocket in space?
-
Why do you keep insisting on quoting free expansion when it clearly doesn't apply to a rocket in space?
So; the FACT that a gas expands freely into a vacuum, doing no work on the way, does not have any relevance to how a gas powered rocket would function in a vacuum?
Really?
Could you please tell your chum markjo that?
Cos look what he wrote:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
It may well be the only true thing he's ever written here...
Which is why he's regretting it so badly, I guess!
Btw; saying this:
FYI Getting married next year
Is not the same as saying 'Yes, I have a girlfriend'.
FYI...
-
The gas doesn't freely expand into the vacuum though. It has to do work to escape the rocket. Only in the case of an insulated, closed container does the gas do no NET work. This you constantly fail to understand.
And yes I admit you are correct in that I don't have a girlfriend. I have a fiancée.....
-
The gas doesn't freely expand into the vacuum though. It has to do work to escape the rocket.
LOL!!!
Magic 'shpayze-gas' for magic 'shpayze-rokkits'!
Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...
How charitable of it!
Best one yet, Walter Mitty.
As for the rest of your post; I daren't say what I think, cos you'll just spam the mods with reports to try & get me censored...
But suffice to say that you are fully 'in character' today; good work!
-
The gas doesn't freely expand into the vacuum though. It has to do work to escape the rocket.
LOL!!!
Magic 'shpayze-gas' for magic 'shpayze-rokkits'!
Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...
How charitable of it!
Best one yet, Walter Mitty.
As for the rest of your post; I daren't say what I think, cos you'll just spam the mods with reports to try & get me censored...
But suffice to say that you are fully 'in character' today; good work!
The gas doesn't choose to do work. It is an inevitable consequence of the gas interacting with the walls of the container, and the fact that there is an exit to the container. The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
You were the one who resorted to implying we had no girlfriends and I simply pointed out that in my case you were wrong. No need to get pathetic about it.
-
Read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this:
The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
Oh, dear!
Space-cultists at Loggerheads!
What a truly spectacular Fail you have all created today...
The only possible summation of which is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
-
Cindy..... Keep failing to grasp the simply fact that free expansion is a particular kind of expansion for which u need to have a very specific set of condition:
Vaccum which u have
Close container which u have NOT
insulated container which u have NOT
gasses starting from a state of equilibrium which u have NOT
u CANNOT apply free expansion results to the thermodynamics System that represent the rocket.
Gasses exiting the rocket have do to work since they pass through the nozzle which is specifically design to transform their thermal energy into thrust.
And u Cindy? U seem very angry today... Did your boyfriend just leave? No wonder by the way treat other people
-
The gas doesn't freely expand into the vacuum though. It has to do work to escape the rocket.
LOL!!!
Magic 'shpayze-gas' for magic 'shpayze-rokkits'!
Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...
How charitable of it!
Best one yet, Walter Mitty.
As for the rest of your post; I daren't say what I think, cos you'll just spam the mods with reports to try & get me censored...
But suffice to say that you are fully 'in character' today; good work!
The gas doesn't choose to do work. It is an inevitable consequence of the gas interacting with the walls of the container, and the fact that there is an exit to the container. The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
You were the one who resorted to implying we had no girlfriends and I simply pointed out that in my case you were wrong. No need to get pathetic about it.
You trouble and that of those like you is, you're trying to make out you know what you're talking about and clearly you don't.
The net result is a non-zero amount of work?...what kind of babble is that?
Oh and this: The gas doesn't choose to do work. What the hell are you talking about?
Papa: these people are merely using mass gibberish to wear you down, as you will know. Keep up the good work because the rational people with common sense and logic will see what you're saying.
-
Read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this:
The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
Oh, dear!
Space-cultists at Loggerheads!
What a truly spectacular Fail you have all created today...
The only possible summation of which is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!
Read the statements halfwit.
He stated when the system reaches equilibrium. Gas escaping from a container is not equilibrium.
-
The net result is a non-zero amount of work?...what kind of babble is that?
It's called vector analysis. It's what people who know what they're talking about use. The net of all of the vector quantities of work is not equal to zero. ie work is not equal in all directions.
Oh and this: The gas doesn't choose to do work. What the hell are you talking about?
Papa was implying that my meaning was that gas was choosing to do work as per this quote:
Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...
-
It's what people who know what they're talking about use.
LOL!!!
Here's you 'knowing what you're talking about' on the subject of Newton's Law's, Walter Mitty:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Now; seems you & markjo disagree over what free expansion entails; care to sort it out for us?
-
It's what people who know what they're talking about use.
LOL!!!
Here's you 'knowing what you're talking about' on the subject of Newton's Law's, Walter Mitty:
You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.
Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.
& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:
LOL!!!
Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:
You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.
But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com (http://www.thephysicsclassroom.com) describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?
'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'
So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.
The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.
Now; seems you & markjo disagree over what free expansion entails; care to sort it out for us?
Developing a push on a mass is not the same as pushing off a mass.
-
LOL!!!
And here's a post where you didn't even know what an 'object' is:
Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
LOL!!!
What is an object....?
Here's a question: what is a Fabulist?
And here's an answer: it is You, Walter Mitty.
Still; I'm sure your story-telling abilities are useful for entertaining your 'fiancee' as you promenade round the cloisters of Bath University... Accompanied at all times by a chaperone, of course.
LOL!!!
One last question, Walt: do you in fact live in a Charles Dickens novel?
-
LOL!!!
And here's a post where you didn't even know what an 'object' is:
Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:
How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?
Bearing in mind this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."
Note that it includes the number Two.
LOL!!!
What is an object....?
Here's a question: what is a Fabulist?
And here's an answer: it is You, Walter Mitty.
Still; I'm sure your story-telling abilities are useful for entertaining your 'fiancee' as you promenade round the cloisters of Bath University... Accompanied at all times by a chaperone, of course.
LOL!!!
One last question, Walt: do you in fact live in a Charles Dickens novel?
Rhetorical question dumbass.
-
Rhetorical question dumbass.
Yeah; right...
So; is your fantasy existence based on the works of Dickens?
Or are you more of a Jane Austen type?
There's no chance of getting any sense or truth out of you on the subject of Science, so we may as well delve into the fevered depths of your Imaginary Life...
-
Why do you keep insisting on quoting free expansion when it clearly doesn't apply to a rocket in space?
So; the FACT that a gas expands freely into a vacuum, doing no work on the way, does not have any relevance to how a gas powered rocket would function in a vacuum?
Once the gas escapes the rocket engine, it's free to expand all it wants. However, while the gas is within the rocket engine, its expansion is constrained by the walls of the combustion chamber, the size of the throat and the bell of the nozzle.
In other words, outside the rocket engine - free expansion. Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.
-
outside the rocket engine - free expansion. Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.
Nonsense: In Vacuum - Free expansion.
Full stop.
& as we've already established that your silly 'combustion chamber' is open to the practically-infinite vacuum of 'space' that's the end of your 'shpazyze ecksplurayshun' illusions, is it not?
Now; please read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this:
The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
Then explain why you & mainframes contradict one another.
Get your stories straight, space-cultists!
-
Cindy..... Keep failing to grasp the simply fact that free expansion is a particular kind of expansion for which u need to have a very specific set of condition:
Vaccum which u have
Close container which u have NOT
insulated container which u have NOT
gasses starting from a state of equilibrium which u have NOT
u CANNOT apply free expansion results to the thermodynamics System that represent the rocket.
-
outside the rocket engine - free expansion. Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.
Nonsense: In Vacuum - Free expansion.
Full stop.
& as we've already established that your silly 'combustion chamber' is open to the practically-infinite vacuum of 'space' that's the end of your 'shpazyze ecksplurayshun' illusions, is it not?
Open to a vacuum is not the same as being a vacuum. If fuel and oxidizer are pumped into an evacuated combustion chamber and burned, then the chamber is no longer a vacuum.
Now; please read this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Then read this:
The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
Then explain why you & mainframes contradict one another.
Since the work being done by the gas is being done within the rocket engine (which is not in a state of equilibrium), I see no contradiction.
-
Papa cant cope with the concept of a localised area of high pressure that is connected to a vacuum by a small orifice.
-
God almighty, are you lot still here?
All still asking the same bloody question I've repeatedly answered?
*Yawn!*
Here's what you are up to in a nutshell:
Okay, let me rephrase that slightly
'Let me rephrase that...'
LOL!!!
In other words: 'You have shown me to be wrong, but I refuse to accept that so will just keep badgering you until you give up...'
Yeah; cos badgering witnesses is the sign of a class act, ain't it?
A real straight-shooter!
Anyhoo; let's examine what we have learned today:
1) None of you have any kind of internal motivation or emotional life whatsoever.
(Except for one of you who apparently lives in a 19th-century romantic novel, wherein he & his blushing betrothed chastely dance minuets & waltzes at the Marquis of Bathtubshire's annual St. Swithins day Ball. Or some such nonsense.).
2) Nothing at all.
3) The same as #2 but with added STFU.
4) There is NO #4.
5) As #3 but with GTFO & LOL!!! frosting.
6) Nobody cares about #6.
7) OKAY, LET ME REPHRASE #7!!!
8 ) #7 is now rephrased as #1.
9) Repeat as necessary...
Toodle-pip, full-on mentalists who are so mental that the term mentalist is just too inadequate to do their mentalising mentalism justice...
Until we meet again: Carry on Lying!
-
So, would each side accept that if this experiment was performed:
Shit, my internet died when this was being created, and it somehow posted it.
-
Ha ha ha. You crack me up!
People do get married in the 21st century. You're just upset that I made you look like a mug when you insisted we had no girlfriends. I was quite impressed with your logical leap from I am getting married to chastely dancing waltzes. No wonder you are incapable of applying science to the correct situation.
We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly. You don't understand free expansion and yet keep desperately trotting it out in an attempt to discredit the mechanics of rocketry.
-
We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.
LOL!!!
Who's this 'We', white man?
Okay, let me rephrase that slightly
Knock yourself out, Walter 'me & my fiancee' Mitty; you 'rephrase' that Lie...
Because it'll always involve trying to create pressure within a practically-infinite vacuum, so nothing you can say will ever stop it being laughable bullshit.
Which is why I must end, as always: Carry On Lying!
-
lol
Papa is so destroyed he can't even make proper posts anymore.
lol
-
So cindy, if this infinite vacuum can pull out gasses immediately from the chamber, no matter how tiny is the exit or how powerful are the pumps.... What prevents it from sucking all the atmosphere away from earth?
-
Whatever, losers; Words are not Reality.
Now; back to this:
We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.
Who's this 'We', white man?
Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?
Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...
You DO know them all personally, don't you?
You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...
Right?
So; tell me about this 'We'.
-
I'm afraid to said that u're becoming ridiculous and paranoid Cindy.
But I'm glad that u keep ignoring question, so that the rational reader could discern reality from trolling
-
Whatever, losers & Frenchmen (same thing); Words are not Reality.
Now; back to this:
We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.
Who's this 'We', white man?
Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?
Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...
You DO know them all personally, don't you?
You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...
Right?
So; tell me about this 'We'.
-
We - being all the people who are engaging in the debate on the side of correct science and actual factual evidence and therefore not on the same side as you and most FE's. A cursory scan of the last couple of pages makes it myself, lucky Fred, sokural and markjo.
Although debate is probably a stretch. All I can see is you prattling on about free expansion when it is not applicable and how a vacuum somehow manages to instantly pull out molecules out of a chamber with a small orifice. Both wrong. I suspect you couldn't even explain how a gas actually behaves.
I'm not sure which is worse you bring a troll or actually believing the crap you spout. If you're a troll then you're pretty pathetic and if you genuinely believe this stuff then you're really dragging down the average IQ of wherever it is you live.
-
I asked you this:
Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?
Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...
You DO know them all personally, don't you?
You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...
Right?
So; tell me about this 'We'.
You answered with this:
We - being all the people who are engaging in the debate on the side of correct science and actual factual evidence and therefore not on the same side as you and most FE's. A cursory scan of the last couple of pages makes it myself, lucky Fred, sokural and markjo.
Thus avoiding the main thrust of my questions, as well as erroneously calling me a flat-earther, a thing I have repeatedly & strenuously denied being.
You have not met any of your 'We'; you cannot confirm their existence; they are no more than ghosts in a machine...
So, I must conclude there is no 'We'.
There is simply 'You'.
And your Imaginary Qualifications, fiancee, Dickensian lifestyle, etc, etc, of course...
Now, let us return to why markjo claimed this:
Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.
Whilst you claimed this:
The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.
Please explain why you & markjo contradicted one another.
I've been waiting a long time for an answer, Walter; do enlighten both myself & your Imaginary 'We'...
-
I must say, this was one of the most epic trolling threads I've ever seen. Papa Legba trolled you idiots for 215 pages and you kept coming back for more. Did I mention you guys are idiots?
Since this thread has pretty much devolved into name calling and ranting, it's getting locked. It's not angry enough to get moved to Angry Ranting. I'd like to say it's been fun, but it's really just been painful to watch this thread play out.