It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Markojo: if I'm so stupid, then enlighten me by describing exactly where the action-reaction pairing occurs within your space-rockets.

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:21:03 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

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? 

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 01:25:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:21:03 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:28:12 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 01:25:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:21:03 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:28:12 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 01:25:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2015, 01:21:03 PM

Quote from: legion on June 22, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

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.



As to the rest: tl&dr

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 01:07:03 AM

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.



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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 02:45:18 AM

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.