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

Quote from: tappet on June 23, 2015, 02:56:05 AM

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.

Yes damn those globalists for understanding science and knowing how to apply it correctly.....

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 05:31:35 AM

Quote from: tappet on June 23, 2015, 02:56:05 AM

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.

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 05:42:38 AM

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.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 23, 2015, 06:26:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 05:42:38 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 06:40:12 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 23, 2015, 06:26:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 05:42:38 AM

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.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 23, 2015, 06:57:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 06:40:12 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 23, 2015, 06:26:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 05:42:38 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 07:37:12 AM

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

Ditto the exhaust velocity of the shuttle's main engines...

*sigh*
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.

Quote from: BiJane on June 22, 2015, 01:48:24 PM

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, 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.