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

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 29, 2015, 05:31:02 PM

Quote from: Conker on June 28, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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 |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

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 m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

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 dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/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, dv_a and dv_b 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, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

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. 

Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 29, 2015, 05:31:02 PM

Quote from: Conker on June 28, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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 |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

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 m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

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 dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/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, dv_a and dv_b 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, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

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. 

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.

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 30, 2015, 05:05:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 29, 2015, 05:31:02 PM

Quote from: Conker on June 28, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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 |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

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 m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

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 dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/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, dv_a and dv_b 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, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

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. 

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? 

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 30, 2015, 07:02:23 AM

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? 

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 01:19:23 AM

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. 
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. 

Quote from: Rayzor on July 01, 2015, 01:25:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2015, 01:19:23 AM

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. 
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. 

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

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on June 29, 2015, 05:31:02 PM

Quote from: Conker on June 28, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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 |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

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 m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

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 dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/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, dv_a and dv_b 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, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

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. 

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. 
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. 

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." 

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. 

This is what we're asked to believe with Saturn V. 

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

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. 

This is what we're asked to believe with Saturn V. 

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

What a beautifully constructed straw-man. Congrats.

You can play in the loony bin with all the other retarded children.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 03, 2015, 03:21:17 AM

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!

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on July 03, 2015, 03:25:15 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 03, 2015, 03:21:17 AM

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.

Quote from: Conker on July 03, 2015, 05:57:51 AM

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?