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

You need to put a bit more effort in.

Except  they don't.  Not matter how much you whine and whinge, this shit just works.  Newton's laws of motion are used by engineers every day to build real, working stuff.  From skyscrapers to cars to aircraft to bridges.  All of these "indoctrinated egg heads" use this apparent "bullshit" to get real things done, rather than just arguing on obscure internet forums.

Look at the sort of thing that is built with this knowledge:




What has been been built by denpressure?  Oh yeah, fuck all....

Everyone except sceptimatic: DISMISSED FOR PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE.

Oh, & in the case of markjo, for being a proven sock-puppeteer too...

LOL!!!

Or do you wanna try spamming your 'man on lol-board with lol-ball' false analogy again?

Cos it's been repeatedly debunked, specifically in reply #622, page 32, & reply #1569, page 79 of this thread.

& apart from that 1 stupid analogy, you Cultists got precisely NOTHING in the way of evidence, have you?

Just your lame-ass tactic of DENY, DENY & DERIDE, & keep denying & deriding, until you have worn the opposition down...

The exact same tactic that Scientologists use against their critics, in fact.

Which is no surprise, as Jack Parsons, founder of JPL, & L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, were best buddies & performed Magickal Ceremonies together...

Just fyi.

Anyway; now we're done here, we'll move on again...

Be ready.

Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.

Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.

Well, your posts have no content whatsoever. You just butt into conversations to throw personal attacks at round earthers.

& the content of your post was, Quail?

Zero.

& was it on-topic?

No.

Troll much, loser?

Quote from: Poko on July 24, 2015, 03:06:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2015, 02:53:54 AM

How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.

More fuel + more fast = more up

You need to put a bit more effort in. No wonder people can't grasp it. You haven't a clue how it really works. You are happy to be duped with explanations that do not make any sense when thought about clearly for 5 minutes.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just how conservation of momentum works. "more fuel + more fast = more go" is the cornerstone of all propellant-based modes of transportation, including rockets. You've been given a technical explanation by Rayzor and you've been given a childishly simple explanation by me. Take your pick.

I've been Lied to by you & I've been Lied to by Rayzor; I 'pick' neither.

'Poko'; that's a new one... you gonna start shrilly banging on about 'forces', by any chance?

I've been Lied to by you & I've been Lied to by Rayzor; I 'pick' neither.

'Poko'; that's a new one... you gonna start shrilly banging on about 'forces', by any chance?

So, I suppose that all of Newtonian Physics is a lie then? I guess all the photographs I've seen of skyscrapers are fake. I guess all the memories I have of being in skyscrapers have been implented in my brain by NASA. I guess every airplane trip I've ever taken was actually just a roller coaster at Disneyland built to look like an airplane. I guess the computer I'm using right now is fake.

If you have a model of physic that contradicts Newtonian physics, I implore you to share that model with all of us so that we may correct our mistakes.

Everyone except sceptimatic: DISMISSED FOR PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE.

Oh, & in the case of markjo, for being a proven sock-puppeteer too...

LOL!!!

Or do you wanna try spamming your 'man on lol-board with lol-ball' false analogy again?

Cos it's been repeatedly debunked, specifically in reply #622, page 32, & reply #1569, page 79 of this thread.

& apart from that 1 stupid analogy, you Cultists got precisely NOTHING in the way of evidence, have you?

Just your lame-ass tactic of DENY, DENY & DERIDE, & keep denying & deriding, until you have worn the opposition down...

The exact same tactic that Scientologists use against their critics, in fact.

Which is no surprise, as Jack Parsons, founder of JPL, & L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, were best buddies & performed Magickal Ceremonies together...

Just fyi.

Anyway; now we're done here, we'll move on again...

Be ready.

Apparently you missed this video.

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

Destroyed again.

Quote from: hoppy on July 24, 2015, 12:57:09 PM

Crabby that post should be embarassing to you, you should just delete it. Grabbing at straws, off topic, it reaks of desperation.

Well, your posts have no content whatsoever. You just butt into conversations to throw personal attacks at round earthers.

Incorrect.

Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?

As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.

You know; like you just spammed?

'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?

Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.

Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...

Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.

Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.

I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.

That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.

Hoppy: hello.

Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?

As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.

You know; like you just spammed?

'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?

Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.

Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...

Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.

Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.

I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.

That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.

Hoppy: hello.

Is this picture clear enough?

Newton's third law is the only reason that rockets do work. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Fuel goes down, rocket goes up. It's the same principle behind how a helicopter works. The propeller pushes the air down, which pushes the helicopter up.

So, now you might ask "Well how does something as light as rocket fuel affect something as heavy as a rocket?" Well, the answer is that there is a lot of fuel and it's moving very very fast. When the fuel combusts, it releases a great burst of kinetic energy which shoots the exhaust downward. Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the rocket is pushed with the same amount of force in the opposite direction, propelling it upward.

Rocketry isn't in conflict with the third law. Rocketry is entirely dependent on the third law.

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.

You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.

You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.

You're misunderstanding what is happening here. Kinetic energy isn't being created out of nothing. Chemical energy in Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules is being turned into kinetic energy through the process of combustion. If the helicopter analogy wasn't good enough, here's a better one.

A gun works by combusting gunpowder which releases kinetic energy. This kinetic energy propels the bullet out of the barrel. Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the gun recoils. This is the exact same mechanism that a rocket uses to propel itself.

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.

You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.

This picture clearly shows that exhaust is not part of the rocket.


This picture clearly shows how exhaust pushes inside a rocket engine to generate thrust.

If you believe it is false provide evidence.

Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?

Another false analogy & thus dismissed.

Mikeman v2.0: already answered, repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.

For example; have you tried lifting yourself up by your own ankles yet?

If so, are you in space?

If YES: your silly drawing is an accurate representation of reality.

If NO: Houston, you have a problem...

Whatever; reported for spamming/trolling/whatever the hell it is that you are attempting here, madman...

Probably 'DESTROYING ME!!!', somehow, in the privacy of your own deluded little mind.

Or maybe, like Poko, just wasting everybody's time?

Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?

Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.

In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".

In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".

Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?

Another false analogy & thus dismissed.

Mikeman v2.0: already answered, repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.

For example; have you tried lifting yourself up by your own ankles yet?

If so, are you in space?

If YES: your silly drawing is an accurate representation of reality.

If NO: Houston, you have a problem...

Whatever; reported for spamming/trolling/whatever the hell it is that you are attempting here, madman...

Probably 'DESTROYING ME!!!', somehow, in the privacy of your own deluded little mind.

Or maybe, like Poko, just wasting everybody's time?

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 02:45:36 PM

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.

You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.

This picture clearly shows that exhaust is not part of the rocket.


This picture clearly shows how exhaust pushes inside a rocket engine to generate thrust.

If you believe it is false provide evidence.

Still waiting for evidence.

Also, are you really so stupid you think you can go to space by lifting up your ankles? LOL.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 03:33:01 PM

Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?

Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.

In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".

In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".

We just explained this to him yesterday.

Papa Legba pay the fuck attention.

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Just what kind of evidence that proves that you're wrong and we're right will you accept?

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

Then it's a good thing that no on is claiming that it does.  A rocket and it's combustion gasses are no more the same object than a inflated balloon and the air inside that balloon are the same object. 

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

I'm sorry, but defeating your own straw man does not prove us or NASA wrong. 

No, mikeman v2.0: it is YOU who is stupid enough to think that you can get to space just by lifting on your ankles; because that is EXACTLY what your nonsensical model of rocket thrust implies.

&, as you clearly cannot, it is therefore PROVEN FALSE.

So stop spamming us with it, ok?

Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.

When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.

What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?

Answer that correctly & this whole ludicrous sham can end; answer it incorrectly & you demonstrate you have no understanding of even the most basic Newtonian physics & simply want to believe in sci-fi nonsense, like a good little brainwashed & proselytising Cultist.

As you said earlier: Take Your Pick...

Sock-arul: if you lied to me yesterday, does that make it true today?

Idiot.

Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.

Still; the JPL/NASA Thought-Police night-shift seems to have called in for duty now - so goodnight, Cultists; happy space-dreams...

& of course; to conclude: LOL!!!

No, mikeman v2.0: it is YOU who is stupid enough to think that you can get to space just by lifting on your ankles; because that is EXACTLY what your nonsensical model of rocket thrust implies.

&, as you clearly cannot, it is therefore PROVEN FALSE.

So stop spamming us with it, ok?

Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.

When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.

What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?

Answer that correctly & this whole ludicrous sham can end; answer it incorrectly & you demonstrate you have no understanding of even the most basic Newtonian physics & simply want to believe in sci-fi nonsense, like a good little brainwashed & proselytising Cultist.

As you said earlier: Take Your Pick...

Sock-arul: if you lied to me yesterday, does that make it true today?

Idiot.

Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.

Still; the JPL/NASA Thought-Police night-shift seems to have called in for duty now - so goodnight, Cultists; happy space-dreams...

& of course; to conclude: LOL!!!

Quote me where I said that you can go to space by pulling your own ankle, otherwise you are wrong.

Also, the exhaust is not part of the rocket, as seen in this picture:

Mikeman v2.0: LOL!!! You are a hopeless illiterate...

& 'the exhaust is not part of the rocket'; another blind man!

Still, as long as you distract from my comprehensive, logical & scientifically accurate post then you're doing your job I guess...

Shall we sane readers enjoy some poetry whilst the JPL drones all shit-post? Why not...

'The prophets Isaiah & Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spake to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answered. 'I saw no God, nor heard any, in a Finite organical perception; but my senses discovered the Infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain convinced, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.'

William Blake; 'Marriage of Heaven & Hell'.

Beautiful... if you have not read it, dear readers, I urge you to do so; Blake was a great man.

Now; let's allow the drones to play a while, eh?

...
Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.

When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.

What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?

The trick here is to just look at a picture of a rocket, which there is a nice one posted just above this post.  See how the exhaust LEAVES the rocket? The exhaust is object B. More specifically it's object B when it separates from the rocket. Both a gun and a rocket require one object to become two objects to get the force from Newton's law. If only you were smart enough to see this.

...

No; if only I were DUMB enough to see it...

Then I could be a brainwashed Cultist like you.

Alas; I am not.

Thus, mere Reality will have to suffice for me...

How very sad!

Or very LOL!!!

Depending...

No; if only I were DUMB enough to see it...

Then I could be a brainwashed Cultist like you.

Alas; I am not.

Thus, mere Reality will have to suffice for me...

How very sad!

Or very LOL!!!

Depending...

Delusions from a destroyed little kid.

Yes, I agree; all your posts are.

& I have been telling you this for a while now...

I would suggest you get help for your massive cognitive dysfunction; but, as that might imply I give a flying f**k about you, I must forebear.

Toodle-pip, cultist; read some Blake - that may help you better understand our reality...

Though probably not.

LOL!!!

Stop lying & posting drawings as 'evidence'.

Both the forces described by Newton's 3rd cannot be created on the same object & produce motion.

If you believe they can, then try lifting yourself off the ground by pulling up on your own ankles.

If the result is that you fly into space; congratulations: NASA wins.

If not: NASA loses.

End of story.

This has already been dealt with, in tiresome detail, earlier in the thread; either read it all & bring something new to the debate, or go away.

You won't, of course; but it's worth an ask.

Once again, we are lucky you are not responsible for engineering. Pull itself up?  Wow.

Once again, Rama Set, we are lucky you are not a real person; because you are incapable of taking anything in its correct context & thus would be a horrible embarrassment at any social occasion.

But enough of that; how about some more poetry, for intelligent people to appreciate, whilst you Thought-Police shit-post?

'Down the winding caverns we groped our tedious way, till a void boundless as the nether sky appeared beneath us, and we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said: if you please we will commit ourselves to this void and see whether Providence is here also.'

Do you believe in Providence in the unknown, Rama Set?

Or that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God?

Or anything of any true value?

You do not believe in the laws of physics; because you absolutely refuse to apply them correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.

So; what, exactly, do you believe in?

Apart from ruthlessly crushing any attempt at free-thought on obscure web forums, that is...

Not lol, shameful harasser Rama Set.

Not lol at all.