The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sceptimatic on November 13, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
-
.....
-
186,000 miles/second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
-
This bugs me.
I went along in life being told about planets and stars and all things about space, as we all did and being a young age at the time, I had no reason to doubt it.
After all, why would a kid doubt a professor in a white overall or a teacher that has been taught to teach you the very same things he/she was taught.
I don't discount everything I've been taught but at the same time I'm becoming extremely sceptical each day from what I have been taught over time and one of them is stars and light years.
As we all know...stars are supposedly calculated in light years for distance as mileage would involve ridiculous maths.
So we are told that a star that is 600 light years away would take us 600 years travelling at the speed of light to reach it and also that we are looking at that star as it was 600 years ago as we see the 600 year old light.
I honestly cannot get my head around it and think it's absolute BS, yet my simple answer could be construed as kid like and discounted by scientists, coupled with ridicule, so here goes.
When we view a star, we are viewing that star as it is "now" not as it was X amount of years ago.
Why do I think this?
Think about going out on a night with a torch and a friend, then telling that friend to walk 100 yards, then turn on his torch to shine at you.
You are going to see the small light of that torch in his hand...not the beam from the torch to your face as the beam would be spread out the further it gets.
A torch spans out like a funnel and it would be like anyone looking into a funnel and seeing the light at the end because that's what takes your focus.
I could be way out in my thinking here and I don't profess to say it's 100% correct but it does seem more logical to me of us seeing stars as they are, not as they were, meaning stars are a hell of a lot closer than we are told.
What do you all think?
I'm not sure if understand very well what you are saying as English is not my main language, but everything you see is light that reaches your eyes. For you to see something, light has to travel from one point to your eye, So the small light of that torch in his hand you see has also traveled from there to your eye at the same speed that the beam did. The same happens when looking at distant planets, they don't project light, for you to see them it means that light has traveled from the sun, it has bounced on the planet and then reached to your eye, so if from the moment light reaches a planet and bounces, to the moment it reaches your eye a few minutes have passed, it means you are looking how that planet was a few minutes ago.
-
Look what we are told.
We are told that scientists have discovered a planet that can potentially support life which is supposedly 600 light years away.
Now how did they see this planet?
If you can only see a planet 600 light years away as it was 600 years ago, it means that all they are viewing is 600 year old light from it, so how can they see it.
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The light will not decay over the distance, as there is almost nothing in space to block it. That is why we can observe stars so precisely, as the light we see coming from the stars is almost exactly what the light it emitted was. This allows us to see the imperfections in the light characteristic of an exoplanet.
FOr example, if you had a glowing sphere similar to a star, and you held it up from across a field, a crappy digital camera could still distinguish it with enough clarity for you to tell what it was.
-
Look what we are told.
We are told that scientists have discovered a planet that can potentially support life which is supposedly 600 light years away.
Now how did they see this planet?
If you can only see a planet 600 light years away as it was 600 years ago, it means that all they are viewing is 600 year old light from it, so how can they see it.
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The light will not decay over the distance, as there is almost nothing in space to block it. That is why we can observe stars so precisely, as the light we see coming from the stars is almost exactly what the light it emitted was. This allows us to see the imperfections in the light characteristic of an exoplanet.
FOr example, if you had a glowing sphere similar to a star, and you held it up from across a field, a crappy digital camera could still distinguish it with enough clarity for you to tell what it was.
Well I don't buy into the light year planets or stars.
I'm not saying that what you say is wrong, I'm just saying that I can't go along with stars being that far away.
I could accept them being something like a million miles away or something like that but not light years.
Is this because you are afraid of the realization that you are impossibly small and insignificant in a universe that makes you tiny and unnoticable? You don't have to dispel science, there is this thing called religion.
-
186,000 miles/second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
It's not the speed of light I have a problem with, it's the star distances.
I think stars are what they appear to be, small specks of light in the sky.
-
186,000 miles/second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
It's not the speed of light I have a problem with, it's the star distances.
I think stars are what they appear to be, small specks of light in the sky.
When you say small, how small roughly as a wild guess.
I really don't know, a billion times bigger than the sun seems crazy. No where near as big as the sun seems more likely.
-
186,000 miles/second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
It's not the speed of light I have a problem with, it's the star distances.
Even if the stars are only 3100 or so miles away (further if they aren't right over your head), then it still takes 1/62 of a second or more for the star's light to travel that distance so you are still seeing them as they were a fraction of a second ago, not as they are right now. This is how RE astronomers "look into the past".
-
Look what we are told.
We are told that scientists have discovered a planet that can potentially support life which is supposedly 600 light years away.
Now how did they see this planet?
If you can only see a planet 600 light years away as it was 600 years ago, it means that all they are viewing is 600 year old light from it, so how can they see it.
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
I think you're reading too much into the discovery of Kepler-22b. All that NASA is claiming about this exoplanet is that it's within the habitable zone of its star, which is a little cooler and smaller than ours, and that it has a year that's not that different from our year. All that means is they haven't found any obvious things that rule out the possibility of life surviving there. It's like saying that you've confirmed a person could win the lottery tomorrow because you've confirmed that he's over 18 years old.
The light from the star being 600 years old is probably the least of one's worries regarding the viability of life on the planet.
Astronomers aren't just guessing the distance of stars. For relatively close stars parallax can be employed by looking at how much the stars move relative to how the earth has moved about the sun (of course this assumes that the earth actually rotates about the sun at a known radius, of which there's numerous evidence I won't get into). The parallax we can measure has increased tremendously since we've started observing the sky with satellites.
The other major method employed involves the star's apparent brightness. A star will get dimmer the farther away it is (because less of its light reaches us), so if you can determine what its natural light output is you can determine how far away it is. There are some good indicators of luminosity such as pulsation periods.
There are some more minor methods like looking at average independent motion throughout the sky. The key point is that when you can show that multiple methods produce similar results for a given star you've greatly increased confidence for each method.
I don't discourage you from questioning things and not accepting what you're taught at face value, but your response seems very emotional - that you reject something because it feels wrong and makes you uncomfortable for some reason. If you make a concerted effort to stick to empirical reasoning you may be amazed at how subjective your intuition can be. Phrases like "that seems crazy" aren't useful on their own, you should really make an effort to justify this factually.
-
Markjo, you are handling this thread very well. I struggle with having that kind of patience. I think this is the equivalent of when FErs encounter n00b RErs who haven't read the FAQ. Someone whose opinion is that stars aren't light years away and rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum (but insists comprehension of newtonian physics)... where to start?
-
I don't see why it is a problem (;)) as you said if a star is 600 ly away than you are seeing the star from 600 years ago! The star may very well be different now but that us how it was 600 years ago! Same for the moon, we see the moon how it was about a second ago, and we see the sun how it was about 8 and a half minuets ago, it makes sence and is reproducible! How is it hard to understand?
-
Sceptimatic,
An easy analogy that helped me grasp this concept when I was a kid is watching a ball being kicked from across the field. Have you ever witnessed this? You see the foot and the ball make contact, the ball goes into the air and then you hear the 'thud' from the kick. The thud took longer to travel to you than the light did so it appears to happen later.
When you hear thunder you think it just happened. But what you're actually hearing is lightning that struck a few seconds ago. (Unless you're lucky enough that it struck right near you)
Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos) The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today. We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
-
Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos) The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today. We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
I'd hate to derail this highly intellectual discussion, but neutrinos do not and cannot move faster than light. The reading at CERN was a mistake.
-
Sceptimatic,
An easy analogy that helped me grasp this concept when I was a kid is watching a ball being kicked from across the field. Have you ever witnessed this? You see the foot and the ball make contact, the ball goes into the air and then you hear the 'thud' from the kick. The thud took longer to travel to you than the light did so it appears to happen later.
When you hear thunder you think it just happened. But what you're actually hearing is lightning that struck a few seconds ago. (Unless you're lucky enough that it struck right near you)
Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos) The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today. We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
As I said earlier. I don't have an issue with the speed of light for most part.
My issue is with the stars actually (as we are told to believe) light years away by calculation.
I just don't believe the distances of the stars that we see.
On what grounds do you mistrust the information? The light leaves the star, moves for six hundred years, and then falls into your photo-receptors (eyes). The light that was ejected at that time is what you see, so you see something that was that way six hundred years previous. So why is that so hard to believe?
-
Sceptimatic,
An easy analogy that helped me grasp this concept when I was a kid is watching a ball being kicked from across the field. Have you ever witnessed this? You see the foot and the ball make contact, the ball goes into the air and then you hear the 'thud' from the kick. The thud took longer to travel to you than the light did so it appears to happen later.
When you hear thunder you think it just happened. But what you're actually hearing is lightning that struck a few seconds ago. (Unless you're lucky enough that it struck right near you)
Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos) The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today. We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
As I said earlier. I don't have an issue with the speed of light for most part.
My issue is with the stars actually (as we are told to believe) light years away by calculation.
I just don't believe the distances of the stars that we see.
On what grounds do you mistrust the information? The light leaves the star, moves for six hundred years, and then falls into your photo-receptors (eyes). The light that was ejected at that time is what you see, so you see something that was that way six hundred years previous. So why is that so hard to believe?
Because we have been spun so much BS over the years, that's why. Plus....We are told that stars are massive suns and make our own sun look like a dwarf.
We are told the Earth spins. Now this alone is enough for me to render all scientific space theories as BS or at the very least a shoehorned theory.
What BS are we spun? Why don't you think the Earth spins? You'll have to be a bit more specific or no discussion can really happen, which is, I assume, why you came here, to discuss.
-
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/para.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/para.html)
This is one of the bigger points that makes the whole "stars are all 3,100 miles away" theory silly in my opinion. Parallax has been used to measure objects 3 parsecs away. A parsec is i believe 3.2 ly.
-
Thinkingman:
I think just using our own common sense should tell us the Earth is stationary.
How so? Common sense combined with my little knowledge of astophysics and standard physics tells me that it makes perfect sense that the earth should spin.
Basic observation should be enough to determine that.
What observations exactly? My observations tell me that the earth spins, the sun is "stationary" in our reference frame, and the moon moves around the earth in about 28 days.
We do not feel any 1040 mph movement at all.
Try to think of the rpm rather than the speed. You wouldn't feel that. First off because your accustomed to it, and second of all because it's actually very slow. It's one rotation per day. You start to notice the coriolis effect on the human-sized scale at about 7 rotations per minute.
We see the moon, the sun and the stars all moving.
The appear to move, yes. All at different rates.
We are told that a solid Earth spins in exact unison with the atmosphere, whilst somehow we have another atmosphere within that, which is why the clouds move in different directions.
The clouds move because the air pushes them, and the air moves because of convection currents.
If you can explain to me how a massive atmosphere can be anchored to a solid Earth and it all spins together, I'd be interested to know.
Friction and gravity. Gravity holds it down to the surface, while friction causes it to move along with the rotation of the earth. There's nothing in space to cause friction for it to "slow down" if you will, so why shouldn't it move with the rotation of the earth?
-
Thinkingman:
I think just using our own common sense should tell us the Earth is stationary.
Basic observation should be enough to determine that.
We do not feel any 1040 mph movement at all.
We see the moon, the sun and the stars all moving.
We are told that a solid Earth spins in exact unison with the atmosphere, whilst somehow we have another atmosphere within that, which is why the clouds move in different directions.
If you can explain to me how a massive atmosphere can be anchored to a solid Earth and it all spins together, I'd be interested to know.
Here is an experiment: Go in a car, drive at about 60 mph. Now, when you begin to drive, you are pressed against the back of your seat, but then your body starts moving at the same speed as the car and you don't feel like the car is moving at all. You feel like it is stationary from your point of view. The earth spins, and you spin along with it. SO you don't feel any different. And in the grand scheme of the universe, 1000 kph isn't going to make much of a difference in the massive gravity of earth.
-
...1000 kph...
I can't... musn't.... I have too. To get kph derived from a speed in mph, multiply by ~1.6. That makes the speed 1,664 kph. I'm sorry, but you'll get torn open for things like this.
-
It's strange how we are told to believe we can whizz about at 1000mph and not feel anything at all.
The car analogy is pointless because you are inside a tin can going against the atmosphere.
I'd love to know how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and runs along with it as if it was a clutch plate to flywheel.
Exactly, that is the point, and on the earth you are inside the atmosphere, moving along with the whole earth against the vacuum of space, against nothing. You only feel movement when you are accelerating or when you are moving against something, the earth is neither.
-
It's strange how we are told to believe we can whizz about at 1000mph and not feel anything at all.
The car analogy is pointless because you are inside a tin can going against the atmosphere.
I'd love to know how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and runs along with it as if it was a clutch plate to flywheel.
Exactly, that is the point, and on the earth you are inside the atmosphere, moving along with the whole earth against the vacuum of space, against nothing. You only feel movement when you are accelerating or when you are moving against something, the earth is neither.
Forget about the vacuum for a moment.
Can you explain to me why or how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and moves with it at 1000 mph.
I explained this about 5 posts ago or so. For this problem, we can't forget about the vacuum. It's an important factor. The earth has gravity, and therefore holds all of the gasses down to the surface. The earth is spinning, and it causes a friction force on the air, and the air moves with it because of this friction. Since there's nothing on the other side of the air to resist it via friction (the other side is space), then it keeps moving right along with the surface.
-
It's strange how we are told to believe we can whizz about at 1000mph and not feel anything at all.
The car analogy is pointless because you are inside a tin can going against the atmosphere.
I'd love to know how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and runs along with it as if it was a clutch plate to flywheel.
Exactly, that is the point, and on the earth you are inside the atmosphere, moving along with the whole earth against the vacuum of space, against nothing. You only feel movement when you are accelerating or when you are moving against something, the earth is neither.
Forget about the vacuum for a moment.
Can you explain to me why or how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and moves with it at 1000 mph.
I guess it doesn't just, "floats away", because of gravity. And it is not affected by speed because it is also moving with the earth, because the earth is not accelerating it is moving in a constant speed (and in space you wouldn't feel any difference between constant speed and not moving, no matter how fast, because you are moving against nothing), and because it is moving on vacuum there is no friction that could make the atmosphere slow down.
-
"The only way to describe a spinning 1000mph Earth with a 1000mph atmosphere that has slow moving clouds and winds inside it, is to go back to the car analogy which I dismissed but now have to use it to explain this (what I can only describe as fanciful) theory.
It's like being in a car, going 1000mph with all windows shut then turning on your air conditioner.
That's the only way I could see the Earth doing what scientists tell us.
It makes no sense at all."
In a car you need windows and windshield in order for wind to not hit you in the face. In space there is no wind, there is only vacuum, the earth is moving against nothing so it doesn't need a windshield to keep it's atmosphere from vanishing away. When you ride a bicycle you feel movement and your hair moves because of air resistance, if you were moving at the same speed on space (not accelerating, constant speed) you would not feel movement because you are not moving against anything. the same happens to the whole earth in space.
If that's the case, then why do we feel winds in all directions, plus clouds floating.
Do we have an atmosphere within an atmosphere?
Because this is the only way to explain this.
Sun light hits the earth with irregularities, I mean stronger in some places weaker in some places, where it hits stronger the air gets warmer, where it hits weaker the air is colder, warm air goes up in the atmosphere, colder air goes down, (of course not only up and down because the atmosphere is very thin but very wide) the movement of the air is called wind.
-
It's strange how we are told to believe we can whizz about at 1000mph and not feel anything at all.
The car analogy is pointless because you are inside a tin can going against the atmosphere.
I'd love to know how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and runs along with it as if it was a clutch plate to flywheel.
Exactly, that is the point, and on the earth you are inside the atmosphere, moving along with the whole earth against the vacuum of space, against nothing. You only feel movement when you are accelerating or when you are moving against something, the earth is neither.
Forget about the vacuum for a moment.
Can you explain to me why or how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and moves with it at 1000 mph.
I explained this about 5 posts ago or so. For this problem, we can't forget about the vacuum. It's an important factor. The earth has gravity, and therefore holds all of the gasses down to the surface. The earth is spinning, and it causes a friction force on the air, and the air moves with it because of this friction. Since there's nothing on the other side of the air to resist it via friction (the other side is space), then it keeps moving right along with the surface.
If that's the case, then why do we feel winds in all directions, plus clouds floating.
Do we have an atmosphere within an atmosphere?
Because this is the only way to explain this.
I don't know what you mean by "an atmosphere within an atmosphere," but the reason for winds moving in different direction is only minimally due to the coriolis effect from the spin, but mostly due to convection currents in the atmosphere. I hope I don't have to explain a convection current to you. Floating clouds are from evaporating water moving up in the air and condensing together in lower pressure areas in the atmosphere. I would also hope that I wouldn't have to explain that either. I learned that when in 2nd grade I believe. I was... 7 years old maybe.
-
Roberto:
I know what wind is. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that going by your logic, we have to have an atmosphere within an atmosphere...how is this?
I don't know how you reach that conclusion based on what i said, but the atmosphere does have several layers.
(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.gif)
-
It doesn't matter how many layers it has.
We are led to believe that the atmosphere grips the Earth from the ground, up to the very edge of space and spins in unison with the Earth.
As thinkingman explained, friction of the air against the earth moving in circles also causes that air to move in circles in the same direction. As I explained already, gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay with the earth. All of the atmosphere and the earth don't necessarily spin (on earth axis) in "unison" with the earth, but it does move with the earth (again, because of gravity) around the sun.
Also wind (air) and clouds are part of the atmosphere.
-
It's strange how we are told to believe we can whizz about at 1000mph and not feel anything at all.
The car analogy is pointless because you are inside a tin can going against the atmosphere.
I'd love to know how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and runs along with it as if it was a clutch plate to flywheel.
Exactly, that is the point, and on the earth you are inside the atmosphere, moving along with the whole earth against the vacuum of space, against nothing. You only feel movement when you are accelerating or when you are moving against something, the earth is neither.
Forget about the vacuum for a moment.
Can you explain to me why or how the atmosphere grips the Earth's surface and moves with it at 1000 mph.
I explained this about 5 posts ago or so. For this problem, we can't forget about the vacuum. It's an important factor. The earth has gravity, and therefore holds all of the gasses down to the surface. The earth is spinning, and it causes a friction force on the air, and the air moves with it because of this friction. Since there's nothing on the other side of the air to resist it via friction (the other side is space), then it keeps moving right along with the surface.
If that's the case, then why do we feel winds in all directions, plus clouds floating.
Do we have an atmosphere within an atmosphere?
Because this is the only way to explain this.
I don't know what you mean by "an atmosphere within an atmosphere," but the reason for winds moving in different direction is only minimally due to the coriolis effect from the spin, but mostly due to convection currents in the atmosphere. I hope I don't have to explain a convection current to you. Floating clouds are from evaporating water moving up in the air and condensing together in lower pressure areas in the atmosphere. I would also hope that I wouldn't have to explain that either. I learned that when in 2nd grade I believe. I was... 7 years old maybe.
You are totally missing my point.
I know we have the wind and clouds and how it works, so let's leave the wind out for a minute and concentrate on this other invisible magical atmosphere that grips the Earth and spins at supposedly 1000mph.
it's obviously not the wind that spins at this speed as we see it and feel it on our faces, so what other atmosphere is spinning at the same speed and why don't we feel it?
And you sir, are totally missing my point. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth while it spins, which causes friction at the surface and resulting friction at each layer of the atmosphere, causing it to move along with us. From our point of view, it's not moving at all (wind and weather aside). But from space's point of view, it is moving. Now, since this is nothing in space to cause friction to slow it down and make it not rotate with the earth, it keeps going with us. This is really, really basic physics.
-
It doesn't matter how many layers it has.
We are led to believe that the atmosphere grips the Earth from the ground, up to the very edge of space and spins in unison with the Earth.
As thinkingman explained, friction of the air against the earth moving in circles also causes that air to move in circles in the same direction. As I explained already, gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay with the earth. All of the atmosphere and the earth don't necessarily spin (on earth axis) in "unison" with the earth, but it does move with the earth (again, because of gravity) around the sun.
Also wind (air) and clouds are part of the atmosphere.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
How scientists managed to make people believe this, astounds me.
You just don't get it, is not about believe, it is about understanding, it makes logic sense, what is the part you don't understand?
Im not going to say mathematics is about believe just because I don't understand them.
-
It doesn't matter how many layers it has.
We are led to believe that the atmosphere grips the Earth from the ground, up to the very edge of space and spins in unison with the Earth.
As thinkingman explained, friction of the air against the earth moving in circles also causes that air to move in circles in the same direction. As I explained already, gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay with the earth. All of the atmosphere and the earth don't necessarily spin (on earth axis) in "unison" with the earth, but it does move with the earth (again, because of gravity) around the sun.
Also wind (air) and clouds are part of the atmosphere.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
How scientists managed to make people believe this, astounds me.
You just don't get it, is not about believe, it is about understanding, it makes logic sense, what is the part you don't understand?
Im not going to say mathematics is about believe because I don't understand them.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
Let me explain this in illiterate terms.
Gravity make pull.
Pull make squish (pressure).
Squish make rub.
Spinning make rub move with push.
-
Also, if you want, you can put a basket ball in a tub of water, then put some different color food coloring in the water (this will just be so you can see what is happening. Spin the basketball. That's what's happening to the atmosphere, except it's hugging tighter against the surface of the planet than the water is to the basketball. You can test this with water because both air and water are fluids in physics, they operate under the same mechanics, i.e. they form to the shape of their container, the flow downhill with gravity, the less dense parts of the solution tend towards the top, and solids can move through them. Water just happens to be a hell of a lot more dense. But you may as well be asking why the oceans move with the earth's spin.
-
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
-
I'm with septictank on this one. If the earth were spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator, I would think the wind should at least be a couple of hundred mph there. The earth is not moving, and flat.
-
But anyway.
What pressure do you really think would be needed for an atmosphere to hold on to the Earth like you say .
It would have to be some unbelievable pressure, which would make the Earth uninhabitable.
You have been lied to in my opinion but that doesn't mean to say you can't go with it, just don;t try and play the clever clogs when other people don't accept it and question it.
we have said it hundreds of times, GRAVITY, the same pressure that you experience from the time you wake up until the time you go to sleep, it is called GRAVITY it pulls you to the ground, it pulls animals to the ground, it pulls earth down, it maked the planes habitable, it pulls the atmosphere around earth with it.
-
Also, if you want, you can put a basket ball in a tub of water, then put some different color food coloring in the water (this will just be so you can see what is happening. Spin the basketball. That's what's happening to the atmosphere, except it's hugging tighter against the surface of the planet than the water is to the basketball. You can test this with water because both air and water are fluids in physics, they operate under the same mechanics, i.e. they form to the shape of their container, the flow downhill with gravity, the less dense parts of the solution tend towards the top, and solids can move through them. Water just happens to be a hell of a lot more dense. But you may as well be asking why the oceans move with the earth's spin.
Well now you come to mention it, you have both liquid and solid ground and both supposedly follow the very same trend with an atmosphere creating friction on both.
The Earth does not spin and all it needs to prove this is your own body and eyes.
It is a proven fact that it does spin, how could i prove it otherwise with my body and eyes, if as i explained you, not only is the floor moving, we also are. Why we dont see it? the sky is moving too. Why? friction, i explained. why we dont feel it? because we are surrounded by the same air that is moving with the earth. why? because of friction. How? experiment explained.
-
It doesn't matter how many layers it has.
We are led to believe that the atmosphere grips the Earth from the ground, up to the very edge of space and spins in unison with the Earth.
As thinkingman explained, friction of the air against the earth moving in circles also causes that air to move in circles in the same direction. As I explained already, gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay with the earth. All of the atmosphere and the earth don't necessarily spin (on earth axis) in "unison" with the earth, but it does move with the earth (again, because of gravity) around the sun.
Also wind (air) and clouds are part of the atmosphere.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
How scientists managed to make people believe this, astounds me.
You just don't get it, is not about believe, it is about understanding, it makes logic sense, what is the part you don't understand?
Im not going to say mathematics is about believe because I don't understand them.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
Let me explain this in illiterate terms.
Gravity make pull.
Pull make squish (pressure).
Squish make rub.
Spinning make rub move with push.
Typical.
Your frustration has caused you to start little put down shenanigans, when in truth, you have no clue about what you have just said, it's simply what you have studied and accepted from official sources.
But anyway.
What pressure do you really think would be needed for an atmosphere to hold on to the Earth like you say .
It would have to be some unbelievable pressure, which would make the Earth uninhabitable.
You have been lied to in my opinion but that doesn't mean to say you can't go with it, just don;t try and play the clever clogs when other people don't accept it and question it.
The gravity doesn't cause the pressure. The gasses sitting on top of the gasses sitting on top of the gasses sitting on top of the surface of the earth causes the pressure. The gravity just pulled it all together. Even the moon has water vapor floating around it. Not enough to really call an atmosphere, and it's mostly at the poles, but it's there. There's nothing in space to cause opposing friction the the earth's friction, there's no force working to stop the atmosphere from rotating the earth, so it keeps going. I said it the way I did because I'm not sure what you're not understanding, so I broke it down real, real simple for you. You took it as an attack, that's your opinion.
It's not the pressure that holds the atmosphere to earth. It's the gravity. Without the gravity, there would be no pressure because nothing would have pulled together, ever. The mere fact that gravity exists lets all of the other physics that we understand exist. But I'm letting myself get side tracked. The gravity pulls down on the air, and the air on top of the air on top of the ground cause the pressure, which in turn causes the source of the friction so that when the planet spins, the air goes with it. I have explained this so many times, that if I was speaking, I'd be out of breath.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.
What happens when that person decides to swim against it?
They get pushed against by the water. Now, keep in mind, water is very dense when compared with the atmosphere. Also, this tank is concave, and the water is sitting inside of it, being pulled down by the earth's gravity. So when you put a person in this tank, which is very tiny in comparison to the earth, and moving at a proportionally much faster rate (rpm), then they are going to be pushed by the water. Now the earth is huge. It's spinning at ~.00007 rpm. There is gravity pulling everything to the ground. The spinning isn't the only action working to make the air follow the earth, there is the gravity that keeps it on the surface. So when you walk the opposite way the earth spins (aka, walk west), you're not really working against anything, because, for everything is practically moving in unison already. The tank in your example does not have the massive gravity that earth does, and it's sitting on the earth. So you have to work against earth's gravity, the density of the water, and the motion of the water.
-
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.
What happens when that person decides to swim against it?
(Assuming it was a very large body inside water to make a person also move with it) if he started swimming against it he would encounter water resistance, just as we encounter air resistance in any movement we make, but air is not as dense as water and our bodys are used to it.
"It is not a proven fact at all.
What fact proves this?"
It is right, im not trying to explain to you how we know earth spins, im just trying to make you understand why your arguments against it are invalid, and how we can prove that with common experiments and logic. And it is being hard enough, so I wont bother explain how we know the earth is spinning (not trying to be offensive), but here are some links you could read.
http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk (http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence)
(read early evidence)
-
Ok Thinkingman, if I'm correct in grasping what you mean let's use this scenario.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2134/earthyo.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/earthyo.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
So imagine this drawing as two glass balls.
The small ball (E) is the Earth.
The lager ball is (A), the atmosphere.
V= the vacuum of space.
S= welded supports connecting both balls together.
And of course (P) for person or the little man I've drew perfect in full detail. (Well for a stick man anyway)
Ok, so no matter which way this ball spins, everything goes with it as it's all joined. Now as the man is mildly glued to the floor , he also goes round with both balls, yet doesn't fall off as the mild glue is holding him.
Should that matchstick man want to walk whilst this is happening, he can because the mild glue allows him to do so. We shall call this mild glue, gravity glue.
If this is how it's been told, then fair enough, I understand what you are saying.
In truth though, it's sounds like a big old lie and I don;t believe it for one second.
You're close to understanding it, except gravity isn't a glue, and there's no structural supports holding up a giant ball to keep the atmosphere in.
Gravity is an attraction between masses. You have mass? You are attracted to other masses. The earth is a very large mass, so it has a more powerful attraction than, say, a boulder. Your mass is attracted to it. Your glue example is more akin to friction. Adhesive is simply a substance with a LOT of friction. The friction between you and the earth is what keeps you in place. If something were sitting still near the earth somehow, and not moving with it's rotation, and you hit it (well, in your eyes, it would have hit you), you would stop moving with the rotation of the earth because the friction of that opposing object stopped you (we'll totally pretend that you didn't slam into this thing going 1040mph and get splattered all to hell and back). This is the same for the air. If there were something that was not moving with earth's rotation in the air (it would have to be very large), then it would stop the air. Now, there is nothing that does this, so the air keeps going. Newton's Laws of physics. An object in motion keeps going until a force acts on it. Also see, the laws of conservation of momentum (essentially the same thing).
Now, choosing not to "believe" science is a strange thing to me. It's like choosing not to believe that you can see. Or choosing not to believe that you're hungry. Science isn't a belief system. It's a set of rules that nature operates on that have been studied and broken down so that people can understand them. If we can understand things, we can advance our society and technology. We can live longer, better lives. We can grow beyond what we are physically and technologically currently capable of doing. If people discount these facts, they simply get left behind. Honestly, I don't care if you believe it or not, because it's still true. But I just don't like when people think things aren't true simply because they don't understand them. You have to keep an open mind and look at the whole picture. Learn before you refute.
-
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????
How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.
It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.
What happens when that person decides to swim against it?
(Assuming it was a very large body inside water to make a person also move with it) if he started swimming against it he would encounter water resistance, just as we encounter air resistance in any movement we make, but air is not as dense as water and our bodys are used to it.
"It is not a proven fact at all.
What fact proves this?"
It is right, im not trying to explain to you how we know earth spins, im just trying to make you understand why your arguments against it are invalid, and how we can prove that with common experiments and logic. And it is being hard enough, so I wont bother explain how we know the earth is spinning (not trying to be offensive), but here are some links you could read.
http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk (http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence)
(read early evidence)
Foucault's pendulum proves nothing, infact it actually kills off the very theory people have of a spinning Earth.
If everything is supposed to run as one unit on Earth, as in us, the solid Earth, plus atmosphere , then it also applies to a pendulum which , placed in an windless environment should be perfectly still , yet if it moves, it means it's moving by a force other than a spinning Earth, which to me would mean the forces directed from other planets/sun/stars all circling a centralised Earth.
That's the theory I go with.
Actually, this physics is a little bit more complicated, but it backs the point of a spinning earth up. The pendulum is a large mass on the end of a rope/tether of sorts. So since the earth is always spinning at ~1040mph, you are constantly changing direction, because you're on a spinning sphere. Since the laws of physics say that once an object is in motion, it stays in motion until another force acts on it, the object will always try to go straight. Unfortunately, there is 9.8m/s2 of gravity working on the end of that pendulum. So as it tries to continue on it's straight course, it keeps getting pulled back toward earth by gravity.
-
Foucault's pendulum keeps changing direction because it, unlike us or the particles in the atmosphere, is a heavy ball suspended by a thin wire, meaning that it has a lot of inertial momentum while swinging and isn't as easily moved by friction.
-
That and the magnets. ::)
-
That and the magnets. ::)
should of moved this thread, instead of making such a great contribution.
@ the op - i dont understand how my computer works, yet it works and im typing. i leave computer technology in the hands of the experts. you should do the same.
-
And just who are the experts?
Are the experts the ones that wear a white coat with PHD, N.A.S.A etc on it?
Are the experts, people who read books with shoehorned equations to fit a theory that's forced upon them as fact?
Are the experts, those that have sat in university listening to a professor, whilst copying chalk board scribblings.
Who exactly are the experts on space and the Earth's movement because as far as I can tell, nobody has conclusive proof of anything as to what the Earth does.
Oh and about your computer. You could learn about what the components do and study them and even build one yourself with the knowledge.
You could know exactly what the Earth does if you could observe it from space. Unfortunately nobody will be going into space any time soon, if ever, so it's all left to theory, best guessing.
You can best guess, using all the mathematical difficulties you want and you could baffle as many people as you want with Parallax and quantum this and that, yet it's no more credible than someone using a simple explanation for their own theories/ best guessing.
And finally, after all that anger against those who tried to explain this to you, the real reason for all this thread comes to the light.
To you, "the experts" are those vile people who are dumb as doormats but accept the "religion of science" and repeat dogma just as any catholic repeats the Creed and get to impose their dogma on you.
But experts and scientists really are the real skeptics, who start at Grade School questioning everything and checking whether the scientific information they receive is correct. It is the people like that who used mathematics to make predictions and then checked their predictions with experiments of their own who became scientists and engineers, and use their skeptical minds to verify what everybody else tells them.
On the other hand, some people like you call yourselves skeptic because you have a grudge against the School, the College or in most cases the lack of higher education. The fact that you were spoon fed lots of information that you did not start to question for years is not the fault of the students with real scientific talent who understood science since Primary School and never were spoon fed anything because they would not accept it.
So, you still have an opportunity to become a real skeptic, you can start with any of your claims and design a model that predicts concrete, measurable things, and demonstrate like a scientist what until now you have only had a gut feeling about.
Every time you make a rant about something with the only argument that it does not make sense you are showing that you changed from being spoon fed one thing at School to being spoon fed another after School.
-
And just who are the experts?
Are the experts the ones that wear a white coat with PHD, N.A.S.A etc on it?
Are the experts, people who read books with shoehorned equations to fit a theory that's forced upon them as fact?
Are the experts, those that have sat in university listening to a professor, whilst copying chalk board scribblings.
Who exactly are the experts on space and the Earth's movement because as far as I can tell, nobody has conclusive proof of anything as to what the Earth does.
Oh and about your computer. You could learn about what the components do and study them and even build one yourself with the knowledge.
You could know exactly what the Earth does if you could observe it from space. Unfortunately nobody will be going into space any time soon, if ever, so it's all left to theory, best guessing.
You can best guess, using all the mathematical difficulties you want and you could baffle as many people as you want with Parallax and quantum this and that, yet it's no more credible than someone using a simple explanation for their own theories/ best guessing.
And finally, after all that anger against those who tried to explain this to you, the real reason for all this thread comes to the light.
To you, "the experts" are those vile people who are dumb as doormats but accept the "religion of science" and repeat dogma just as any catholic repeats the Creed and get to impose their dogma on you.
But experts and scientists really are the real skeptics, who start at Grade School questioning everything and checking whether the scientific information they receive is correct. It is the people like that who used mathematics to make predictions and then checked their predictions with experiments of their own who became scientists and engineers, and use their skeptical minds to verify what everybody else tells them.
On the other hand, some people like you call yourselves skeptic because you have a grudge against the School, the College or in most cases the lack of higher education. The fact that you were spoon fed lots of information that you did not start to question for years is not the fault of the students with real scientific talent who understood science since Primary School and never were spoon fed anything because they would not accept it.
So, you still have an opportunity to become a real skeptic, you can start with any of your claims and design a model that predicts concrete, measurable things, and demonstrate like a scientist what until now you have only had a gut feeling about.
Every time you make a rant about something with the only argument that it does not make sense you are showing that you changed from being spoon fed one thing at School to being spoon fed another after School.
Then you must be one them there fancy bookreading experts that likes to keep us simplefolks down??
/ sarcasm
Actually this is one of the best responses I have read on here to the attitude of all FE'ers.
I don't like it. I don't understand it. I don't want it. Therefore I am right and you are wrong.
Now I know some FE will come back and say that this is what I am also doing in 'believing' in science and or RE. Actually it is not. I do not believe anything that I just imagine or make up. I look at the work of others, the centuries worth of experiments and knowledge and consider the vast, overwhelming amount of evidence that says 'this is how it is'. Or 'this is how it probably is, but we are still working on it.' And I trust in it, accept it until proven otherwise.
-
Realscientist:
All scientists who go with a spinning Earth are accepting the religion of science and they do repeat it. In fact that's what people are taught in everyday life.
A good scientist is a sceptic. That's what makes them good and it's what helps them make the greatest discoveries.
I certainly don't think the experts are vile. There are many scientists who are experts in their field of science and a lot of the science is factual in what they study.
The problem with your argument is all fields of science rely on one, basically. It's called physics. If you're calling one theory completely wrong, you kind of expect the root of that theory to be wrong. What I mean by that is the underlying fundamentals that make that theory work and make sense. Physics is the one that makes everything make sense. It's not completely understood, but for 90% of practical purposes, it is.
Of course scientists have to be sceptical of theories just as many are today about the universe and Earth being flat or round or spinning or stationary.
You're right, and as I've said, the good ones are. They try to break new ground. That's where we get stuff like string theory and theoretical physics.
The problem I have is the scientists spinning Earth theory that we have to accept as fact and no debating for fear of ridicule.
It's not out of fear of ridicule. As was explained before, they are scientists because they're curious. Curiosity makes you want to investigate things. These people more than likely already checked out that fact and determined for themselves that it was, in face, true.
We have all been spoon fed since birth and have gobbled everything up what has been fed to us, until we start to be bothered to think for ourselves, which in most cases starts after leaving school as everything before that is laid on for most people.
Thinking isn't everything. You need to investigate to learn, and that goes beyond thinking about it.
The lies start with the tooth fairy and Santa claus, yet because these are good lies and we benefit from them, we can put them to bed and dismiss them with a smile, whilst following on the same tradition with our own kids.
Every kid is taught religion and most schools are getting turned into church of England schools. Brainwashing at it's finest, yet even though many kids grow up and dismiss it , they don't actually fully dismiss all of it as they go about their life using it in some shape or form, as in , " oh God, help me", things like that.
I was not taught religion growing up. I do not teach my children religion. So that is completely false.
I'm a sceptic like everyone on here is, but I can't prove anything that I say is fact just as you can't prove anything outside of Earth as fact.
People that have gone up in to space can prove these things are facts.
A man or woman that can talk big scientific words do not impress me nor do they intimidate me. I prefer to use simplified language when I talk about things, which to a person who believes they are a higher being, it would come across as Neanderthal, yet that does not mean the other person is any the less a thinker.
No one here is trying to intimidate you. We're trying to explain things to you, and we're all getting frustrated because you don't fully understand it, so you completely dismiss it, and in doing so, refuse to accept any understanding that may come to your mind as false. Some people just talk using "big scientific words" as part of their every day speech.
Many people live their lives in Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why?
Because they're highly intelligent individuals. But a critical thinker does not take what they say as the "word of god."
Because the media and scientific world made them their mascots to sell us whatever they had in store for us.
Stephen Hawking is supposedly one of the smartest men on the planet and many intelligent people
hang onto every word his robotic computer comes out with. Yet he has been incapacitated since his early 20''s and manages to write books about the universe, then comes out with " the universe was created from nothing"
First of all, Stephen Hawking's status as the "smartest man on the planet," is simply just he's the smartest one that's in the spotlight. Also, I believe the term "the universe was created from nothing" is an attempt to break it down into layman's terms. It seems far more likely to me that it was some sort of singularity that created the universe, but I have no way of testing this hypothesis.
Now why do people hang on to every word he says?
The answer is: Because most are trained (brainwashed) into accepting it as fact because his computer voice says it's fact.
I actually don't give two shits what Stephen Hawking says. He's a sensationalist.
I'm a simple thinker and I'm not correct with any of my simple thinking but neither am I a simple person who just swallows up anything given to me to accept without question.
I'm qualified in my own observation and I don't need a chalk board to figure out lies about space and what humans are capable of doing in space.
So you yourself have observed that it is impossible for humans to go into space and do research activities outside of earth's atmosphere? That's what you're essentially saying here. So do tell, how did you observe this?
-
One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.
Where do you get these 'facts' from?
-
One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.
What is your evidence for this? What exactly would do the "burning up" of the rocket?
NASA has a piece of their website that tells you when the ISS will pass overhead, and in what part of the sky to look for it for your area. I suggest that you find this, find a telescope, and go out and try to see the ISS when it's supposed to pass over. Prove it wrong if you're so determined. I have personally viewed this piece of human ingenuity. It is clearly there, clearly doing what they say it's doing. So please, prove it wrong. Tell me that the light reflected off of it lied.
-
so your whole rant is based on a conspiracy? do you really think you need to go into space to work out how it works? how deos the math work so well for our galaxies orbits on a model where the earth rotates and orbits the sun. please dont worry about answering because i wont be replying.
why are you guys even entertaining this idiot?
>o< NASA is a lie! therefore all science is a lie! >o<
-
One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.
Where do you get these 'facts' from?
The speed of the craft to escape the atmosphere would burn up with friction. Not to mention it would be pulled apart long before those speeds.
Go and take a look at how the shuttle is anchored to the main tank.
Your arguments are poor. I've lost my energy to debate you. Go research some facts and them come back with real arguments and maybe I'll go for round 2.
-
I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.
In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.
You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.
You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.
-
I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.
In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.
You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.
You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.
Not at all Roberto.
The things I don't accept, I have good reason not to accept as I have already explained.
You trying to prove to me that I'm wrong does not actually prove I'm wrong, yet what I say doesn't prove me correct either.
I don't buy into a spinning Earth for reasons I stated.
I don't believe men landed on the moon for a 100 or more reasons but the main was rockets and vacuum.
Seeing is believing most of the time and what I see from pictures of stars and planets plus video footage of the ISS with no stars in the background tells me most if not all of it is BS.
I believe the star distances are BS and the 93 million mile sun as BS.
I believe all this is BS because I've been told the Earth spins and the sun is the centralised as we go round it.
You say it all makes sense to you and of course I accept it will to you because it appears that you do not question anything at all you have been led to believe.
I'm a sceptic of the official line and you are a sceptic of alternative views to the official line.
You can cite that there's hard evidence of this and that, yet there isn't and equations and maths can and have been shoe horned to fit the theories given out as far as I'm concerned.
That is because the light of the sun obscures the stars, just as it does on earth, im skeptic about illogical things, you are skeptic about hings you can not understand.
-
I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.
In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.
You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.
You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.
Not at all Roberto.
The things I don't accept, I have good reason not to accept as I have already explained.
You trying to prove to me that I'm wrong does not actually prove I'm wrong, yet what I say doesn't prove me correct either.
I don't buy into a spinning Earth for reasons I stated.
I don't believe men landed on the moon for a 100 or more reasons but the main was rockets and vacuum.
Seeing is believing most of the time and what I see from pictures of stars and planets plus video footage of the ISS with no stars in the background tells me most if not all of it is BS.
I believe the star distances are BS and the 93 million mile sun as BS.
I believe all this is BS because I've been told the Earth spins and the sun is the centralised as we go round it.
You say it all makes sense to you and of course I accept it will to you because it appears that you do not question anything at all you have been led to believe.
I'm a sceptic of the official line and you are a sceptic of alternative views to the official line.
You can cite that there's hard evidence of this and that, yet there isn't and equations and maths can and have been shoe horned to fit the theories given out as far as I'm concerned.
That is because the light of the sun obscures the stars, just as it does on earth, im skeptic about illogical things, you are skeptic about hings you can not understand.
I know it's very tempting, but this one won't listen. Just stop while you're still not a raving lunatic roberto. This one won't listen, won't bother to attempt to understand it, and no matter what you or I or anyone else says, he's going to think we've been "spoon fed," without realizing that we make an attempt to understand other points of view, and when we come to understand it and it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with observations and empirical data, we throw it away. So, while you're still not foaming at the mouth, quit.
-
Roberto:
I don't fully understand a lot of things and where space is concerned, I'm not alone, because nobody fully understands it.
Who says you have to fully understand something to believe it? Do you fully understand how an internal combustion engine works? Does that stop you from believing that cars are real?
-
A s it happens, I do know how a internal combustion engine works and it works fine because it's been tested.
Then that means that rockets work fine because they have been well tested too.
Any person can go and view "physically " how internal combustion engine works and see it with their own eyes, plus evaluate how and why it works as it does.
Have you ever looked inside an internal combustion engine while it's working?
-
You believe you understand it because you have studied what you have been taught and all the shoehorned physics to go with it.
Are these shoehorned physics the friction and inertia of gases, the third law of Newton and the optics of cameras, to name a few?
Physics are not designed to be simple so that an Average Joe from the country with the worst school system in the industrialized world can say "WOW, this sounds true to me!"
If Physics can be shoehorned to support one wrong theory it can be shoehorned to support many other theories. If you want to show that your ideas hold any water then shoehorn Physics in an acceptably convincing way to fit your ideas, and then we can talk. Just ranting about how people who have actually studied are the bad ones in this story is really getting old, fast.
-
You say that physics isn't "designed" to be simple but why?
Why can't things be simplified.
The universe does not stop to wail and moan and reinvent itself because sceptimatic is too dumb to understand Physics.
Physics are the inner workings of this universe, and they are as complicated or simple as reality is, not as simple as you want them to be.
The day you happen to need a tumor extracted from your brain, will you want a surgeon who rises to the occasion and studies the brain just as the brain is, with some simple and many complicated structures, or will you want a surgeon who sat on his butt and cried about how the brain should be simpler, so anyone should be able to understand it?
You have trouble understanding even the simplest of all Physics. There are many books that explain the simple Physics you do not understand with such simple language and easy examples that not knowing is negligence on your part. But being negligent in your learning and making claims like the ones you do, as if you had learned at least good High School physics, is downright reckless.
-
You believe you understand it because you have studied what you have been taught and all the shoehorned physics to go with it.
Are these shoehorned physics the friction and inertia of gases, the third law of Newton and the optics of cameras, to name a few?
Physics are not designed to be simple so that an Average Joe from the country with the worst school system in the industrialized world can say "WOW, this sounds true to me!"
If Physics can be shoehorned to support one wrong theory it can be shoehorned to support many other theories. If you want to show that your ideas hold any water then shoehorn Physics in an acceptably convincing way to fit your ideas, and then we can talk. Just ranting about how people who have actually studied are the bad ones in this story is really getting old, fast.
Who is saying people are bad for studying physics?
Why some of you just jump in and say that I'm saying all physics and science is wrong or all shoehorned equations, I don't know.
You say that physics isn't "designed" to be simple but why?
Why can't things be simplified.
Obviously the reason for that is simple, it's because it apparently weeds out the smarter people from the dense or the wheat from the chaff.
Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.
All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.
If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.
First of all, here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
This is the simple english wikipedia. Hopefully you can understand it.
And we don't design physics. We design methods to make physics make sense. And if you think that it will work so well, make up some laws and give us a GUT, and then we'll see if your methods flawlessly hold true.
-
Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.
All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.
If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.
Here's how the Ancient Greeks did it: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html)
-
Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.
All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.
If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.
Who cares about giving a simplistic explanation of how they calculated the distance to the moon? I can give you the real explanation, and you can turn on the neurons that I am sure you have somewhere and rise to the occasion, understanding something that just cannot be explained to a four year old.
Since Kepler we have a pretty good idea of the shape of the Solar System, including the proportions between each orbit. We know the shape and relative position of each orbit of the planets to an impressive precision, but we did not know the size of the orbits of the planets in the Solar System. In fact, we did not know with much precision the size or composition of the planets.
What we needed was a few measurements that could show a difference between, say, a Solar System with 50 million kilometers between the Sun and Earth and a Solar System with a distance of 150 million kilometers between the Sun and Earth.
The measurement that gave us this vital piece of information was the transit of Venus between the Sun and us. We could see two things: the proportional size of Venus compared with the Sun, and the time Venus took to move from one side of the Sun to the other, as seen from Earth. Those are two measurements that change with the cube of the mass of Venus, while the size of the orbit of Venus is proportional to the square of its mass. Once we had a good estimation of the size of the orbit of Venus we could know the size of all the orbits of the Solar System. (There may be a few errors in my explanation due to the fact that I will not give much of my time to researching for this forum).
Once we know the size of one of the orbits we can apply this information to all the other orbits, including the Moon.
Also, the Moon is so close we can measure its distance with parallax. In fact, with current technology we can measure the distance to the closest stars by parallax. Even though a mirror on the Moon helps, it is not necessary to use parallax.
-
In simplistic terms, explain to me how they calculated the moons size and distance to be so exact as to be landed on by Apollo 11 astronauts.
All I want is a very simple method of what they did to measure the distance and size, that's all.
If you cannot answer this then just say so.
You can measure the distance to the moon with RADAR. Once you get the distance, you can calculate the size from observations. Is that simple enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana)
-
In simplistic terms, explain to me how they calculated the moons size and distance to be so exact as to be landed on by Apollo 11 astronauts.
All I want is a very simple method of what they did to measure the distance and size, that's all.
If you cannot answer this then just say so.
You can measure the distance to the moon with RADAR. Once you get the distance, you can calculate the size from observations. Is that simple enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana)
I don't want wiki or any internet site put up to explain it to me.
Bounce a RADAR beam off the moon and measure how long it takes to get back. How much more simple do you want it?
I would however like someone to explain in the most simplistic way how they manage to measure the moons distance and size to allow the 1969 Apollo craft to land on it.
First of all, what makes you think that measuring the moon's size and distance is a simple thing? Secondly, the Apollo craft were not the first man made objects to land on the moon. The Russians sent their first probe to the moon in 1959.
All I'm asking is what did they do or point at the moon to receive the data back that confirmed the size and distance and be sure that it was accurate to allow the moon mission to go ahead.
And we're trying to tell you that there are lots of ways of measuring the distance to the moon that have been used for over 2000 years. Not all of them are simple.
That's all I'm asking. I do not want a roundabout way as to how they measured the cosmos, stars, the sun, or anything else...just the moon.
But that's the thing, they're all related. Once you get one measurement, you can use that to figure out all the rest.
-
Do you understand how RADAR works?
-
So, they didn't need retro reflective mirrors after all then, just bounce a radar off the moon and it will come back to Earth right?
I've never heard of this one before.
Can you explain how they managed it?
Why should we care about what you have heard before or not? Markjo has been as accommodating as possible finding the exact answer you asked for, and found out about a project that did exactly what you wanted: measure the distance to the Moon in the most direct way possible.
It cannot be simpler than this: humans have been using radar systems to detect and range enemy planes since the Second World War. Ranging the Moon is just a matter of having a radio emitter that is strong enough, and we have been creating radio waves of the order of megawatts for decades, just to air bad music. Sending a radio beam to bounce off the moon is not such a great feat. And we have enormous radio dishes to detect radio waves from space, for which detecting the radio waves bounced off the Moon is simple enough.
Now, the word game you want to play is that you need a mirror on the Moon to plan a mission to the Moon and you need a mission to the Moon to place the mirror there. This is a total insult to human ingenuity. This is the argument from incredulity taken to such extreme that you are even insulting yourself: "we, the human race, are so stupid that we cannot measure distances without a mirror; if we now use a mirror to measure the distance to the moon it is because that is the only way in Heaven or Earth to measure distances; therefore we are too stupid to go to the Moon".
We use a mirror because it is a lot more precise than the radar, not because we need one. We do need one to bounce off a laser beam off the Moon because it is a lot harder to make huge lasers than it is to make huge radio emitters. But we, as the creators of a civilization, are a lot more intelligent and resourceful than your Average Joe.
-
Do you understand how RADAR works?
Yep, I know how different types of radar work.
Sonar, doppler, radio, light and sound.
You say you know how a radar works, and immediately afterwards you demonstrate you do not have anything but a clue.
Any kind of wave, such as those you are mentioning, bounces off the target in almost every direction. This is true for planes, submarines, cars on a highway, and, yes, the Moon. The receiver does not have to be in the same place where it was when the wave was produced.
In fact, a fighter plane has moved when the radar signals it sent are being received. That does not mean it has any problems at all receiving the echoes.
Waves are not particles that bounce off in one specific direction. Waves are waves. Can you get any simpler than this?
-
I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.
Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.
-
I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.
Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.
Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.
Exactly what is your expertise in lunar surface composition? Which materials do you know on Earth that do not reflect radio waves? Or are you telling us that the Moon is made of magical cheese, the only substance on Earth or Heaven that absorbs radio waves apart from the painting on the F-117?
Every time you are asked to support something about your claims you suddenly become the premiere expert in that subject on this whole planet. And you don't call that trolling?
-
I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.
Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.
Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.
So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.
-
you just have a problem with authority. you think you are just wise because you can rebel against what you are taught. sadly we all try and explain things to you that are logical and proven.
have you met tom bishop? perhaps you are related? you will get on well with him.
both of you are well advanced in the fingers in ears lalalalala technique.
-
I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.
Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.
Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.
So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.
I said, going by what we are told that the moon is. I have no clue what the moon is made up of and neither do you or anyone else, except for those who dish out the BS.
We are told it's like grey cement and rocks with sun spotlights strategically placed that card board and tinfoil, plus duct taped craft can land on.
Why would rock absorb radar signals?
-
I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.
Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.
Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.
So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.
I said, going by what we are told that the moon is. I have no clue what the moon is made up of and neither do you or anyone else, except for those who dish out the BS.
We are told it's like grey cement and rocks with sun spotlights strategically placed that card board and tinfoil, plus duct taped craft can land on.
Why would rock absorb radar signals?
I said the moon would but it doesn't matter because radar isn't the reason the moons distance was calculated, so what did they use to calculate it.
Someone said it was calculated hundreds of years ago. Just how did they calculate it.
I'd still like to know how they calculated it for the 1969 moon landings as well.
Do some research, it is useless talking with you.
-
You have no clue about the distances of stars other than what you have been taught right?
Everything you have been taught about the stars, the sun, the moon and other planets, you accept because you trust in those that have rank.
Realscientist, if you are a real scientist, then tell me just one thing about science that you have questioned and attempted to rectify.
Newton's laws, for starters. I have done more than one hundred experiments that directly test the validity of Newton's laws, as far as they can be tested in simple settings. This was standard practice for all engineering careers at my university.
Experiments around electronics, I have done too many to count. I have direct knowledge that the physics of atomic and subatomic particles that are used in everything from diodes to lasers works in the lab exactly as expected.
Very importantly, I have pointed and kept communication with geostationary satellites and I know the approximate distance to them from two different sources: the calculated orbit from Newton's law of universal gravitation and from the time that messages need to get to the satellite and come back to the receiving station. I can personally guarantee you that the Moon is a lot farther away than the 36000 or so kilometers that there is from the Earth to the geostationary satellites for two reasons: first, when my station, the satellite and the Moon were in line, about 2 times per year, there was no disruption in the communications whatsoever; second, the gravitational pull from the Moon did not, in any way, make the satellite miss alignment, so I know that the Moon is not orbiting just a few kilometers farther away than the geostationary satellites.
But one of the most telling parts of my previous work with satellites has to do with the re-positioning that has to be done to the satellites periodically. This is done according to specific schedules that are published well in advance of every re-positioning so that the larger dishes, like the one at my company, which was 9 meters in diameter, could be readjusted without loss of service. You just cannot secretly do things with satellites to fool people because too many people in too many countries are seeing what happens, all the time.
And finally, but very importantly, the satellites need small rockets to re-position themselves. This means that rockets are needed at least once every two years or so to do the positioning, and those have to work some 35900 km above the atmosphere of the Earth.
As you see, there are a lot of things in science that I have verified myself. I question lots of supposed given pieces of information and check that they indeed work nicely according to known theories of Physics. It is not necessary that I find things that are wrong, I just need to check their validity to really understand them.
-
Do some research, it is useless talking with you.
Since we are never going to see some research from skeptimatic, lets do some calculations for ourselves: we know that the distance at which a satellite orbits our Earth, whether it is natural or artificial, does not depend on any other parameter except the time needed for one orbit. This is the reason every geostationary satellite, whether large or small, has to be at the precise altitude for geostationary orbit, which is about 36000 km. So, lets get started:
- The variables I will use are: (all measurements are in the mks system)
- G: the gravitational constant, = 6.67 x 10-11
- M: the mass of the Earth = 5.97 x 1024
- p: period of the Moon's orbit = 2360591 seconds
- w: rotational speed of the Moon's orbit
- r: mean radius of the Moons orbit
- ac: the centripetal acceleration of the Moon
- m: the mass of the Moon
- And now the derivation of the formulas:
- mac = mg
- ac = g
- ac = w2r
- g = w2r
- g = GM/r2
- w2r3 = GM
- r3 = GM/w2
- r = 383213536 meters
As you can see, just from Newtons laws and known data, like the period of the Moon's orbit, you can get a pretty good estimate of its distance. Here you can see that we do know the distance to the Moon with a precision that is good enough to plan the trip to the Moon, and with the other information detailed in this forum we can make an even better plan. In fact, we have not talked about Kepler, whose information helps improve the estimate above considerably.
You can question what is said about the Solar System. And after questioning it you can see that our knowledge of it is pretty solid.
-
Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?
There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?
What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.
-
Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?
There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?
What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.
I didn't think you could answer the questions.
You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.
He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.
-
Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?
There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?
What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.
I didn't think you could answer the questions.
You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.
He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.
Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.
You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.
Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.
-
Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?
There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?
What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.
I didn't think you could answer the questions.
You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.
He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.
Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.
You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.
Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.
Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.
Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.
I'm not going to waste my time giving you a run down of things that you have already been given a run down on 3 or 4 times in this same thread.
-
Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?
There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?
What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.
I didn't think you could answer the questions.
You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.
He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.
Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.
You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.
Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.
Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.
Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.
I'm not going to waste my time giving you a run down of things that you have already been given a run down on 3 or 4 times in this same thread.
Which is the answer I expected.
You see, playing the high and mighty doesn't make you so. Thinking you are smarter, doesn't make you so.
Being told that space is this and that and being shown shoehorned equations , only makes them correct for the shoehorned theory, not what actually is.
How am I playing high and mighty when I imply (quite intentionally) that you didn't bother to read what was explained to you? Do you think algebra doesn't work when you get farther away from earth's surface? Or did you really just not bother to read? I said I was done with this once before. I'm done now. Keep trying to taunt me and intentionally twisting my words because you're self conscious.
-
Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.
Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.
I pointed you to a link explaining how the Ancient Greeks calculated the distance to the moon using geometry and trigonometry, but you wouldn't have any of it. But seriously, what makes you think that measuring a distance of about a quarter of a million miles should be a simple task?
Now all I asked was, "how did they calculate the moons size and distance accurately enough to allow the so called 1969 Apollo craft to land on it."
So in simple terms, just say what they did and how it was set out to achieve an accurate size and distance, considering they supposedly calculated the fuel to for this supposed mission.
Just simple explanations will suffice.
And I told you that RADAR measurements have been made since the late 1940's.
-
Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.
No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon. The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return. NASA and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.
-
Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.
No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon. The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return. NASA and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.
So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.
Retro frigging reflective mirrors indeed.
I was told fairy stories as a kid and believed them, I don't intend hanging onto fairy stories as an adult.
Radar is good for Earth.
Nothing escapes this Earth, nothing....and that includes radar.
Then you deny the laws of physics as we know them.
-
Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.
No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon. The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return. NASA and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.
So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.
Retro frigging reflective mirrors indeed.
I was told fairy stories as a kid and believed them, I don't intend hanging onto fairy stories as an adult.
Radar is good for Earth.
Nothing escapes this Earth, nothing....and that includes radar.
Then you deny the laws of physics as we know them.
Not at all.
How am I denying the laws of physics?
The laws of physics work fine on Earth for most part, yet outide Earth, nobody has a clue whether the laws of physics still apply. It's all best guess work.
And why shouldn't they work the same outside of the atmosphere? Physics are validated every day through what we view from telescopes pointed at other parts of space. We watch asteroids moving exactly as the laws of physics say they should. We watch cloud formations change on jupiter exactly as physics says they should. We watch solar flares on the sun performing exactly as physics says they should. We watch the moon orbit exactly as physics says they should. We see radiation come from the sun curve around earth's magnetic field exactly as physics says it should. These are but a few examples. So what makes you think that physics is different when you leave earth? Why should radar, which is simply another form of EM radiation (light falls into this category) not work in space? Light can travel through space, otherwise the earth would be a very, very dark place, as light would never reach here from the sun. The sun emits all kinds of EM radiation that we can detect, and it gets here just fine. So why would an earthbound radar station have any trouble projecting waves into space?
Also, just so you know, you said earlier you knew what radar was. Then you listed sonar. Sonar is not radar. Sonar is sonar.
-
Sonar is a form of radar and I just used all the forms of radar in answer to me being told I don;t know what radar is or does.
Well you obviously don't know what it is if you think sonar is another form of radar. Sonar isn't remotely the same. It is not another form of radar. It can be used in the same kinds of ways, but it is not the same thing.
The suns radiation, heat/light hits Earth's atmosphere and agitates the matter in that atmosphere and the more they are agitated, the brighter and hotter they get.
What are you talking about? I can't even begin to imagine what you're saying. That is not how light works.
Anything sent from this Earth upwards would be stopped by Earth's outer barrier.
It's the reason we can bounce radio signals off of the atmosphere in a triangulation for communication.
What outer barrier? Are you saying there's some kind of cage around the earth? Also, some frequencies of radio waves can be bounced off of the ionosphere. This is called HAM radio. Radar is not the same frequency.
It bounces off because it cannot escape just like throwing a tennis ball at your ceiling at an angle, you see it bounce off and land where the angle projects it.
So If I throw that same tennis ball at the sky, I should see it bounce off, no?
That's your fake satellites by the way.
What is my fake satellite? I don't own any satellites.
We are prisoners on this planet, we cannot escape and nothing we use to this very day escapes either.
Whether we can in the next few hundred or thousand years remains to be seen but not by us , unless rein carnation is real.
You have a very pessimistic view of reality, which doesn't even remotely match reality.
-
Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?
-
we should back off sceptimatic is the leading expert on so many different forms of science. he knows things that the leading experts dont even know about.
-
Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?
I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?
What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.
I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.
I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in the vacuum of space.
Some people are happy to believe peer reviewed data. And your experiment is invalid due to many variables and above all its not a vacuum. If space is in reachable like you say it is then no experiment can be made to see if a rocket works or not because you don't know what space is.
-
Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?
I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?
What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.
I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.
I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in the vacuum of space.
You've been told about the laws of physics and given sources on them so you can perform simple tests to see if they work the way they are described to work.
-
Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?
I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?
What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.
I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.
I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in the vacuum of space.
You've been told about the laws of physics and given sources on them so you can perform simple tests to see if they work the way they are described to work.
On Earth, those experiments work. There is no evidence of them working in space.
... I don't even know what to say to your little one liners anymore.
-
The few times you have (apparently) understood what we were trying to explain, yor final argument has been something like "it is a theory anyway", "nobody really know" or "it sounds like a lie". And then its like cleverbot forgetting what we told you a few posts before. And yo repeating the same argument everybody debated to you a few posts ago, like it was new and none had an answer.
You should accept that there is a big difference between understanding something because it is logical and it can be verified, and being spoon fed (your favorite phrase). Maybe (just maybe), you not understanding a lot of things in physics has less to do with them being illogical, and more to do with your intelligence.Or you could be from other country and your mother tongue maybe is not english, that is the only explanation (other than your intelligence) i can find for you saying so much nonsense and not understanding most of what we explain to you.
-
So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.
In this very phrase we can see the way sceptimatic just babbles endlessly, repeating what he has gotten from us with amazingly bad reading comprehension and twisting words because he cannot do the maths.
Who said that the accuracy of a measurement by radar is the same as the accuracy of a measurement by laser? In fact, the opposite is true. The laser reflects almost exclusively on the mirrors, giving a precise measurement to a precise place on the Moon. The radar reflects back on every surface of this side of the Moon, so you get a myriad echoes, and select the first you hear, which can be from a high place or a low valley.
That is the quality of sceptimatic's intellect. It can read the word "accurately" but he cannot understand its meaning and the complexities of a word with relative value.
So, I agree with ThinkingMan. I will stop feeding the troll.
-
if we believe what we are told then we have been to space many times. you refuse to believe this information. fair enough but your whole argument is based on a global conspiracy.
yours truly weevil the rodent
-
Should I tell him to moon is tidally locked to the earth and has one side always facing the earth and this is why we only every see one side of the moon? Meh, I guess I wont.
-
Should I tell him to moon is tidally locked to the earth and has one side always facing the earth and this is why we only every see one side of the moon? Meh, I guess I wont.
Do you actually know that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth?
Can you tell me why the moon supposedly rotates at about 10mph?
Tidally locked is the myth they can think of.
-
Should I tell him to moon is tidally locked to the earth and has one side always facing the earth and this is why we only every see one side of the moon? Meh, I guess I wont.
Do you actually know that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth?
Can you tell me why the moon supposedly rotates at about 10mph?
Tidally locked simply means one side always faces the parent body. Take a look at the moon. You always see the same craters. I don't know who says it rotates at 10mph, but from our view point, it's not rotating, although in actuality, you're right. It is.
-
We are told that the Earth's atmosphere spins with the Earth in unison and that's why we don't feel the 1040mph.
We are also told that the moon spins but it's only about 10mph, to supposedly coincide with showing the same face to the Earth all the time. Magically though, this rotation cannot be seen from Earth, it can only be seen when you are outside of Earth for some reason.
Anyway, 10mph doesn't seem fast, yet if we were to run it, it would seem like a decent jog wouldn't it?
Now the moon supposedly has no atmosphere, it's called a vacuum, or close to it as we are told, so we can deduce that no atmosphere is spinning with the 10mph moon.
Therefore, we can also deduce that the supposed Apollo craft that landed on it, would be touching down above a moon that is moving at 10 mph under the supposed LM.
If this was the case, it would hit the deck and be pushed over when you consider the 10 mph force acting against it, plus the one sixth gravity as well as no friction.
Either it would topple over or at the very least the lander legs should have at least made some kind of skid movement that should have been noticeable.
If I'm wrong here, I would appreciate someone putting me right.
Even if someone "puts you right," you'll simply tell them you don't buy it, don't believe it, they have been spoon fed bullshit.
-
Of course they will say the lander is moving at 10mph in unison with the moon surface.
-
Of course they will say the lander is moving at 10mph in unison with the moon surface.
Well that's how it would have to work, no? I mean, you said it, not me. So I'm glad you figured that out all on your own.
I didn't pilot the damned thing, but when it's in orbit, it would be moving "faster than the surface." Then it would have to come down and match speeds. Of course, that's not what it would look like to the people in the LM.
Tell me, when you jump on a boat/ship that's moving, do you fall behind the ship if you've jumped straight up? When an airplane lands on an aircraft carrier that is moving, do it's wheels slide out? How about a helicopter? Does the aircrafter carrier slide out from under those? It's moving much faster than 10 mph.
-
Of course they will say the lander is moving at 10mph in unison with the moon surface.
Well that's how it would have to work, no? I mean, you said it, not me. So I'm glad you figured that out all on your own.
I didn't pilot the damned thing, but when it's in orbit, it would be moving "faster than the surface." Then it would have to come down and match speeds. Of course, that's not what it would look like to the people in the LM.
Tell me, when you jump on a boat/ship that's moving, do you fall behind the ship if you've jumped straight up? When an airplane lands on an aircraft carrier that is moving, do it's wheels slide out? How about a helicopter? Does the aircrafter carrier slide out from under those? It's moving much faster than 10 mph.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Did the supposed LM shut of it's engine so many feet before it touched down to account for the " no blast crater" on the moon?
If they wanted a soft descent why would they shut the engines off before landing? Where did you get that information from?
-
Even if someone "puts you right," you'll simply tell them you don't buy it, don't believe it, they have been spoon fed bullshit.
Exactly. Somehow anything he does not like is spoon fed BS, but anything he likes is not BS and not spoon fed. This is exactly why science is based on the Scientific Method. You do not accept anything based on your likes and dislikes, you accept only what you can predict and then verify experimentally. And after having done untold amounts of exercises, which are in essence predictions, and have tested some of them with an actual experiment, you are ready to believe or disbelieve the results of other scientists.
But people like sceptimatic, of which there are many, just change from arguments of authority given at School to arguments of authority given by cranks from the Internet, without even giving the Scientific Method one real try.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Did the supposed LM shut of it's engine so many feet before it touched down to account for the " no blast crater" on the moon?
This is exactly what I am talking about. The BS you like is magically "evidence to debunk the NASA conspiracy" without even an attempt to quantify what you are claiming. Where are the maths showing that the blast of the rockets should have been so hard that it would have carved a crater? Did you even research the weight of the lander, the strength of the rockets, or anything at all?
Do you know that every helicopter lands by blasting fast moving gas against the floor, and they do not carve a crater every time they land on soil? And the Moon has just a sixth of the gravity of Earth, so the amount of gas is a lot less.
So, please, do not try to spoon feed us with the latest BS you found in the Conspiracy Theory webpage. Make a scientifically sound argument.
-
Exactly...why would they?
This is what is claimed that they did though. Look it up.
So therefore, not only are they on a wing and a prayer by free falling the lander about 6 or more feet from the surface, they are landing on a moon that is moving 10mph under them.
If this sits well with you, then fair enough but all it tells me is, you will not, under any circumstances question anything official even if it looks so faked it's laughable.
I looked up, I did not find anything about that, nor anything implying that they did that. That is why I asked where did you get that information from.
One more question:
How in the hell, ( and I'm being ultra serious here) do people of this day and age still believe that men landed on the moon?
There is no proof of the contrary, every single argument that is supposed to prove it is a hoax has been explained.
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
-
So therefore, not only are they on a wing and a prayer by free falling the lander about 6 or more feet from the surface, they are landing on a moon that is moving 10mph under them.
Actually, the contact probes are about 3 feet long and give the astronauts time to cutoff the engine just before landing. At that time, the LEM should be in a relative hover just above the lunar surface. At 1/6 earth's gravity, the impact would be minimal.
-
So therefore, not only are they on a wing and a prayer by free falling the lander about 6 or more feet from the surface, they are landing on a moon that is moving 10mph under them.
Actually, the contact probes are about 3 feet long and give the astronauts time to cutoff the engine just before landing. At that time, the LEM should be in a relative hover just above the lunar surface. At 1/6 earth's gravity, the impact would be minimal.
With the moon moving under the LM at 10mph in one sixth gravity, it should at the very least have skidded along on it's foot pads.
If you jumped off the back of a wagon at say 3 feet, going 10mph on Earth whilst stood on a dustbin lid, you would skid. We can all agree on that and that's just on Earth, so in one sixth gravity it would be a far longer skid.
There is no evidence of that in the lunar lander pictures.
And if you were standing on the wagon and jumped straight up, you would land back in the wagon.
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm fully aware that those who believe Apollo happened have explanations for everything. Obviously anything has and is made up to debunk any conspiracy against it.
Here's a question for you:
Is there anything at all about the moon landings that you question?
No, I've taken physics classes and I'm in school for engineering. I've played with rockets and simulators (a simulator is as close as I can financially afford to get to the moon), and it all makes sense to me.
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm fully aware that those who believe Apollo happened have explanations for everything. Obviously anything has and is made up to debunk any conspiracy against it.
Here's a question for you:
Is there anything at all about the moon landings that you question?
No, I've taken physics classes and I'm in school for engineering. I've played with rockets and simulators (a simulator is as close as I can financially afford to get to the moon), and it all makes sense to me.
So you are happy that that clap trap cardboard, tin foil and duct tape LM done exactly what was told to land on the moon, take off and dock with a trash can and you think that's an ideal craft for a moon mission?
'Claptrap', 'cardboard', 'ducktape'... these are just things you say.
What evidence do you have for using these words?
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm fully aware that those who believe Apollo happened have explanations for everything. Obviously anything has and is made up to debunk any conspiracy against it.
Here's a question for you:
Is there anything at all about the moon landings that you question?
No, I've taken physics classes and I'm in school for engineering. I've played with rockets and simulators (a simulator is as close as I can financially afford to get to the moon), and it all makes sense to me.
So you are happy that that clap trap cardboard, tin foil and duct tape LM done exactly what was told to land on the moon, take off and dock with a trash can and you think that's an ideal craft for a moon mission?
'Claptrap', 'cardboard', 'ducktape'... these are just things you say.
What evidence do you have for using these words?
What the videos.
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm fully aware that those who believe Apollo happened have explanations for everything. Obviously anything has and is made up to debunk any conspiracy against it.
Here's a question for you:
Is there anything at all about the moon landings that you question?
No, I've taken physics classes and I'm in school for engineering. I've played with rockets and simulators (a simulator is as close as I can financially afford to get to the moon), and it all makes sense to me.
So you are happy that that clap trap cardboard, tin foil and duct tape LM done exactly what was told to land on the moon, take off and dock with a trash can and you think that's an ideal craft for a moon mission?
'Claptrap', 'cardboard', 'ducktape'... these are just things you say.
What evidence do you have for using these words?
What the videos.
Moon landing videos are utterly convincing to me.
All and any conspiracy theories I have seen so far have, to my satisfaction, been comprehensively debunked.
Moon landings happened, the evidence is overwhelming and the conspiracy theories are weak and insignificant.
-
You see, sceptimatic, It's not that we have no explanations, it's that we have tried throughout this entire thread to explain things and answer questions, and you either don't understand, or just shrug us off. It's like trying to teach a cat to sit and heel. I mean, once your done, it may be satisfying, but is it truly worth the effort? What can it do for you after it learns to sit and heel? What good will it do? The same goes for you, if you finally come to understand, but you refuse to accept, what good has it done? See, science is not like religion. It's not about "believing" or "not believing." It's about understanding and seeing something verified. The things that you don't "believe" have been scientifically verified and tested, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of of science. It's true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm fully aware that those who believe Apollo happened have explanations for everything. Obviously anything has and is made up to debunk any conspiracy against it.
Here's a question for you:
Is there anything at all about the moon landings that you question?
No, I've taken physics classes and I'm in school for engineering. I've played with rockets and simulators (a simulator is as close as I can financially afford to get to the moon), and it all makes sense to me.
So you are happy that that clap trap cardboard, tin foil and duct tape LM done exactly what was told to land on the moon, take off and dock with a trash can and you think that's an ideal craft for a moon mission?
From what I understand, there was no cardboard on the LM. It did look ugly, but what need did they have of making it look pretty? It's not a Lamborghini, it had to do a job, and it had to do it in the most efficient way possible. So they put it together, bare bones, exactly what they needed, nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to you. Now, I've seen the command module that came back down from one of the Apollo missions at the Johnson Space Center in Texas. I've also seen the Saturn V rocket that took them up. Impressive pieces of engineering.
-
I'm not questioning science and the genuine leaps men and women have made, I am questioning things that we are told to accept that come with no verifiable proof that we can see for ourselves. Like the moon landings, Mars rover and things like that, plus star distances and a spinning Earth, etc.
Don't you know that by questioning scientists based on the latest crackpot web site, and accepting their arguments only based on arguments of authority you are playing exactly the game I was talking about?
Those people behind "science and the genuine leaps men and women have made" are the exact same ones who used the exact same scientific knowledge that you don't like to make the things you do like. Every single law of Newton has been used, applied to movement of objects and fluids in every imaginable condition to make the leaps you do like.
And yes, vacuum is frequently used to do the things that you do like. Next time you jump into your car, remember that the ball bearings that make that motor possible were made in a vacuum, just like the one in space.
As a society, we do not sit in fear of the unknown and make cheap philosophy like your "outer space vacuum is not like other vacuums" crap. We get off our butts and do things.
-
For instance, I can make a crater with a directed air hose in soil but I'd have a hard time making one with the same air hose with a wide shower type head on the end.
Then do one and post the video of it. This is the crap you are being fed without you feeling the stink. A crater is a mighty difficult thing to create.
And if you want burned fuel, look at the Harrier fighter plane. It lands vertically by throwing a compact stream of exhaust from its engine directly to the floor, and it does not create a crater anyway.
An air hose "could" make a crater if it was strong enough. A Harrier plane "could" make a crater if it was strong enough. A rocket engine "could" make a crater if it was strong enough. See why word games are not science?
-
'Claptrap', 'cardboard', 'ducktape'... these are just things you say.
What evidence do you have for using these words?
More importantly, Does he not see that this is an emotional outburst, and not any kind of real scientific argument, at all?
It is like two school girls talking: "get rid of that ass of a boyfriend. Don't you know that he is trash?"
I would have a very compelling argument against the Lunar Landings if the LM was, indeed, made to survive in Earth's atmosphere and gravitational pull. If they had used quarter inch aluminum panels for the walls I would have known that this was done by someone who cannot think about the conditions at the Moon, and still thinks the Lunar Module will have to survive the same conditions a typical plane on Earth has to.
-
I am 1 million per cent sure no man has been on the moon.
See, you cannot use a number correctly if your life depended on it. Let the numbers to the scientists, and dedicate yourself to being the Average Joe comic character. Or, better yet, open your mind to real science. I know you misplaced it a long time ago, but it has to be somewhere.
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.
Here's the question and his answer.
What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?
The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.
From this.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm (http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm)
Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
-
If a harrier was landing on sand, it would create a crater.
Well, for one, it wouldn't land on sand, because sand is uneven and it would sink it. Does your bike tire sink in to sand with your weight on it? Just imagine the weight of a whole fighter jet. Also, it would not create a "crater," it would push down into the densely packed sand and push it out and away, but not really a crater.
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
Actually, it is said that it's volcanic rock.
There is nothing at all disturbed under any LM, not even dust in the wells of the lander feet.
Watch more closely. Dust flies out to the side away from where the rocket is pointing.
There is a picture of the moon buggy on the moon with no tyre tracks...how is that possible.
I saw tire tracks in any image I've seen.
The moon landings are laughable.
Your refutations are also laughable.
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.
Here's the question and his answer.
What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?
The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.
From this.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm (http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm)
Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.
It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.
Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
-
And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement.
This is getting more laughable by the minute. Apart from accepting that Buzz Aldrin did see and feel the soil of the Moon, you are showing all of us that you don't really know how to read more than elementally simple sentences. "Clings together like cement" is not the same as "cement like compound", not in any sense of the English Language. Not that I care about this, because the quality of the Moon's dust does not change my life the least bit, but the only thing you bring to this forum is word games, and you are showing you are not very good at word games either.
-
If a harrier was landing on sand, it would create a crater.
Well, for one, it wouldn't land on sand, because sand is uneven and it would sink it. Does your bike tire sink in to sand with your weight on it? Just imagine the weight of a whole fighter jet. Also, it would not create a "crater," it would push down into the densely packed sand and push it out and away, but not really a crater.
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
Actually, it is said that it's volcanic rock.
There is nothing at all disturbed under any LM, not even dust in the wells of the lander feet.
Watch more closely. Dust flies out to the side away from where the rocket is pointing.
There is a picture of the moon buggy on the moon with no tyre tracks...how is that possible.
I saw tire tracks in any image I've seen.
The moon landings are laughable.
Your refutations are also laughable.
To those that hang on to the moon landings being real, I suppose what I refute will be laughable in a way.
In truth, I think that deep down you know yourself they are a scam.
If I thought they were a scam, I wouldn't be arguing against you. In case you haven't noticed, I argue against things I don't think are true.
-
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.
The only way you have gone against the landings is by repeating what the crackpot conspiracist web pages say, without really trying to see if it is true. Now that you said Aldrin seemed fake, I believe in him more than ever.
Saying something, like Aldrin's description of how the Moon's dust felt like, disgusts you is in fact a good reason for scientists to believe the total opposite is true.
But you could make a real argument, where you actually show a rocket not being able to move in a vacuum, or like showing how you got a friction free floor and did experiments that conclusively demonstrate you air friction "theory". Remember, you can earn a Nobel Prize and a million dollars from the JREF foundation just for doing that.
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.
Here's the question and his answer.
What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?
The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.
From this.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm (http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm)
Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.
It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.
Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
Talc/cement, whatever. It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.
They worried that the moon's composition would have very deep dust on the surface. This was not the case, but in fact it was a fine layer.
Nothing at all is disturbed under those landers...nothing.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. So prove it. Show me that nothing was disturbed. From what I've seen, the was a blast of dust when the exhuast hit the surface... and then the dust was gone so the solid rock didn't get disturbed. So please show me that nothing was disturbed.
-
It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.
And now you are backing away from the story that they turned the rockets off when they were 6 feet up. Wonder why nobody cares what you say?
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.
Here's the question and his answer.
What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?
The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.
From this.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm (http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm)
Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.
It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.
Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
Talc/cement, whatever. It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.
They worried that the moon's composition would have very deep dust on the surface. This was not the case, but in fact it was a fine layer.
Nothing at all is disturbed under those landers...nothing.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. So prove it. Show me that nothing was disturbed. From what I've seen, the was a blast of dust when the exhuast hit the surface... and then the dust was gone so the solid rock didn't get disturbed. So please show me that nothing was disturbed.
Go and take a look under the lander.
Get yourself a picture up, there's plenty about.
You made the claim. Support it. I have more important things to do with my life than play games with your conspiracy theory.
-
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?
You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.
That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
-
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?
You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.
There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.
Here's the question and his answer.
What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?
The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.
From this.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm (http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm)
Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.
It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.
Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
Talc/cement, whatever. It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.
They worried that the moon's composition would have very deep dust on the surface. This was not the case, but in fact it was a fine layer.
Nothing at all is disturbed under those landers...nothing.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. So prove it. Show me that nothing was disturbed. From what I've seen, the was a blast of dust when the exhuast hit the surface... and then the dust was gone so the solid rock didn't get disturbed. So please show me that nothing was disturbed.
Go and take a look under the lander.
Get yourself a picture up, there's plenty about.
You made the claim. Support it. I have more important things to do with my life than play games with your conspiracy theory.
Yes, so you told me before and before that and before that.
You aren't forced into answering to me, that's your choice. You can either do it or not, it makes no difference to me.
I don;t need to support the no blast crater claim or undisturbed soil under the lander, I'm certain you have see it for yourself and so has most on this forum I would guess.
I've seen the "no blast crater," that you speak of. Because a tiny rocket won't put a blast crater in a rock. My model rocket couldn't even put a blast crater in soft soil. However, I did see what appeared to be trails where dust was blasted away from the landing zone. Now, you made the claim, if you can't support it, it's invalid.
-
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?
You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.
That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.
I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.
So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
-
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?
You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.
That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.
I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.
So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told it does.
Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.
So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
-
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?
You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.
That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.
I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.
So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told it does.
Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.
So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
For the rotating Earth BS, we have to believe in having two atmospheres.
The one that supposedly grips the Earth and rotates exactly with it and us and also another atmosphere within that, that we feel the wind from.
I thought we explained this once. How could there possibly be two atmospheres? There's one earth.
-
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?
You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.
That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.
I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.
So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told it does.
Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.
So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
For the rotating Earth BS, we have to believe in having two atmospheres.
The one that supposedly grips the Earth and rotates exactly with it and us and also another atmosphere within that, that we feel the wind from.
None said the atmosphere moves exactly as the earth, in general it moves in the same direction because of friction, but other factors can also affect the air cause the wind.
You can't have it both ways to suit your thinking.
None said the atmosphere moves exactly as the earth, in general it moves in the same direction because of friction, but other factors can also affect the air cause the wind. Just as we all move with the earth, but we can also walk in any direction we want, we don't need two persons of each to explain that...
-
For your magic Earth to work, you have to have the magic atmosphere in exact unison with the Earth to give you the same thing as you have been trying to tell me about, which is being inside a plane at 500mph and you can jump up and down inside it.
As I said, the atmosphere should move in general with the earth because of the friction (there is no magic there), but as everybody knows, there is also wind, so is not like it moves exactly at the same speed at the same direction in every single point, because other factors also have influence over it, not as much as the earth gravity and friction itself, usually the wind is not enough to make you jump in one place and land in another.
-
For your magic Earth to work, you have to have the magic atmosphere in exact unison with the Earth to give you the same thing as you have been trying to tell me about, which is being inside a plane at 500mph and you can jump up and down inside it.
As I said, the atmosphere should move in general with the earth because of the friction (there is no magic there), but as everybody knows, there is also wind, so is not like it moves exactly at the same speed at the same direction in every single point, because other factors also have influence over it, not as much as the earth gravity and friction itself, usually the wind is not enough to make you jump in one place and land in another.
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.
The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.
Actually, if you took away convection currents and irregularities in atmospheric density, you wouldn't feel any wind at all. But, alas, the sun heats the atmosphere, causing convection currents and non-uniform density, so we have weather.
-
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
Howcome? is there no wind in the rotating earth method? because I live on a rotating earth, and there is wind.
You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.
The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.
I have not explained wind, I said there are other factors, not the earth rotation, that cause it.
The earth gravity and friction cause the atmosphere to move with the earth, things like the temperature cause different portions of air move in different directions within that large scale movement. If you are on a plane does it mean you cant walk? if you walk while on a plane does it mean the airplane speed does not affect you?
That theory, as you call it, relies on observations and physics that can be verified. You not understanding it, has more to do with your intelligence than with its logic.
-
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
Howcome? is there no wind in the rotating earth method? because I live on a rotating earth, and there is wind.
You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.
The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.
I have not explained wind, I said there are other factors, not the earth rotation, that cause it.
The earth gravity and friction cause the atmosphere to move with the earth, things like the temperature cause different portions of air move in different directions within that large scale movement. If you are on a plane does it mean you cant walk? if you walk while on a plane does it mean the airplane speed does not affect you?
That theory, as you call it, relies on observations and physics that can be verified. You not understanding it, has more to do with your intelligence than with its logic.
As others have explained the wind is affected by countless other factors. Temperature, topography, sea currents and much more I am sure.
Other atmospheres are even stranger. Look up Venus superrotation. A complete rotation of the planet takes 243 earth days but the atmosphere whips around the planet in just 4 earth days.
The planet spins, it has an atmosphere, but it is not locked in position by your sceptimagic.
-
Good job sceptamatic. Going against these moonlanding trolls is tough and you don't have support. I agree that man has never been to the moon. They will just wear you out and never look closely at the evidence. Good job on standing your ground though. :)
-
Clap trap:
You are using the plane as an excuse as to why the Earth spins yet it's a lame excuse for one reason.
The plane is a sealed unit. Basically you are inside a tin can , flying in an atmosphere ...of course you won't feel the outside atmosphere.
The way your Earth works is like me being on that plane travelling at 500 or so MPH, sipping tea , whilst somehow it starts pissing down inside it and then blowing a gale, within the plane whilst it is still sealed from the outside atmosphere.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You didn't even understand my point. I am talking about the wind and your claim of the need of "two atmospheres one inside another" because "one should move exactly with the earth and the other one is the wind" or some crap like that, which is completely stupid. And i tried to explain the small movements of air inside the bigger movement of the whole atmosphere comparing it with people inside a plane, everybody moves with the plane, but also everybody can move in different directions, just as the air can move inside the earth movement. But you just don't seem to understand anything, besides having to explain how and why things work, with you I also need to explain what do I mean with lots of things that I say, no wonder why physics and other sciences sound like magic and fairy tales to you.
-
Yes you did explain it before and badly.
Yes, he did explain it before, and did a nice job about it. It is enormously complicated to understand how you even came to the idea of two atmospheres because everyone understands that no two atmospheres are or would be needed.
And yet, for reasons I cannot understand, ThinkingMan is still being nice with you and trying again to explain what you should have gotten the first time. Stop playing word games and open your mind to science.
-
I honestly cannot get my head around it...
And
It's so pathetic I honestly don't understand...
Yes, that about sums it up.
You didn't even understand my point.
He does not want to understand your point, or Thinkingman's, Mexicanwave's, RealScientist's, or Robertotrevor's.
How hard can it be to comprehend lightyears, or how an atmosphere behaves, or an object matching speeds with a larger object and landing straight down on it?
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
-
Newtons law gets used as though it would work better in a vacuum as a rocket pushes against "itself" and the exhaust gases are merely just the end product of that and serve no purpose in propulsion.
If you are going to tell us what the Laws of Newton are, you better read them and understand them first. A rocket cannot push against itself. In fact, nothing can push against itself and accelerate as a consequence of pushing against itself. This is the very first conclusion you can get from Newton's third Law of Motion. In fact, your comment about the exhaust gases serving no purpose would be enough in my country to fail Physics and have to go to remedial courses during the vacations. Under some circumstances, you could end having to repeat the whole academic year.
Your attempt to reduce Physics to a word game has reached the point where you are contradicting yourself and you are not even aware of it.
-
Yes you did explain it before and badly.
Yes, he did explain it before, and did a nice job about it. It is enormously complicated to understand how you even came to the idea of two atmospheres because everyone understands that no two atmospheres are or would be needed.
And yet, for reasons I cannot understand, ThinkingMan is still being nice with you and trying again to explain what you should have gotten the first time. Stop playing word games and open your mind to science.
If you think I'm being nice to him, you should take a look at my angry ranting thread.
Oh I understand what you are implying and to be fair, it's all based on deception.
Do explain the reality of the situation then. Please include how physics actually works so we wont be confused.
Basically, you are telling me that there's just the one atmosphere and it is rotating with The speed of the Earth which is why we don't know we are rotating.
In between this 1040mph atmosphere, we have differing air currents, in all directions that can somehow miraculously slow do to a hurricane or a mild breeze, down to a still night/day.
Let's break it down to the atomic level then. The earth is made of atoms, as is everything. So on the surface of the spinning earth, there are atoms. The air's atoms is snug as a bug against the ground, so when the atoms of earth "bump into" the atmos of the atmosphere at ground level, it pushes them. Then those atoms push more atoms, and so on and so on all the way up. Now, as you can probably imagine, that motion won't be completely uniform, as these aren't all going to be perfect, straight on, 8 ball in the corner pocket pool table shots. This can explain a very small amount of atmospheric disturbances. The others come from the sun's rays, which are comprised of photons, which we'll refer to as a particle. These particles come into the atmosphere at an insane velocity and insane density, causing more friction, causing the atmosphere to heat up. Now, since some parts of the atmosphere were already more dense from the irregular motion, the heating is not uniform. This is why we get seemingly sporadic cloud formations, cold fronts, and warm fronts (which both are felt as wind).
These hurricanes/breezes etc can go against a 1040mph atmosphere or with it supposedly.
Absolute none-sense.
See above, they're not going against anything, as they are already moving that direction thanks to inertia.
I'm serious here: The physics behind a rotating Earth requires a person to actually believe that magic is real.
It is the same with rockets working in a vacuum....Newtons law gets used as though it would work better in a vacuum as a rocket pushes against "itself" and the exhaust gases are merely just the end product of that and serve no purpose in propulsion.
No, no. The exhaust gasses are the reason that a rocket moves forward, whether inside the atmosphere or in the vacuum of space. It just works better in space because there's less pushing back. Less gravity, no atmospheric drag. The thrust of the rocket, which is created by high velocity exhaust gases being forced out the nozzle of the rocket.
Don't get me wrong here. The science behind it all has been made deliberately mind boggling so that most people will never question it.
If it's so mind boggling, why do so many people understand it? Don't tell me they've been brainwashed, because if they didn't understand it, they would never be able to apply to to the airplanes you fly in, the car you drive with, the boat you move across the oceans/lakes/rivers of the world, or the computer you are using to post these responses about how you distrust the physics model that made this conversation possible.
Official science: Amaze the hell out of you with theories and pictures, then screw your head up with ridiculous complicated physics equations that are made to fit their theory.
See above.
Human beings are by nature, curious, yet we are also by nature, "gullible", yet often, what you see is actually what you get and what you're told "isn't" actually what is.
Again... see above.
Take a walk outside on a clear night and just sit and stare at the night sky with all the stars and the first thing you will notice, is that the Earth is stationary...It gives you no other reason to think otherwise and neither does your own body's in built balancing system.
Really? So when I go outside at different times and the stars that all appear to be different sizes have all appeared to move uniformly across the sky in one direction, while (lately) jupiter has moved differently from all of the stars, and the moon different than both of the other two examples?
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.
It is sad that they are so closed minded. They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed. They are like children, except that children can be taught.
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.
It is sad that they are so closed minded. They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed. They are like children, except that children can be taught.
Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.
It is sad that they are so closed minded. They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed. They are like children, except that children can be taught.
Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!
Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream? You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.
It is sad that they are so closed minded. They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed. They are like children, except that children can be taught.
Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!
Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream? You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.
If it's false, then the observed effects would not exist.
-
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives. You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night. Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.
It is sad that they are so closed minded. They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed. They are like children, except that children can be taught.
Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!
Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream? You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.
If it's false, then the observed effects would not exist.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I do believe that you did not answer my question.
-
Why be a smart ass and disregard what leading experts tell others? Being the black sheep was cool when you are a teenager, at some point though you grow up.
-
Leading experts supposedly sent astronauts to the moon through a belt of radiation said to be from 1000 miles outside our atmosphere, stretching up to 25,000 miles, supposedly observed by James Van Allen.
It was stated by so called experts that the astronauts would need a lead shield 4 feet thick to protect them, yet N.A.S.A experts guessed that paper thin aluminium would do the trick and so it appears that it did.
First of all, who said that they would need a 4 foot lead shield? Secondly, when you're traveling at 25,000 mph, it doesn't take very long to get through the Van Allen radiation belts.
-
you know nothing about rocketry too?
-
then you don't know
-
i am eagerly waiting for your "proofs"
-
i suspect that if it involves balloons, then it would be pointless in vacuum (i didn't find the experiment in the 14 pages of the topic)
-
which one?
can't you do a copy/paste?
-
i am eagerly waiting for your "proofs"
The proof is extremely simple but it will be discounted.
The experiment is in the thread, it involves balloons.
Just look it up and try the experiment.
The proof is not simple. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A balloon is not a vacuum. A deflated balloon is not a vacuum. A balloon is porous, how the hell do you think the air leaks out when it's inflated? To prove it, you need to build a vacuum chamber and suck all of the air out until the pressure drops to near zero. Then try and fire your rocket. Don't forget to research how they built and fueled the rockets that launched spacecraft. Burning things requires oxygen. As there is no oxygen in space, they had to carry it with them. So you'll need an oxidizer. Good luck.
-
Hey all - got a bit addicted to lurking this forum, so thought I'd join up. Mainly trying to work out who is pretending for the sake of argument (though in this day and age, it's not like the internet doesn't have a plethora of arguments ready to go!), and who is actually a bit mental.
anyway...
@sceptimatic
You do realise that you are using the logical fallacy, Argument from incredulity?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)
If your horrible lack of science knowledge says nothing about whether a theory is true or not.
Science is, at one level, a collection of theories. The theories we currently use, and therefore haven't discarded, are the ones that work. Modern physics theories not only explain how the Earth rotates, and how rockets are propelled, but also how a computer works, or how a bridge stays up. They are the same theories, the same maths.
If you want to discard the physics behind rocket propulsion and a rotating planet, then you will have to come up with something to replace them that works even better at doing stuff like building bridges and making computers work.
If you think you can come up with better theories than Newton, Einstein, Maxwell etc, then good luck. I'm not holding my breath. ::)
For the rocket propulsion stuff, I can't work out if you are trolling. Newton's third law is very easy to test for yourself:
The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
I bet you don't try it though, as you aren't interested in actual learning or experimentation - just trolling internet boards.
-
They can stick as much oxidiser into the fuel as they want.
Space will accept it into it's vastness like a mini snack, gobbled down in record time.
As fast as that fuel came out, it would be swallowed up by space , rendering the rocket useless.
Ohhh I see, you think they just pump the fuel into space. Ok, I understand where you're going wrong now. Liquid fueled rockets burn the fuel before it comes close the the vacuum. If you wanted a type of rocket that dumps fuel into space to move, you should look into ion engine, Hall Effect thrusters, VASIMR, and magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters, or Nuclear Thermal Rockets.
Oh and the balloon doesn't have to be a full on vacuum.
As long as it's got no air inside it and the smaller inflated balloon expels it's air into that balloon, the smaller balloon will not fly anywhere.
That balloon experiment bears no resemblance to a rocket in space. Balloons don't fly anyway. They float.
-
FatherLukeDuke:
Now that you have came on here and put me right about everything and found out I troll internet boards, I will now accept everything that the media tell me and believe everything that I have questioned.
On the other hand....no I won't...I'll stick to what I say. :)
You aren't telling me anything new.
Can you do an experiment to prove a rocket works in a vacuum?
Also, I agree, science is about theories and many theories become science fact, just not all...and a rotating Earth is one such theory and so it relativity and special relativity, theories that carry no real proof.
Anything can be made up to fit a theory though just like it has been as regards space and a 10mph moon and all of the rest of it.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Some people simply accept things that they don't understand. You would be the first asshole to run and shoot at aliens landing on earth.
-
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.
So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.
Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!
-
They can stick as much oxidiser into the fuel as they want.
Space will accept it into it's vastness like a mini snack, gobbled down in record time.
As fast as that fuel came out, it would be swallowed up by space , rendering the rocket useless.
Ohhh I see, you think they just pump the fuel into space. Ok, I understand where you're going wrong now. Liquid fueled rockets burn the fuel before it comes close the the vacuum. If you wanted a type of rocket that dumps fuel into space to move, you should look into ion engine, Hall Effect thrusters, VASIMR, and magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters, or Nuclear Thermal Rockets. The minute the nozzle is opened for a fuel burn in space, the vacuum would immediately swallow it up, right into the tank and swallow that fuel in an instant due to the size of space.
Oh and the balloon doesn't have to be a full on vacuum.
As long as it's got no air inside it and the smaller inflated balloon expels it's air into that balloon, the smaller balloon will not fly anywhere.
That balloon experiment bears no resemblance to a rocket in space. Balloons don't fly anyway. They float.
They only float if the end is tied.
If you blew up a balloon and nipped the end, then let it go on Earth, it would fly away/shoot away from you because it's expelling it's air against the atmosphere pushing it in the opposite direction.
Assuming you could do the same experiment in space...the second you release the balloon, the vacuum of space would swallow the air up instantly leaving the balloon flat and going nowhere.
You are dense. The balloon moves forward only because it's expelling gas out of the back. It doesn't have to push against anything, the gas expelling out the back is what is pushing it. In fact, the atmosphere is resisting it, making it go slower. Take the office chair and medicine ball example that was given earlier. Try it. You'll like it. If they put a balloon out in space... it would just pop because the wall of the balloon isn't strong enough to hold the gasses back from expanding to reach equilibrium.
-
FatherLukeDuke:
Now that you have came on here and put me right about everything and found out I troll internet boards, I will now accept everything that the media tell me and believe everything that I have questioned.
The media? What have they got to do with it? We are talking about Newtonian physics.
On the other hand....no I won't...I'll stick to what I say. :)
You aren't telling me anything new.
I know, Newton produced Principia Mathematica in 1684.
Sticking to what you say, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is an idealogical position - it is dogma, and has no place in science. You might as well stick to religion.
Can you do an experiment to prove a rocket works in a vacuum?
I gave you an experiment to try out - have you tried it yet? Or do you prefer ignorance?
Also, I agree, science is about theories and many theories become science fact, just not all...and a rotating Earth is one such theory and so it relativity and special relativity, theories that carry no real proof.
Proof only exists in mathematics, scientific theories are accepted on the weight of evidence.
-
That diagram is pretty lolworthy.
Anyway, quick question:
When someone fires a gun and it "kicks" back at them - what do you think causes the recoil?
-
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.
So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.
Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!
My position is only ignorant to those who oppose it whilst accepting what is told to them as gospel from anything official.
We are not talking positions. We are talking about people telling lies about others.
Are you going to find the quote, or are you going to accept that you are telling lies about others?
-
Thinkingman:
That's why I said "assuming" about the balloon in space.
If you think that the atmosphere plays no part in the balloons movement, then do the experiment I gave you.
I've done it and it is exactly how I thought....
The balloon goes nowhere.
I think I'll have to do a drawing for people to try this experiment.
(http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/3106/balloon.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/547/balloon.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Try that experiment and tell me what happens.
I'll tell you what happens rather than trying it. As I'm sure you've tried this, being so smart and questioning everything you're told. The balloon with air in it will fill the other balloon to the point that the two have equal amounts of air. Now, this wont provide thrust to either balloon. First of all, there is the weight of the tube to consider. Now, the weight of each balloon I will presume is equal, as I presume you pulled these balloons out of the same bag. Now, they are connected together, so we can treat them as the same body. To cause a body to move, you need to create thrust. To create thrust, it must force something in the opposite direction from the desired direction of motion. To move the body to any noticeable effect, the force of the thrust must be greater than the mass of the body to be moved. This is especially true here on earth because we have atmospheric drag and more gravity to push against. So what you did was transfer gas from one bag to another. What you should have done was leave the balloon open ended, so that you create a thrusting force, thereby pushing the balloon forward.
I had no idea that we were moving gas from one balloon to another, or I would not have entertained you.
Now, tell me where I said that the atmosphere has no effect on the balloon? I don't recall saying that.
-
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.
Actually, you're typical pistol has very little gun powder in the casing. Certainly not enough to push a man backwards. It's actually the force of the bullet flying out of the gun at such velocities that causes the backward push. 20 grains of gun powder isn't gonna do much to a man.
A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.
No, that's completely different. Their weight is thrown backwards already, along with the force of their legs pushing against the ground. The gun is creating a thrusting force, whereas your rope example, each man has a lot of potential energy, and the rope snapping allows that potential to turn into kinetic energy.
-
Does that "large" flat , "airless" balloon, look the same size as that "small" air filled balloon?
No it doesn't does it...and there's a very god reason for it because I'm depicting a small rocket in the large vacuum of space.
The large balloon being space.
The two do not equate. I'm telling you, the thrusting force you are creating is essentially traveling through the same body. This would be like pushing all of the gasoline from the back of your car to the front. It doesn't do anything. The force of the gasses expelling out the back of the rocket is what is causing it to move, not it pushing against anything. What you're doing is like putting a rocket nozzle in a tube with a mass iron ball behind it, and expecting it to go somewhere.
-
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.
Actually, you're typical pistol has very little gun powder in the casing. Certainly not enough to push a man backwards. It's actually the force of the bullet flying out of the gun at such velocities that causes the backward push. 20 grains of gun powder isn't gonna do much to a man.
A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.
No, that's completely different. Their weight is thrown backwards already, along with the force of their legs pushing against the ground. The gun is creating a thrusting force, whereas your rope example, each man has a lot of potential energy, and the rope snapping allows that potential to turn into kinetic energy.
All I was trying to explain was action and reaction.
I'm not sure which part of that you're referring to, but if you don't understand and deny the laws of physics, how can you explain action and reaction? You don't even understand what it means. I'm trying to explain it to you. Thrust is the action, the reaction is the body moving in the opposite direction to the thrusting force. I've explained what thrust is. Does this not make sense to you?
-
That diagram is pretty lolworthy.
Anyway, quick question:
When someone fires a gun and it "kicks" back at them - what do you think causes the recoil?
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.
Not true:
In technical terms, the recoil caused by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gasses (ejecta), according to Newton's third law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil)
Lets be clear here: are you rejecting Newton's Laws of Motion?
A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.
Eh? No it's not.
-
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.
So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.
Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!
My position is only ignorant to those who oppose it whilst accepting what is told to them as gospel from anything official.
We are not talking positions. We are talking about people telling lies about others.
Are you going to find the quote, or are you going to accept that you are telling lies about others?
That's how I interpreted what you and others were saying. If I'm wrong on that, I apologise, it's just how your explanations came across, as if the rocket was pushing against itself.
Thank you for apologizing. Now, are you going to take back all of what you have been saying about Newton's third Law of Motion, which you had based totally on your misunderstanding?
-
Not at all.
I stand by rockets not working in the vacuum of space.
This is hilarious. You accept that you do not understand Newton's Third Law of Motion, which is the very basis of how rockets can move at all, in vacuum or air or a liquid, and you still declare that you know something magical about the vacuum of space will make the rockets not work there, even though they work in the simple, normal vacuum on Earth.
I can understand now why even a good Science teacher might have just given up on you when you were at school, and have spoon fed you anything at all instead of trying to teach you something of substance.
-
Show me a rocket working in a vacuum please.
Not that you'll believe it, but here:
Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17) (http://#)
-
Hey Markjo, your "Green's law of debate" is being applied very nicely here by sceptimatic.
-
Show me a rocket working in a vacuum please.
Not that you'll believe it, but here:
Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17) (http://#)
Not only does that video look pathetically faked , it is...
The strange thing is, this video showing the Apollo 17 , it does not resemble the pictures taken of it. Hmmmm.
Nice new avatar. But I think it more likely you woke up without your brains.
You state absolute fact because you don't understand the alternative.
You dismiss peer reviewed research and overwhelming evidence because you think you know better.
You tell us we are spoon fed by teachers and scientists yet you are clearly sponged by crackpot conspiracy websites.
But you do make me laugh...
-
Show me a rocket working in a vacuum please.
Not that you'll believe it, but here:
Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17) (http://#)
Not only does that video look pathetically faked , it is...
The strange thing is, this video showing the Apollo 17 , it does not resemble the pictures taken of it. Hmmmm.
Am I psychic or what? ;D
OK, I'll bite. How does that video not resemble the pictures of the back side of the Apollo 17 lunar module?
-
Are you trolling or just very stupid or too lazy to do any research?
-
And still, after a long attempt to put a stink on the video of Apollo 17's Lunar Module, the fact remains: sceptimatic does not understand Newton's Third Law of Motion, and because he does not understand it he somehow believes himself an expert in rockets in Outer Space. And even though he has been the butt of the joke for weeks now, his argument still is that somehow being the Average Joe who is unfairly treated by Big Bad Science has made his opinions magically acceptable.
-
he is the leading body in rocket science and nuclear physics.
-
In space, tell me why rocket fuel has to burn to make the rocket move.
In space it wouldn't actually have to burn the fuel - you could just squirt it out the back. It would just accelerate much more slowly than burning it, but it would still work. It is all about Newton's third law:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
You can read about the Third Law here in simple terms:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm)
Check out the questions section...
And this is a demonstration, including....ballons:
Demonstration Of Newton's Third Law Of Motion (http://#)
I also linked this earlier, which shows how you can conduct a third law experiment yourself, and
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
I suspect you didn't read it earlier, but if you are serious about learning, then please do.
So burning the fuel accelerates it out of the rocket much more quickly than squirting it, as the above article says:
Of course, rockets work on more sophisticated principles than just tossing fuel out the back. First, the fuel is burned and its hot exhaust gases are expelled at very high velocity (if you toss the medicine ball faster, your body experiences greater backward force). And the rocket's exhaust nozzle has a narrowing so as to squirt the exhaust gasses out even faster, like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. Exhaust from chemical propulsion (i.e., fuel-burning propulsion) is typically expelled at 2 km/s (= 4500 mph), and your average rocket mass at launch is 80-85% propellant (fuel + oxidizer), most of which eventually gets squirted out.
Rockets in space work exactly the same as they do in space - apart from they have to overcome stuff like gravity and friction.
-
you do realise this website is for the flat earth society and not the conspiracy society. im questioning why none of these threads have been moved as they are nothing to do with flat earth theory. this is alternate science if it needs a label. or RM.
-
you do realise this website is for the flat earth society and not the conspiracy society. im questioning why none of these threads have been moved as they are nothing to do with flat earth theory. this is alternate science if it needs a label. or RM.
The board-specific rules:
Here you can freely discuss about the Flat Earth Society or the Flat Earth movement in general. For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss Flat Earth Theory itself, you should go to Flat Earth Q&A (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=12.0) or Flat Earth Debate (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=10.0). Keep in mind that although somewhat relaxed, this forum is still subject to the Forum Rules (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1499.0).
[emphasis added]
From the Forum Rules:
Flat Earth General
- For the discussion of any FE topics unrelated to Flat Earth Theory, e.g. "Hey, I just saw an article about FES on the BBC website! Are you guys for real???". Conspiracy topics also belong here.
[emphasis added]
-
nice one master for clearing that up
-
You see that big exhaust looking think perched on the top of the supposed LM in that video.
Go and find it on the other LM pictures.
I'm going to look that piece up to find out what it actually is, I'll see if I can find a diagram of it to see of they show it as it's not on the pictures I've seen.
I did notice that you said the backside of the LM. It's almost as if you are trying to cover something up. ;D
What would I try to cover up? You do realize that things that have a front side also have a back side, don't you? The lunar rover that was taking the video was parked behind the lunar module. Nothing to hide or cover up. The only mystery is why I keep trying to explain these things to you.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
You see that balloon with the tube inside it on the car, well try that experiment yourself but this time put a large flat balloon on the other end of the tube and see if the car moves.
You will find that it doesn't.
Why does't it move?
I would not move because it is attached to a heavier balloon that stops it from moving.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
You see that balloon with the tube inside it on the car, well try that experiment yourself but this time put a large flat balloon on the other end of the tube and see if the car moves.
You will find that it doesn't.
Why does't it move?
Because the air being expelled from the balloon on top of the car is swallowed up by the larger balloon that has no air inside it.
EXACTLY. That's what I've been trying to tell you. You're not causing anything thrust. You're moving a gas from one part of the "craft" (the two balloons teathered together with the tube) into another.
Try the same experiment with 2 balloons of equal size and fill both with air, yet fill one of them with a little less air and what you will see is....the one with more air inside, will expel some of it into the other balloon until equal air pressure is attained, in both balloons.
Yes, you're right. Congratulations. See above. A vacuum is an open space with no air or any mass in it. A deflated balloon is not an open space.
What you will then notice is that the elasticity of both balloons is forcing the air they both have against each other but they are equal, so, if the tube is not in so tight into the necks of those balloons, they will repel each other...and equal and opposite reaction.
That is not equal and opposite reaction. Please actually read Newton's third law of motion. Guess what? It came to be understood by one man, Isaac Newton, before "official sources" were "spoon feeding" it to anyone. In fact, no one was spoon feeding anything like it to anyone. It was going against the grain.
The reason why some people don't get the equal and opposite reaction in a vacuum, is because they hang onto things being repelled against each other as in the person on a wheeled chair against the mass of a medicine ball, yet the equal and opposite reaction works in space, only in a negative form.
You just simply don't understand. The reason the wheelchair can move is because mass/energy was forced in the opposite direction of it's desired motion. It has nothing to do with pushing against the air. If that was so, you could use the medicine ball as a sail on a boat and it would be quite effective. Hell, you could use air as a sail on a boat and it would be quite effective.
For instance:
In space, the rocket applies the force , expelling it's fuel (if it were possible, which it wouldn't be) into space, which is one action, and the vacuum of space swallows it up as fast as it comes out, creating an equal and opposite reaction, which means that the rocket could sit there all day long and expel fuel but space would swallow it up exactly as fast as it was coming out.
No, the action is the expelling of the mass/energy, and the reaction is the rocket moving in the opposite direction of the force.
Try and picture it like this.
Go on a treadmill and imagine yourself as the rocket, meaning your legs are the propulsion.
Space is the floor of that treadmill.
Ok, start running and what happens?
What you will observe is, no matter how fast you run, your legs will be equally pushing that floor away from you, basically, you are using all your energy up until you collapse...but you have gone "nowhere" just like a rocket in space would go "nowhere"
How does that even equate? A vacuum isn't a solid object moving under your feet in the opposite way that you are trying to go.
The only way you would propel forward, was if the floor roller seized up, which would propel you forward. Now if N.A.S.A can somehow get the vacuum of space to seize, up, then off you go, whizzing along.
Let's not hold our breath for that though....or should we?
A vacuum isn't moving, so it can't seize up. There's nothing in a vacuum to move. So it can't seize up, nor can it "move under your feet."
What you don't seem to understand is rocket propulsion isn't like swimming. When you're swimming, you're fuel is the water around you, your thrust is pushing the water back. It's difficult and extremely inefficient. When a rocket goes, it's fuel is in the tank. It burns this fuel to create a more energetic thrust. By burning it, the mass/energy moves faster out of the nozzles than it would have just being pumped out. So the rocket goes in the opposite direction of the force.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
I think this is the best point against sceptimatics idea of the balloon experiment working because of earth atmosphere. Because all the atmosphere does is increase the resistance, so if according to him that is what makes it move, and that is why they would not work in space, a denser environment would mean more movement. But it doesn't.
-
What you don't seem to understand is rocket propulsion isn't like swimming. When you're swimming, you're fuel is the water around you, your thrust is pushing the water back. It's difficult and extremely inefficient. When a rocket goes, it's fuel is in the tank. It burns this fuel to create a more energetic thrust. By burning it, the mass/energy moves faster out of the nozzles than it would have just being pumped out. So the rocket goes in the opposite direction of the force.
What he does not understand is the complete Third Newton's Law of Motion. He has accepted this fact but still talks like he knew what he was saying when an experiment that is based on that law passes through his head.
I think he knows that we have answered every single question he has raised around this subject.
-
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
I think this is the best point against sceptimatics idea of the balloon experiment working because of earth atmosphere. Because all the atmosphere does is increase the resistance, so if according to him that is what makes it move, and that is why they would not work in space, a denser environment would mean more movement. But it doesn't.
It's a very bad point .
Explain why you would move less on the water or any other denser environment, if according to you is the push against this density (air resistance) that makes movements like this possible in earth, while no density in space (vacuum) would mean no movement.
-
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
If you talk about weight, you are already taking gravity as a factor.
-
Explain why you would move less on the water or any other denser environment, if according to you is the push against this density (air resistance) that makes movements like this possible in earth, while no density in space (vacuum) would mean no movement.
I didn't mean it was a bad point as regards that, I meant it's a bad point to make as I'm not dealing with water or anything working better than anything else on Earth.
My argument is simply that the vacuum of space is( what we are told) a vacuum and a rocket will not work in the vacuum of the expanse of space.
I find it ironic how you repeat "how we have been told" so many times on your posts, but never understanding what "we have been told". Because vacuum is just that, nothing, no air, no density, there is no reason for things to magically stop working. That is something you added.
If air density was the factor that allowed movement in the experiment, you should move more increasing the density.
-
Don't be changing it now.
You and others said that it was mass and "not" gravity or air that caused the action/reaction.
I don't really know what you mean, but if we are talking about rockets , gravity is a factor to take in account because it makes it harder for the rocket to get into space, not helping it move (if that is what you meant)
-
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
Gravity is always a factor. We were explaining the fundamentals of the laws of motion. Gravity is not a factor in the third law of motion, but it is a factor on the whole scale, i.e. what I said before, an object in motion will continue in motion until another force acts on it.
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
If you talk about weight, you are already taking gravity as a factor.
Don't be changing it now.
You and others said that it was mass and "not" gravity or air that caused the action/reaction.
No one said gravity does not cause the action/reaction, and also, no one said it does. Because guess what, gravity has nothing to do with how a rocket works. The rocket has to fight gravity and air resistance to go anywhere, be it up in space or into your front window. Everything here on earth's surface has to fight gravity and air resistance. Why do you think airplanes are so streamline looking, as well as rockets? If they were cube shaped, it would be much more difficult to keep them aloft.
Now, mass and energy are factors in the action/reaction. Just mass and energy. That's it. You're either not reading everything we say and picking out select words to try and troll with, or you're simply not comprehending it at all.
-
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
Gravity is always a factor. We were explaining the fundamentals of the laws of motion. Gravity is not a factor in the third law of motion, but it is a factor on the whole scale, i.e. what I said before, an object in motion will continue in motion until another force acts on it.
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
If you talk about weight, you are already taking gravity as a factor.
Don't be changing it now.
You and others said that it was mass and "not" gravity or air that caused the action/reaction.
No one said gravity does not cause the action/reaction, and also, no one said it does. Because guess what, gravity has nothing to do with how a rocket works. The rocket has to fight gravity and air resistance to go anywhere, be it up in space or into your front window. Everything here on earth's surface has to fight gravity and air resistance. Why do you think airplanes are so streamline looking, as well as rockets? If they were cube shaped, it would be much more difficult to keep them aloft.
Now, mass and energy are factors in the action/reaction. Just mass and energy. That's it. You're either not reading everything we say and picking out select words to try and troll with, or you're simply not comprehending it at all.
I'm not talking about a rocket overcoming gravity though, I was on about the medicine ball experiment and you saying gravity has nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about space and rockets. Not rockets overcoming Earth's gravity.
The medicine ball experiment is the same concept as a rocket. You're expelling a mass one way to move a mass another way.
Space and rockets. What do you think rockets have to do to get to space? I'll give you a hint, look at the words I made bold in your quote.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
I think this is the best point against sceptimatics idea of the balloon experiment working because of earth atmosphere. Because all the atmosphere does is increase the resistance, so if according to him that is what makes it move, and that is why they would not work in space, a denser environment would mean more movement. But it doesn't.
It's a very bad point .
Explain why you would move less on the water or any other denser environment, if according to you is the push against this density (air resistance) that makes movements like this possible in earth, while no density in space (vacuum) would mean no movement.
I didn't mean it was a bad point as regards that, I meant it's a bad point to make as I'm not dealing with water or anything working better than anything else on Earth.
My argument is simply that the vacuum of space is( what we are told) a vacuum and a rocket will not work in the vacuum of the expanse of space.
Also wouldn't the "vacuum" of space suck the atmosphere off of the earth.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
I think this is the best point against sceptimatics idea of the balloon experiment working because of earth atmosphere. Because all the atmosphere does is increase the resistance, so if according to him that is what makes it move, and that is why they would not work in space, a denser environment would mean more movement. But it doesn't.
It's a very bad point .
Explain why you would move less on the water or any other denser environment, if according to you is the push against this density (air resistance) that makes movements like this possible in earth, while no density in space (vacuum) would mean no movement.
I didn't mean it was a bad point as regards that, I meant it's a bad point to make as I'm not dealing with water or anything working better than anything else on Earth.
My argument is simply that the vacuum of space is( what we are told) a vacuum and a rocket will not work in the vacuum of the expanse of space.
Also wouldn't the "vacuum" of space suck the atmosphere off of the earth.
I have but one word for you. Gravity.
-
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
Gravity is always a factor. We were explaining the fundamentals of the laws of motion. Gravity is not a factor in the third law of motion, but it is a factor on the whole scale, i.e. what I said before, an object in motion will continue in motion until another force acts on it.
This mass and weight only scenario to explain Newtons third law is genius really, because it allows the rocket working in space to actually be plausible.
The truth is, it's just as simple to experiment to prove Newtons law relies on all 4 , (mass/weight/atmosphere/gravity) to make anything act/react.
Weight is mass. Atmosphere is mass. Atmosphere interferes with thrust. You need more thrust to move in atmosphere than you do in a vacuum because of drag. And it's not just mass we're talking about, it's mass/energy. Gravity is a factor, it's one of Newton's laws. Also, inertia is part of the laws of motion. It says an object in motion will continue with that motion unless acted upon by another force, i.e. gravity, friction.
Oh, so now gravity is a factor?
It wasn't before by your explanations.
If you talk about weight, you are already taking gravity as a factor.
Don't be changing it now.
You and others said that it was mass and "not" gravity or air that caused the action/reaction.
No one said gravity does not cause the action/reaction, and also, no one said it does. Because guess what, gravity has nothing to do with how a rocket works. The rocket has to fight gravity and air resistance to go anywhere, be it up in space or into your front window. Everything here on earth's surface has to fight gravity and air resistance. Why do you think airplanes are so streamline looking, as well as rockets? If they were cube shaped, it would be much more difficult to keep them aloft.
Now, mass and energy are factors in the action/reaction. Just mass and energy. That's it. You're either not reading everything we say and picking out select words to try and troll with, or you're simply not comprehending it at all.
I'm not talking about a rocket overcoming gravity though, I was on about the medicine ball experiment and you saying gravity has nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about space and rockets. Not rockets overcoming Earth's gravity.
The medicine ball experiment is the same concept as a rocket. You're expelling a mass one way to move a mass another way.
Space and rockets. What do you think rockets have to do to get to space? I'll give you a hint, look at the words I made bold in your quote.
When I mentioned gravity to you earlier in the topic , with the medicine ball experiment, you denied gravity was a factor in it and said it was simply mass and energy.
Please quote me where I denied gravity as a factor. It does not contribute to the third law of motion. It only hinders continuous motion in this case.
-
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.
So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.
I think this is the best point against sceptimatics idea of the balloon experiment working because of earth atmosphere. Because all the atmosphere does is increase the resistance, so if according to him that is what makes it move, and that is why they would not work in space, a denser environment would mean more movement. But it doesn't.
It's a very bad point .
Explain why you would move less on the water or any other denser environment, if according to you is the push against this density (air resistance) that makes movements like this possible in earth, while no density in space (vacuum) would mean no movement.
I didn't mean it was a bad point as regards that, I meant it's a bad point to make as I'm not dealing with water or anything working better than anything else on Earth.
My argument is simply that the vacuum of space is( what we are told) a vacuum and a rocket will not work in the vacuum of the expanse of space.
Also wouldn't the "vacuum" of space suck the atmosphere off of the earth.
Theoretically yes it would.
So, either space isn't what we are led to believe it is, or we have some kind of barrier protecting the Earth from this happening.
This is why the Earth can be explained in many ways and is why the FET,RET,even an Earth with a hollow in it can be debated because in truth, if everyone admitted it, we are only infants when it comes to knowing just what we are really a part of.
Those that go with the official line, simply accept what they are told and stick rigidly to that, even if some of it makes no sense at all.
If official science said the Earth was a pyramid and showed this from space and give reasons as to why we can't see a big pyramid point on Earth, it would be explained away with a chalk board full of brain zapping equations that any intelligent person would never even attempt to fathom out and those that did, would shout from the roof tops that it all adds up without having the faintest idea as to what it adds up to.
No, stupid people would not attempt these "brain zapping equations" you speak of. Intelligent people are the reason that we know what we know today. No one just made shit up.
-
Also wouldn't the "vacuum" of space suck the atmosphere off of the earth.
Theoretically yes it would.
So, either space isn't what we are led to believe it is, or we have some kind of barrier protecting the Earth from this happening.
This is why the Earth can be explained in many ways and is why the FET,RET,even an Earth with a hollow in it can be debated because in truth, if everyone admitted it, we are only infants when it comes to knowing just what we are really a part of.
Those that go with the official line, simply accept what they are told and stick rigidly to that, even if some of it makes no sense at all.
If official science said the Earth was a pyramid and showed this from space and give reasons as to why we can't see a big pyramid point on Earth, it would be explained away with a chalk board full of brain zapping equations that any intelligent person would never even attempt to fathom out and those that did, would shout from the roof tops that it all adds up without having the faintest idea as to what it adds up to.
Where is the chalk board full of complicated equations here? we are talking about basic stuff here, than can be verified with simple experiments, action/reaction, gravity. Gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay around the earth. "if official science said"... clearly you don't even know what means.
-
On a rocket lifting off from Earth, we know it hinders continuous motion. I'm not on about hindering though.
I'm on about it plays a factor in throwing the medicine ball and the reaction from throwing that medicine ball, along with the mass of the ball, plus the energy in releasing the ball, plus friction, although in a minor role against the mass.
A beach ball would simply have friction as it's major force with gravity and mass having minimal effect.
I didn't know you were talking about the medicine ball when i answered about rockets, I think that was the problem. In the medicine ball experiment, gravity has nothing to do with the movement. It is present because we are on earth... but it doesn't help with the movement.
-
On a rocket lifting off from Earth, we know it hinders continuous motion. I'm not on about hindering though.
But it does hinder. It pulls you and the chair down, along with the atmosphere, so that when you throw the ball, there is friction from the atmosphere and the floor and it slows your movement.
I'm on about it plays a factor in throwing the medicine ball and the reaction from throwing that medicine ball, along with the mass of the ball, plus the energy in releasing the ball, plus friction, although in a minor role against the mass.
A beach ball would simply have friction as it's major force with gravity and mass having minimal effect.
It doesn't play a factor in "the reaction from throwing the medicine ball." The only two factors in that are the mass of the ball and the mass of you + the chair (object to be moved). A beach ball has a lot less mass, so if you moved at all, it would be so very little as to not be noticed. Friction is not part of the third law of motion.
-
For instance, imagine picking up a cannon ball. It's heavy right? really heavy. Now think of holding that cannon ball on a skateboard.
Tip that cannon ball out of your hands and it will drop straight to the floor, because you have put no pushing motion into it and allowed gravity to take over the mass of the ball, so you just stay put.
I think you can accept that right?
Ok, now pick that cannonball up and throw it straight up and you will find that you expend a lot of energy in doing that, whilst also feeling your skateboard bend slightly with the downward force of gravity, plus mass against your upward force right?
Ok, now we go for the throwing the ball away from yourself. Imagine holding the ball up to chest height and launching it away from you.
The second you apply energy to that ball to launch it, gravity is immediately also acting on the mass of that ball and pushing it down against your energy in pushing it outwards forcing your skateboard backwards due to the mass and gravity acting together.
I'm sure you can understand this.
Now imagine floating in space on that skate board.
There is no up,down,sideways, forward or back, it's simply nothing and you are nothing in space and neither is the skateboard or the cannon ball.
You can launch that cannon ball above your head, below...sideways and you will feel no force of it because it weighs nothing and has no "mass"
Now although you could launch that cannonball, there is no reaction to your body because there is nothing to push you back as space is devoid of matter.
If you were just floating in space on your own and flapped your arms, kicked your feet, pushed out arms outwards with the same action you earlier launched the cannon ball...you would go nowhere because you are simply pushing against nothing but yourself. You are suspended.
That doesn't make sense, because i push it to one side and the gravity pulls it down i move to the other side? that is pure sceptimatic's logic... Gravity is always acting on the ball and on me, not only the second I release it. So why would that happen when I let the ball go? try pushing that heavy ball forward without dropping it. You will move a little back but will be stopped because of the ball trying to move in the opposite direction while attached to you, but you are still pushing to one side with your arms counteracting gravity.
-
It does where the mass of the object thrown is denser.
Density is irrelevant. Total mass is what is relevant.
For instance, imagine picking up a cannon ball. It's heavy right? really heavy. Now think of holding that cannon ball on a skateboard.
Tip that cannon ball out of your hands and it will drop straight to the floor, because you have put no pushing motion into it and allowed gravity to take over the mass of the ball, so you just stay put.
I think you can accept that right?
Ok, now pick that cannonball up and throw it straight up and you will find that you expend a lot of energy in doing that, whilst also feeling your skateboard bend slightly with the downward force of gravity, plus mass against your upward force right?
Ok, now we go for the throwing the ball away from yourself. Imagine holding the ball up to chest height and launching it away from you.
The second you apply energy to that ball to launch it, gravity is immediately also acting on the mass of that ball and pushing it down against your energy in pushing it outwards forcing your skateboard backwards due to the mass and gravity acting together.
I actually cannot accept that. The only reason you are push backward is because you are forcing an object with a lot of mass away from you. Mass is independent of gravity. Gravity has no bearing on the third law of motion. Gravity is only relevant in you throwing the ball upwards, as gravity attracts towards the center of mass.
I'm sure you can understand this.
I understand your misconception, yes. I'm trying to help you rectify it.
Now imagine floating in space on that skate board.
There is no up,down,sideways, forward or back, it's simply nothing and you are nothing in space and neither is the skateboard or the cannon ball.
You can launch that cannon ball above your head, below...sideways and you will feel no force of it because it weighs nothing and has no "mass"
There is still mass in space. There is mass everywhere. Mass is simply "the amount of matter in an object." You're thinking of weight, which has no bearing on the laws of motion. Weight is a function of gravity. If you're in orbit, you're in constant freefall, and therefore "weightless" because you're tangential speed to gravity has counteracted gravities effects in your frame of reference.
Now although you could launch that cannonball, there is no reaction to your body because there is nothing to push you back as space is devoid of matter.
Actually, if you push on the cannon ball, you will both move. If the cannon ball has more mass than your body, your body will move more. If your body has more mass than the cannon ball, then the cannon ball will more more. That's what the third law of motion states.
If you were just floating in space on your own and flapped your arms, kicked your feet, pushed out arms outwards with the same action you earlier launched the cannon ball...you would go nowhere because you are simply pushing against nothing but yourself. You are suspended.
Actually, if you flap your limbs in just the right way, it will cause you to "move" in your frame of reference as you will be shifting your center of mass around. This is similar to lurching back and forth in a wheelchair without the wheel locks on. You've can't swim in space, as that requires something to push against. You also won't get very far throwing your mass around, you probably won't even move enough to notice, unless you're right up next to something, then you may notice.
-
Not sure why I'm bothering...but here we go:
You can launch that cannon ball above your head, below...sideways and you will feel no force of it because it weighs nothing and has no "mass"
Of course it has mass. It doesn't have weight, but this is irrelevant.
Now although you could launch that cannonball, there is no reaction to your body because there is nothing to push you back as space is devoid of matter.
The equal and opposite reaction pushes you back. This is Newton's third law, and it operates wherever you are.
If you were just floating in space on your own and flapped your arms, kicked your feet, pushed out arms outwards with the same action you earlier launched the cannon ball...you would go nowhere because you are simply pushing against nothing but yourself. You are suspended.
Quite. Now take off a shoe and throw it - you will move in the opposite direction with the same momentum as the shoe.
-
What you don't seem to understand is rocket propulsion isn't like swimming. When you're swimming, you're fuel is the water around you, your thrust is pushing the water back. It's difficult and extremely inefficient. When a rocket goes, it's fuel is in the tank. It burns this fuel to create a more energetic thrust. By burning it, the mass/energy moves faster out of the nozzles than it would have just being pumped out. So the rocket goes in the opposite direction of the force.
What he does not understand is the complete Third Newton's Law of Motion. He has accepted this fact but still talks like he knew what he was saying when an experiment that is based on that law passes through his head.
I think he knows that we have answered every single question he has raised around this subject.
The biggest problem is you and others only half understanding Newtons third law of motion. You completely neglect the atmosphere or gravity and simply use mass and weight. It's all of them.
Stop the presses, call Stockholm, in fact, stop this civilization on its tracks!!!
Not even Newton understood his own Third Law of Motion! Every machine created since the Industrial Revolution was designed wrong!!!
Newton, in his incredible ineptitude, forgot to include the atmosphere and gravity in his Third Law of Motion!!! And every scientist of the last 300 years or so has also missed the error!!!
Thank the Average Joe (a.k.a. sceptimatic) for finally understanding that the Third Law of Motion is the effect of the atmosphere and gravity on the movement of rockets!!!
OK, I promise I will laugh at Average Joe a little less in the future.
-
how are you going to demonstrate that to us?
-
you're not demonstrating anything.
fuel isn't released from a rocket in space. do you even have an inkling of how rockets work?
-
I agree that the ball has mass because it has matter, fair enough, but what I am trying to say is, the matter in the cannon ball would be of no consequence because space renders it weightless.
You do you understand that even though an object is rendered weightless, it still has mass, don't you?
-
Fuel isn't released from a rocket in space? Hmmmm.
So are you saying that the rocket works by keeping a tank of fuel and not expelling it?
No, fuel is not released out the back of a rocket. A rocket works by burning fuel and expelling the gasses out the back.
-
Ok , just answer this simple question.
If you were sat in a wheelchair and had a cannon ball.....You throw that cannon ball away from you in a straight line and your friend who happened to weigh exactly the same as you and had the exact same wheelchair and a matching cannonball, threw his cannon ball at an upwards angle, who would move further back?
Why don't you just make your point? the one pushing it to one side.
-
Yes I know a rocket burns fuel.
I just want to know how it expels the fuel from the tank to achieve this constant high pressure burn.
A rocket doesn't "expel" fuel. It pumps fuel and oxidizer into a combustion chamber where they are burned. This burning releases a great deal of energy in the form of rapidly expanding gasses that are expelled out the back.
-
Yes I know a rocket burns fuel.
I just want to know how it expels the fuel from the tank to achieve this constant high pressure burn.
A rocket doesn't "expel" fuel. It pumps fuel and oxidizer into a combustion chamber where they are burned. This burning releases a great deal of energy in the form of rapidly expanding gasses that are expelled out the back.
What do the rapidly expanding gases actually do to propel the rocket?
Why do I get the feeling that we've been over this before?
Again, it has to do with unbalanced forces within the rocket engine. The gasses push out in all directions against the combustion chamber except where they can escape out through the "throat" of the engine.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Rocket_engine.svg/220px-Rocket_engine.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine)
-
Yes I know a rocket burns fuel.
I just want to know how it expels the fuel from the tank to achieve this constant high pressure burn.
A rocket doesn't "expel" fuel. It pumps fuel and oxidizer into a combustion chamber where they are burned. This burning releases a great deal of energy in the form of rapidly expanding gasses that are expelled out the back.
What do the rapidly expanding gases actually do to propel the rocket?
Why do I get the feeling that we've been over this before?
Again, it has to do with unbalanced forces within the rocket engine. The gasses push out in all directions against the combustion chamber except where they can escape out through the "throat" of the engine.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Rocket_engine.svg/220px-Rocket_engine.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine)
So what is the burning fuel pushing against to make the rocket move?
Are you saying that it's actually pushing against the rocket itself?
The gasses are pushing against the combustion chamber which is a part of the rocket engine which is a part of the rocket. So yes, in a roundabout way, the exhaust gasses are pushing against the rocket itself.
-
You do see how silly this sounds don't you.
Oh I know I'll get told I don't understand rocket physics and all that but you see, it seriously makes no sense whatsoever.
In an atmosphere it's not hard to understand how a rocket works, in space it's relied on Newtons third law but I do not see how a burn or exhaust can propel a rocket in space, I really can't.
It's like someone asking me to lift myself up by grabbing my own legs with my own arms.
Don't get me wrong, it's genius in the way it's told as to how they work in space but the reality is, it's absolutely impossible.
What i can't understand is why you think this doesn't works on space if it does on earth. The only thing the atmosphere does with this is add density.
If there is an explosion, it will push you, weather you are on earth or on space, i told you this before, you accepted it, but the thing you questioned then was "weather or not an explosion could happen in space". But now it seems you have changed your mind.
-
Oh I know I'll get told I don't understand rocket physics and all that but you see, it seriously makes no sense whatsoever.
In an atmosphere it's not hard to understand how a rocket works, in space it's relied on Newtons third law but I do not see how a burn or exhaust can propel a rocket in space, I really can't.
If you think that there is a difference between how a rocket works in an atmosphere and how it works in an atmosphere, then you're right, you don't understand rocket physics or Newton's third law. I think that we've reached the point where if you don't understand it by now, then we can't explain it in a way that you will.
-
So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.
All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.
I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.
Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.
Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.
Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.
A contracted spring is a different matter. That would send both balls opposite ways.
A bomb explosion would mean release of gasses with that energy, gas is matter.
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
(By the way, If you press Ctrl while moving the mouse wheel up, you can maximize the screen to read the small letter)
-
Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?
Yes.
And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?
In a way, yes. Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).
It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.
What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?
-
After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."
-
I haven't changed my mind about anything I've said.
I might have told you that I understand what you are saying on things, it doesn't mean I agree with it.
Newtons law will not and never will work in the vacuum of space. No matter how you dress it up or how rocket scientists dress it up..a rocket will not work in space.
The vacuum would instantly swallow up anything inside that rocket the second the fuel was released ready to fire.
If a rocket somehow managed to get out of the atmosphere into space, that's where it would stop.
Vacuum being called vacuum has nothing to do with a vacuum cleaner, it does not suck anything. A word in english, closer to the concept vacuum in space should be, would be something like "void".
-
Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?
Yes.
And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?
In a way, yes. Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).
It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.
What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?
What do you mean?
What part don't you understand?
-
After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."
Can you elaborate here, I'm not with you here.
Never mind.
An explosion releases gases at high pressure in every direction, gas is matter, that gas is moving against the rocket, pushing it, if you push something, it moves. The rocket moves.
We can make it more simple by understanding that if I push something it will move.
-
Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?
Yes.
And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?
In a way, yes. Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).
It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.
What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?
What do you mean?
What part don't you understand?
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
You asked and I answered 3 questions. Which of those answers are you having trouble with?
-
Yes that is more simple. If you push something, it moves.
If you push your own car, it moves but you are outside of your car when you push it, with your feet on the ground , using your legs as the energy source.
For your working rocket, you are asking me to believe that I can get into my car , shut the door and push it from inside.
Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.
Well, is not the rocket actually pushing against itself, its the gasses at high pressure (expanding a lot faster than if they were just released into vacuum) pushing against the rocket.
I can't make a comparison of it with a man pushing a car, because the gasses are constantly leaving the rocket. So it would be like the man just pushed the car once and stayed outside, but that would be just one explosion, it would be more like a bus full of men, one jumps out of the back window and pushes it, then the next does, but they are pushing using friction against the floor to move the bus more efficiently, in the rocket, the explosion is gas expanding, only pushing against the rocket, so it would be more like each man jumping in the air and kicking the bus, the men are the fuel, the bus is the rocket and the kick is the explosion. Of course that is not at all an effective way of moving a bus, just trying to make a comparison of what would it really be like if we wanted to transfer this to men and car, this explosions generate a lot of energy, enough to move the rocket.
-
Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?
Yes.
And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?
In a way, yes. Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).
It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.
What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?
What do you mean?
What part don't you understand?
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
You asked and I answered 3 questions. Which of those answers are you having trouble with?
I'm not having trouble with any answers, I'm just trying to work out what you are getting at.
I was trying to get at answering your questions. What were you trying to get at?
-
After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."
Can you elaborate here, I'm not with you here.
Never mind.
An explosion releases gases at high pressure in every direction, gas is matter, that gas is moving against the rocket, pushing it, if you push something, it moves. The rocket moves.
We can make it more simple by understanding that if I push something it will move.
Yes that is more simple. If you push something, it moves.
If you push your own car, it moves but you are outside of your car when you push it, with your feet on the ground , using your legs as the energy source.
For your working rocket, you are asking me to believe that I can get into my car , shut the door and push it from inside.
Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.
Eh, no. This is stupid.
He is saying that the rocket is the car. The fuel is inside, until it burns and the gases are expelled outside, into space, pushing the rocket.
Everyone is really trying to explain these things simply, as you requested.
-
Guys, I think we are just being cleverly trolled. This guy is from 4chan or something. Seriously.
-
What is the force that releases the fuel from a rocket in space?
It is the force caused by the expansion of gases by chemical and thermal energy. In the end, what matters is the kinetic energy of the gases that are being released.
In other words, when a cold, combustible solid, liquid or gas mixes with a comburant the mix is a hot gas that accelerates from nothing (relative to the rocket) to a very high speed before reaching the end of the nozzle. There you have the mass and the acceleration, so Newton's Second Law of Motion gives you the force.
Stop believing you know all the holes in Newton's Laws. You have not found a single one.
-
Guys, I think we are just being cleverly trolled. This guy is from 4chan or something. Seriously.
You have to be right.
No one can be this ignorant.
-
Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.
I do not mind so much that you have no idea whatsoever about Physics. But this claim by you is just plain lying.
You are trying to say that your opponent is an ignorant, when the only thing that is happening is that you are playing word games, showing in the process your own ignorance.
Maybe you cannot debate cleanly because you have already lost a couple of weeks ago and have nothing to add since then.
-
I'm not saying I know all the holes in Newtons laws, I'm simply saying that Newtons law is rendered useless in space
Could you tell us how Newton's Laws of motion are "rendered useless" in space?
-
Could you tell us how Newton's Laws of motion are "rendered useless" in space?
Space is a vacuum, it's devoid of matter.
So what? Newton's Third Law is this:
Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Do you see a vacuum mentioned?
If you truly believe a vacuum magically nullifies a physical law, then this would be trivial to prove. Create a vacuum and carry out some simple motion experiments in it. Any basic lab would be able to do it.
Of course you won't. You have no interest in learning, just posturing as a pseudo free-thinker by denying well established facts.
-
But you lot aren't explaining it simply. It may seem simple to you but you are asking me to understand something that I find impossible to work.
I'd like a very basic simple explanation with a crude diagram if possible as to exactly how the fuel pushes the rocket without any external influence.
This is, again and again, your Average Joe ruse. You cannot combine your "I'm more intelligent than the whole scientific community together" speeches with your admissions that you don't understand the Third Law of Motion, with your claims that other people say objects push themselves.
Take a stand and stay with it, or concede defeat.
-
if rockets can't exist in space, how does the sun, planets, stars, moon, ect do?
-
To you and others, Newtons law in space is fine because you have been told how a rocket works and you go with it because You accept space travel, so everything is fine.
I have, as so many others, seen the Laws of Newton working in a vacuum. They work. The only thing you have to argue is that you know, even though nobody else does, that the vacuum of space is different from the vacuum on Earth.
Anyhow you say it, you are an arrogant ignorant who has nothing to say, but still declares himself better than the whole scientific community as a whole.
I could have been spoon fed a little or a lot, but experiments do not have any compassion for spoon fed lies. Experiments work or experiments do not work. And you have done just about no experiments in your life. Worse, you have lied about doing them.
-
A vacuum nullifies the propulsion of a rocket by means of the fuel they use, it's as simple as that.
I didn't ask about rockets or fuel. I asked how a vacuum nullifies Newton's third law. Please answer this question.
I'm not saying I am smarter than anybody.
You are saying you are smarter than rocket scientists. You are saying you are smarter than Newton, Einstein and Feynman. You are saying you are smarter than all of the PhD physicists alive in the world today.
All of these people use (or actually formulated) Newton's Laws, and all of them think they apply in a vacuum (or anywhere else for that matter). You are saying they are wrong about this, and you are right. You are therefore claiming you are smarter than them.
-
You talk of an explosion....is it an actual explosion or is it simply a fuel burn.
For instance:
In a car, the fuel is squirted into the piston cylinder and is ignited by the spark plug and it ignites and expands, forcing the piston to move and this can be construed as an explosion.
This turns the crank etc and your car moves as soon as you put it in gear.
Now a car engine experiences these explosions on every full piston movement,
So are you saying that a rocket constantly explodes its fuel like this, or does it simply ignite once and "burn?"
Its more like a constant controlled explosion, because is always releasing gases at high pressure.
-
Who's to say they aren't just following protocol, or lose their jobs?
Who? Newton and Einstein? You think Newton formulated his Laws of Motion do he didn't lose his job?
Protocol? What the hell are you on about anyway? How do you think engineers build stuff like skyscrapers and bridges without using the Third law?
Still, you are still avoiding the question of how a vacuum invalidates the laws of motion?
-
combustion!
-
ask thork. he is backing you
-
You are still avoiding my questions.
1 How does a vacuum invalidate the laws of motion?
2 How do engineers still manage to build stuff like skyscrapers, bridges tunnels under the sea etc if the science they use is completely wrong?
-
combustion!
Combustion is simply a burn..I want to know how the rocket expels high pressure burning fuel.
No, you said yourself, that a combustion engine moves the piston by causing little explosions, that is also combustion.
-
Yes, in a piston engine. Does a rocket have pistons?
No, in any internal combustion engine
A rocket ignites and simply burns it's fuel.
I asked what pressure was used to expel it as in...is it gravity fed or a pump or what?
No, most rockets also use internal combustion engine, instead of using the energy to move a piston, they use a more energy to move the rocket.
-
Regardless...it's still a constant burn. It's not like mini bombs going off every second is it.
I'll ask again.
How does a rocket expel it's fuel at high pressure?
Just as in any internal combustion engine, if im not mistaken, i remember you said you knew how they worked, well i don't, but you can find that information anywhere.
Wikipedia: The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the combustion of a fuel occurs with an oxidizer in a combustion chamber that is an integral part of the working fluid flow circuit. In an internal combustion engine (ICE) the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases produced by combustion apply direct force to some component of the engine.
-
If you don't know how rockets work, why are you telling me that they work according to Newtons third law?
I don't know what causes the gas expansion at high preassure in a combustion engine, that doesn't cause it when you simple burn fuel, but i know it works because its used in cars, jets, misiles, etc. I was explaining how that expansion makes the rocket moves.
-
Yes, but not exactly the fuel pushing the rocket, but the high pressure of the gases in expansion.
-
Can't you see how you have been duped into believing this, seriously?
So what does not make sense to you now?
-
1 How does a vacuum invalidate the laws of motion?I answered it, you must have missed it.
No, you didn't answer it.
How does a vacuum invalidate Newton's laws?
2 How do engineers still manage to build stuff like skyscrapers, bridges tunnels under the sea etc if the science they use is completely wrong?I have no problem with the science behind most things on Earth, my problem is with the laws of physics in space.
The laws of physics are the same everywhere. Why do you think they suddenly change when you move away from the planet?
-
Can't you see how you have been duped into believing this, seriously?
So what does not make sense to you now?
It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
scepimatic I see what you are saying. But how does a rocket work in the atmosphere, but not a vacuum? Maybe you have already explained but I don't remember.
-
It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
An explosion releasing gases at high pressure makes no sense? it happens on any combustion engine, in cars for example.
If the explosion happens inside the rocket wont it push against the rocket? The gasses try to expand and find the rocket resistance, so they are pushing against it.
If you push something wont it move?
So I will ask again, which part makes no sense?
-
If you don't know how rockets work, why are you telling me that they work according to Newtons third law?
I don't know what causes the gas expansion at high preassure in a combustion engine, that doesn't cause it when you simple burn fuel, but i know it works because its used in cars, jets, misiles, etc. I was explaining how that expansion makes the rocket moves.
Can you draw me an example of what you mean by expansion making the rocket move. It doesn't matter if it's rough, I just want to see what the thinking is behind this.
Perhaps this might help:
(http://)
(http://)
-
This is what you are failing to grasp.
It's like you climbing into the back of the rocket and pushing it from inside.
When a rocket burns it's fuel, all the propellant wants to do is exit the rocket, it does not want to go back in and try to push it and neither do the expanding gases, yet once they are released from the engine out of the exhaust, it's then that the expansion happens and pushes against the atmosphere giving it lift.
In space, it has nothing to expand or push against, so it goes out like a dud firework.
You got that wrong, the expansion happens inside the rocket, and pushes in all the directions, you can't control that. Have you ever seen an explosion hapen in only one direction? The gases expand in all the directions, but can only get out of the rocket by the bottom of the propeler, so they don't push the rocket down.
Space Shuttle Launch Audio - play LOUD (no music) HD 1080p (http://#ws)
Look at 1:40, all those gases going down, with all that energy, come from inside the rocket, and they are expanding in every direction, they only go out that way because is the only exit, so basically the same energy you see going down, is also inside the rocket trying to go up, also to the sides, but that energy is balanced, so it goes up. See the first video of markjo it explains that.
-
Yes I know the energy comes from inside the rocket engine and it's expelled underneath it to create lift.
It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.
If I placed a bomb under a table and a brick on the table, if the explosion was strong the table and the brick would go flying upwards (if they dont break), andexplosion creates a push with the expansion of energy and gases, nobody needs to tell you that, neither you need to be a rocket scientist to know it. So what would happen if there was an explosion under a rocket? What about a continuous explotion strong enough to generate all the heat and gases, smoke, you see going down the rocket? The rocket is not pushing the ground, the explosion is pushing the rocket.
-
Yes I know the energy comes from inside the rocket engine and it's expelled underneath it to create lift.
It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.
If I placed a bomb under a table and a brick on the table, if the explosion was strong the table and the brick would go flying upwards (if they dont break), andexplosion creates a push with the expansion of energy and gases, nobody needs to tell you that, neither you need to be a rocket scientist to know it. So what would happen if there was an explosion under a rocket? What about a continuous explotion strong enough to generate all the heat and gases, smoke, you see going down the rocket? The rocket is not pushing the ground, the explosion is pushing the rocket.
If a rocket relied on that, it would be blown to bits.
The rocket simply burns it's fuel, it does not continuously explode it's fuel under it, it's simply a controlled burn.
It needs to be burnt really fast in order to create the exansion of energy you see there, if it was just burned slowly it would not move at all.
-
Yes but it doesn't matter how fast it is burned, it's still just burning, not continually exploding forces up the inside of the rocket.
The only difference between an explosion and burning something is the speed, if you burn something gases are also expanding in all directions, an explosion is a rapid expansion of gases and energy (and heat) in all the directions. Look at the speed the gases comeing out of the rocket. That is closer to an explosion than to a "burning" of gas.
The way we are told a rocket works in space, is like throwing a cannonball away from you whilst you are sat in a chair on wheels on a flat surface.
Now basically this is the simplified reason as to how a rocket works in space as well.
They are saying that, in space, if cannon ball after cannon ball was ejected from the rocket and each time a cannon ball is ejected, the rocket moves the opposite direction and so on and so on until all the cannon balls are released.
So going by that method, think about this.
Imagine those same cannon balls at the very moment of release being grabbed away with the same force as they would eject, what would happen?
Well think of it like this.
Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?
Well if you think hard about it, the ball would drop right in the middle of both of us...it would neither go forwards, nor backwards, it would just drop to the floor. leaving us two, simply in the same positions.
Apply that to the vacuum of space and your rocket stays put.
Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.
From a physic point of view if you push a cannon ball, it doesn't matter that you are a human and the ball is an object, it doesn't matter that they are your arms, or that you decided to push. It is just matter pushing matter, mass against mass. You are not more special than the ball, you don't get a special treatment, mass is all that matters. Which matter is pushing against which matter? No, the push is the same for both.
You say "what if I push the ball and some force snatches it from me?" The answer is "i stay in the same place". But what about the ball? It moves of course. But why did it move? Why would it get a different treatment than me? the ball is made of matter just as much as you are, it doesn't matter if they are your arms, and not the ball's arms. It is just matter pushing against matter, the same force you put against the ball, the ball will also put against you (that is action and reaction).
So if vacuum "snatched" or "sucked" everything we throw at it, it would "suck" or "snatch" us, just as much. If you want to pretend the ball is being snatched from our arms when we push it, you also neet to pretend we will be snatched away from the ball as well. Get it?
-
Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?
What happens to the ball after you let go doesn't matter. All that matters is what happens as you are pushing the ball. As you are pushing the ball, the ball is pushing you back.
-
Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.
Great, the world of science can now move forwards into a bright new age.
Are you going to publish and enlighten every single engineer and physicist on the planet that Newton's Laws have been falsified and that we should now be working my Sceptimatic Laws of Motion (what were they again?).
Once you have shown your mathematical proof and peer reviewed experimental evidence, I'm sure the Nobel Prize will on it's way. I would book your ticket to Stockholm early, and get a good price if I were you.
You do have the maths and data to support your position don't you?? I'd hate to think you were just blowing off on an internet forum.
-
It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.
Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.
So, what you're saying is the rest of the world's scientists are wrong, and you're right?
Good luck with that.
It is basically saying that you can push your own car by sitting in the drivers seat and pushing your bum forward to make it move. It's a little bit more than that but in essence this is how it's supposed to work.
No, it's basically saying that you can push your own car by pushing outward from inside in every direction(against the windows, doors, roof, floor, etc), which would require a multitude of sceptimatics crammed inside.
Remove the rear window.
Now you have a bunch of force pushing forward from inside, and nothing pushing against the rear inside of the car as the sceptimatics are flying out the opening where the rear window used to be.
Just add a replenishing source of new sceptimatics to maintain the inside forward pressure while the rear sceptimatics continue flying out the back
If you insist rockets won't work in a vacuum, build a small vacuum chamber and conduct an experiment to prove it.
-
You don't understand what I've said. I'll try and make it a bit simpler.
If you had the cannonball on your chair and I was stood in front of you....You and your chair are the rocket, the cannonball is your fuel and I am the vacuum of space.
You exert your own energy on the cannon ball ready to throw it at me as hard as you can ...but, I snatch that cannon ball from you using the same snatching energy as your forward thrusting energy, I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball.
The end result is, you do not go backwards, you stay seated where you are.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying here?
Yes I understood that, I will try to explain my point in a better way.
Physics work the same way for any object, the same way for the ball, the same way for us.
There is no reason for the ball to be snatched from us, but lets assume that happens. We would also be snatched away from the ball, just as the ball is snatched away from us. Why? because we are matter like the ball, we have mass, just like the ball, we are in vacuum like the ball. So the same movement the ball has, we will also have. So, if the ball is snatched away from us, we will also be snatched away from the ball.
Assuming me and the ball have the same mass, it would be like placing a mirror between us, the same movement on one side will happen on the other. There is no reason for movement only happening in one side.
That is what i meant saying that we don't get special treatment, there is no reason for the ball to react different than us.
-
"There would be no snatch effect on your side as your side is the forward force and energy, I would be the reaction force and energy in snatching your force and energy away from you, which totally cancels that force out."
That is the problem, when you push something, the same strength you apply to that something is applied back to you, if you punch a wall, you will feel the punch, if you try to push a wall, you will feel the push, you will feel the same force you are applying, if you kick a ball really slow (low force) you will barely feel anything in your foot (also because of the shoe) but the ball will move because of its smaller mass, if you kick it really fast (stronger) you will feel more the balls resistance.
But from a physic point of view, which is the action and which is the reaction is irrelevant, as both happen at the exact same time, not any second, millisecond or nanosecond after the first. It happens at the exact time both object touch each other, both feel the exact same force being applied to them, but in opposite directions. Which one will move more or less depends on the mass.
Besides my previous post, there are some things you are not saying right.
"I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball."
I was already applying force the moment I started pushing, not the moment i released it. The movement: of me and the ball, also starts the moment I start pushing, not after the ball stops touching my hands (because i could just push the ball, while not grabbing it, so there is no "release").
And assuming this happens, it would be like thinking vacuum, which is literally nothing, constantly creates enough force to nullify any force applied on it. A pull, just as a push, requires force. It is also counter intuitive representing void with a person (you) making a pull at some precise moment. Because void is not something, its the lack of anything.
The air forces itself into vacuum here on earth because of the air pressure, not because of vacuum force
It's fine saying the rocket works against itself and I can see how people can subscribe to it.
The fuel in the rocket works against the rocket, so in effect, no matter how it's dressed up...the theory is that the rocket is pushing against itself.
No, because mass is actually leaving the rocket, the mass that leaves the rocket is the one pushing it, not the one still inside. I will say it again: Iit would be like you getting out of your car and pushing it once. End of the story, you don't get back in, you don't push it again, you just push it and say outside as your car moves away.
-
Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?
What happens to the ball after you let go doesn't matter. All that matters is what happens as you are pushing the ball. As you are pushing the ball, the ball is pushing you back.
The very second your outward force is applied to that cannon ball, I snatch it away with equal force, the energy you were about to apply is immediately nullified by me, rendering your chair stranded to the spot.
Any force that I apply to the cannon ball (action) causes the cannon ball to push me back (reaction) regardless of when you snatch it. The only question is how much force was I able to apply to the cannon ball before you snatched it away.
I think that the part that you don't get is that the energy going out the back of the rocket doesn't really matter. It's the energy pushing against the rocket engine itself that pushes the rocket forward. The opening in the combustion chamber is there so that there is an imbalance of forces within that chamber.
-
Try it if you don't believe me, I just have on a computer chair on my wood floor using a heavy encyclopaedia.
I moved very slightly back by forcing my arms forward holding the book but I didn't let go of the book and I moved forward back to the same spot, that was because I cancelled out the force.
You just proved my point. As you pushed the book forwards, it pushed you backwards. If someone took the book away from you just before you stopped pushing it, you would have kept going backwards (assuming that you were on a frictionless surface, of course). However, since you didn't let go, the book pulled you back to your original position when your arms became fully extended.
-
This is what you are failing to grasp.
Are you finally going to decide whether you are the Average Joe who does not understand because nobody has explained in a simple way, or the maximum expert of Physics that the world has known, even better than Einstein and Newton together?
You are the one who is failing to grasp absolutely everything related to the Laws of Newton. As they say, ignorance is arrogant, and your ignorance is world class.
-
I'm far from infallible but I'm 100% steadfast on rockets not working in space.
You can't be 100% sure.
I explained to you why the rocket is not pushing against itself, also why it is illogical to think vacuum would snatch anything away from you.
"There would be no snatch effect on your side as your side is the forward force and energy, I would be the reaction force and energy in snatching your force and energy away from you, which totally cancels that force out."
That is the problem, when you push something, the same strength you apply to that something is applied back to you, if you punch a wall, you will feel the punch, if you try to push a wall, you will feel the push, you will feel the same force you are applying, if you kick a ball really slow (low force) you will barely feel anything in your foot (also because of the shoe) but the ball will move because of its smaller mass, if you kick it really fast (stronger) you will feel more the balls resistance.
But from a physic point of view, which is the action and which is the reaction is irrelevant, as both happen at the exact same time, not any second, millisecond or nanosecond after the first. It happens at the exact time both object touch each other, both feel the exact same force being applied to them, but in opposite directions. Which one will move more or less depends on the mass.
Besides my previous post, there are some things you are not saying right.
"I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball."
I was already applying force the moment I started pushing, not the moment i released it. The movement: of me and the ball, also starts the moment I start pushing, not after the ball stops touching my hands (because i could just push the ball, while not grabbing it, so there is no "release").
And assuming this happens, it would be like thinking vacuum, which is literally nothing, constantly creates enough force to nullify any force applied on it. A pull, just as a push, requires force. It is also counter intuitive representing void with a person (you) making a pull at some precise moment. Because void is not something, its the lack of anything.
The air forces itself into vacuum here on earth because of the air pressure, not because of vacuum force
It's fine saying the rocket works against itself and I can see how people can subscribe to it.
The fuel in the rocket works against the rocket, so in effect, no matter how it's dressed up...the theory is that the rocket is pushing against itself.
No, because mass is actually leaving the rocket, the mass that leaves the rocket is the one pushing it, not the one still inside. I will say it again: Iit would be like you getting out of your car and pushing it once. End of the story, you don't get back in, you don't push it again, you just push it and say outside as your car moves away.
Don't take things personal, this is not about who is right or who is wrong, is about what is right or what is wrong,
-
In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.
Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?
-
In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.
Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?
Easy...
On Earth the ball has weight and you have weight.
In space, the ball weighs nothing and neither do you, you both weigh exactly the same....nothing.
Things may not have weight in space, but they still have mass. Weight is not important to Newton's laws, mass is.
-
In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.
Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?
Easy...
On Earth the ball has weight and you have weight.
In space, the ball weighs nothing and neither do you, you both weigh exactly the same....nothing.
Do you consider near-Earth orbit as 'space'?
-
Ok I'll explain it better.
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
I would say the cannon ball. The act of you giving me the cannon ball and plastic ball means I have to accelerate them to stop them in one place. I would be able to tell which ball has more mass.
Either way, mass is independent of gravitation. Mass of an object doesn't change depending on location.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?
He will use F=ma. Force is required to accelerate mass. He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one. The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.
You are not going to win this argument either.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?
Since I'm weightless, I would throw each ball and see which one accelerates me more.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?
He will use F=ma. Force is required to accelerate mass. He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one. The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.
You are not going to win this argument either.
I'm not going to lose it either.
Refute what I posted or you do.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?
He will use F=ma. Force is required to accelerate mass. He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one. The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.
You are not going to win this argument either.
I'm not going to lose it either.
Refute what I posted or you do.
I'd like you to explain how he would be able to tell which ball requires more force. Remember, this is in "space"...
Force is independent of gravitation. Try again.
-
If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?
You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount. This would be an application of Newton's second law.
Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?
He will use F=ma. Force is required to accelerate mass. He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one. The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.
You are not going to win this argument either.
I'm not going to lose it either.
Refute what I posted or you do.
I'd like you to explain how he would be able to tell which ball requires more force. Remember, this is in "space"...
Force is independent of gravitation. Try again.
We are talking about "space" have another go.
You are delusional.
F=ma still. What part of that equation changes between space and on earth?
-
The full equation.
Everyone take note, this is why he lost.
-
The full equation.
Everyone take note, this is why he lost.
I've lost nothing.
You can only verify force and mass on Earth, which is fine in the main, yet as far as space is concerned, it's a no go.
Mass=volume x density. How does that change from earth to space?
-
Trust me, I take nothing personal.
I understand it's simply a debate on what's right and wrong and that's what I concentrate on.
A rocket cannot work in a vacuum no matter what's said about burning fuel creating mass because the fuels mass would be nothing against the vacuum.
People are simply duped into believing the science behind rocket propulsion.
Debates only make each side reinforce its opinion. I (and everyone else here) explained you already what I had to, and we are not getting anywhere here. You don't need to understand or believe everything scientists say, but there is no reason to actively deny it.
-
Who are all these rocket scientists?
Everyone except you.
Now you have a bunch of force pushing forward from inside, and nothing pushing against the rear inside of the car as the sceptimatics are flying out the opening where the rear window used to be.
What pushing force are you exerting from the open rear window?
Read it again and think about the part in bold.
Just add a replenishing source of new sceptimatics to maintain the inside forward pressure while the rear sceptimatics continue flying out the back
This makes no sense.
Just equate it to a fuel source constantly recreating the pressure both escaping out the back and pushing forward at the front.
Or don't. Your reply is still probably going to be , "it still makes no sense" anyway.
If you insist rockets won't work in a vacuum, build a small vacuum chamber and conduct an experiment to prove it.
A Small vacuum chamber wouldn't cut it to be fair as anything inside the rocket would fill it quickly.
You would need a vacuum chamber that had more vacuum than what the rocket could produce in thrust, so as not to create an equal force inside it.
So build it a little bigger. A pressure washer would work just fine for a quick blast into the vacuum too.
I could go into details, but it's not like you're going to do the experiment anyway.
-
The full equation.
Everyone take note, this is why he lost.
I've lost nothing.
You can only verify force and mass on Earth, which is fine in the main, yet as far as space is concerned, it's a no go.
Nope, you lost. Mathematics says so. Do you want to argue with mathematics? Coz she will KNOCK YOU THE F**K OUT!
;)
-
This is what you are failing to grasp.
Are you finally going to decide whether you are the Average Joe who does not understand because nobody has explained in a simple way, or the maximum expert of Physics that the world has known, even better than Einstein and Newton together?
You are the one who is failing to grasp absolutely everything related to the Laws of Newton. As they say, ignorance is arrogant, and your ignorance is world class.
I'm far from infallible but I'm 100% steadfast on rockets not working in space.
See? You are indirectly saying that you are better than the rest of the world, almost in every sentence.
And yes, you are fallible because you are arrogant. You are not saying "gee, this is strange lets do an experiment to see if I am right". You are saying that your superiority to the human race is so big that you don't even have to do the experiment.
Just get a vacuum chamber (not a difficult thing to do if you live in an industrialized country) or ask for help and many in this forum will help you make one. Fire a rocket inside, or burst a balloon. It is that simple. And you will have a Nobel Prize if you succeed. Or you will have a life changing experience if you fail.
-
Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.
Your car pushes itself from the inside. So yea, you can. Turn on the engine, press the accelerator.
-
Sceptimatic, we have been trying to teach you one law of physics for almost 25 pages of a discussion topic. I never thought it was that hard to understand. I'm pretty sure my six year old son understands it. I'll check with him when I go home tonight.
-
The full equation.
Everyone take note, this is why he lost.
I've lost nothing.
You can only verify force and mass on Earth, which is fine in the main, yet as far as space is concerned, it's a no go.
Mass=volume x density. How does that change from earth to space?
Because Earth is not space.
Are you saying that mass=density x volume does not work in space, only on earth? Why would that be? What about the moon, is this valid? Maybe you are mistaking weight and mass?
Also, would you be so kind and tell us what is the full law of which F=ma is a part of?
-
Are the rest of the world, rocket scientists ?
Relative to you, my dog is a rocket scientist.
-
Guys, it's been 26 pages. Why do we still hold on to the faint hope that we'll get through to him?
-
You aren't making an awful lot of sense now...
and you weren't exactly a paragon of clarity before.
-
What would be the benefit to us of convincing you? Seriously?
I'm doubting you will suddenly set the world of science on fire. Maybe your own house.
-
Guys, it's been 26 pages. Why do we still hold on to the faint hope that we'll get through to him?
You're going to have to do better if you want to convince me.
Maybe it would help if you could meet us half way by opening your mind just a bit.
-
Guys, it's been 26 pages. Why do we still hold on to the faint hope that we'll get through to him?
You're going to have to do better if you want to convince me.
Maybe it would help if you could meet us half way by opening your mind just a bit.
My mind is fully open. I could say the same about you and others having a closed mind, so why don't you meet half way also.
To do that, you have to think alternative to what Newtons laws on Earth , plus rocket scientists have firmly placed in your mind.
You have yet to provide any real evidence that Newton's laws should behave any differently in space than on earth.
-
You have yet to provide any real evidence that Newton's laws should behave any differently in space than on earth.
Because he said so of course.
Even if someone built a vacuum chamber and conducted an experiment, suddenly the results would be useless because gravity affected the results, there wasn't 'enough' vacuum, or light affected the results, or something else.
I'm truly surprised in sceptimatic's argument for a stationary Earth so far he didn't try using the troll argument, " if the Earth is spinning at a thousand mph, spin a basketball at a thousand mph. Everything would be thrown off". I've seen that idiotic comparison a few times.
-
Newton's third law is Newton's third law.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
If you have some reason to believe this doesn't work in space, then please share.
As for practical evidence: there are now eleven space agencies (covering over 20 countries) with launch capability. From China to the USA to Russia - they are all putting stuff in space using rockets. Even Iran is launching stuff:
Iran has developed an expendable satellite launch vehicle named Safir SLV. Measuring 22 m in height with a core diameter of 1.25 m, with two liquid propellant stages, a single thrust chambered first stage and a two-thrust chambered, step-throttled second stage, the SLV has a lift off mass exceeding 26 tons
Thousands of satellites now orbit the planet (not to mention the ISS), and I have already shared videos of rockets working in space. In fact how do you think satellites and the ISS maintain stable orbits?
Hundreds of thousands of people work in space programs around the world.
-
If I was a mod, I would close this topic. This is like trying to convince a brick to throw itself into place during construction.
-
If a vacuum chamber can be built to house a miniature rocket that I could first of all, see work in an atmosphere and then inside the vacuum chamber with me monitoring the vacuum chamber to make sure the air is sucked out of it and that rocket ignited it's fuel and moved , I would never question anything in space ever again.
Well, there's lots of tutorials out there on building your own vacuum chamber. Let us know when you get it built and get video of the experiment.
Until then I guess we're done here.
-
"There's no worse deaf man than the man who doesn't want to listen."
That's spectimatic
-
to whom do you refer?
-
to whom do you refer?
Everyone in here that's not sceptimatic.
-
are you implying someone?
-
i don't but i think that you are convinced that i it that bill
-
that was a direct answer to what i said about you: "There's no worse deaf man than the man who doesn't want to listen."
so i think now that you don't have the courage of your opinions. you want to attack me in some sorte but you cave in
-
Any man made craft in that sky is no higher than the highest plane can fly
Well, the highest plane was 112km - which is in space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne)
Anyway, unless you can do something more interesting than just repeatedly deny stuff over and over again, then I'm bored playing.
-
Well, if you haven't been playing with us then....I find it very hard to believe you are that stupid...*shrug*
Good luck with your engineering career.
-
I think I've proved my point that rockets do not work in space, so I'm happy to leave it at that.
yeah, right
-
whatever
-
If a vacuum chamber can be built to house a miniature rocket that I could first of all, see work in an atmosphere and then inside the vacuum chamber with me monitoring the vacuum chamber to make sure the air is sucked out of it and that rocket ignited it's fuel and moved , I would never question anything in space ever again.
Well, there's lots of tutorials out there on building your own vacuum chamber. Let us know when you get it built and get video of the experiment.
Until then I guess we're done here.
Bye.
What!? I take it that means you're not going to build and conduct the experiment in order to prove yourself right and the rest of us along with the world's scientists wrong?
I'm disappointed.
'Bye' it is then I guess. :'(
-
I think I've proved my point that rockets do not work in space, so I'm happy to leave it at that.
I glanced through the pages in this post but was not able to locate where you proved the worlds scientific and engineering communities are lying about using combustion or other reactions to initiate motion in a vacuum.
This is of great interest to me - could you specifically direct me to where this took place?
-
I think I've proved my point that rockets do not work in space, so I'm happy to leave it at that.
I glanced through the pages in this post but was not able to locate where you proved the worlds scientific and engineering communities are lying about using combustion or other reactions to initiate motion in a vacuum.
This is of great interest to me - could you specifically direct me to where this took place?
he has none
-
it's a wrong, purposeless experiment riddled with faults, therefore it proves nothing
-
if you provide me with a quote (i am not going to look in 28 pages), then i'll show you why
-
since, on top oeverything, you are too lazy, here's the experiment:
If you think that the atmosphere plays no part in the balloons movement, then do the experiment I gave you.
I've done it and it is exactly how I thought....
The balloon goes nowhere.
I think I'll have to do a drawing for people to try this experiment.
(http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/3106/balloon.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/547/balloon.png/)
Try that experiment and tell me what happens.
this childish drawing proves that rockets don't work in space? how?
-
you haven't done the experiment and you already know its result!?
-
you've done it in vacuum? without any gravity?
-
have you done it in vacuum?
-
have you done it in vacuum?
Don't think you're going to teach him anything that any of the rest of us tried to and failed. We also seem to be more versed in the topic than you are.
-
you haven't done it, then.
therefore you don't have a result. you just assume.
-
you're not answering
-
where are your results?
-
we'd like to see them on this site
-
your balloon cannot represent vacuum:
– if there was nothing in it, since you performed the experiment in your kitchen, it should have been shrunk by the atmospheric pressure
– if ther was air in it, there's hardly vacuum in it
so your "vacuum" experiment isn't one.
-
your balloon cannot represent vacuum:
– if there was nothing in it, since you performed the experiment in your kitchen, it should have been shrunk by the atmospheric pressure
– if ther was air in it, there's hardly vacuum in it
so your "vacuum" experiment isn't one.
Exactly. In a vacuum there is no rubber that has to be pushed away to make space for the incoming air. And there is no way in this experiment to make the large balloon so light that its weight skews the whole experiment.
And I agree with you. Valid or failed, we can all agree that sceptimatic has not done his own experiment, and is giving the "dog ate my homework" excuse.
-
results?
conditions of the experiment?
device used?
etc
-
Ok sceptimatic, do this, repeat your experiment the same way you did when the balloon didn't move, but this time don't connect the other side of the tube to the inside of the big flat balloon. Paste the tube to the flat balloon so that the small balloon is still attached to it, but its expelling air outside.
Like this: (http://picturestack.com/48/32/cS7Untitled1pGR.png)
Did the small balloon move?
-
I saw movement in this thread and came here eagerly to see the lies exposed only to find more empty posts and time wasting.
I cannot find words to convey my extreme disappointment.
-
you're right. we need sceptimatic to show us how he performed his dubious experiment
-
To be sure is not the weight of the large balloon+ the tube what is holding the small one instead of the vacuum, you should have done that first and observed how much it moved, then remember that in the experiment with the small ballon expelling air into the large, not only will the small one need to move the big one and the tube, but also the air it is expelling. If the large ballon is not large and flexible enough to let that air expand freely all the time, that will also create an opposite force to the one the small is creating.
-
Ok sceptimatic, do this, repeat your experiment the same way you did when the balloon didn't move, but this time don't connect the other side of the tube to the inside of the big flat balloon. Paste the tube to the flat balloon so that the small balloon is still attached to it, but its expelling air outside.
Like this: (http://picturestack.com/48/32/cS7Untitled1pGR.png)
Did the small balloon move?
Are you kidding me here?
What's the point of pasting it to the outside of the balloon?
That means the smaller balloon will be acting against air, so naturally it's going to fly away.
The whole point of putting it inside the flat balloon is to show you that rockets need air to push against to move.
That is the point, the small balloon wont move, try it.
-
A deflated balloon is not a vacuum, quit wasting everyone's time.
I hear that if you pay the entrance fee at the California Exploritorium in San Francisco they have available at that facility an evacuated tube you might be able to convince them to let you try your experiment in.
There is no excuse for carrying on about assumptions on a renowned zetetic forum like this one.
-
A deflated balloon is not a vacuum, quit wasting everyone's time.
I hear that if you pay the entrance fee at the California Exploritorium in San Francisco they have available at that facility an evacuated tube you might be able to convince them to let you try your experiment in.
There is no excuse for carrying on about assumptions on a renowned zetetic forum like this one.
Kendrick. You're wasting your strength in your fingers. You're words are falling on blind eyes. He is utterly convinced that a balloon is a vacuum and that thrust is a function of the air behind the engine.
-
No, you are missing my point. You did the experiment (i hope) and the small balloon didn't move, that is the result, but what is the reason?
Your conclusion: The reason is that vacuum is preventing the movement.
My conclussion: the factor preventing the movement is the weight of the larger ballon+the tube+ friction of the larger against earth+ weight of the air being expelled from the small being added to the larger.
Can we be sure its vacuum preventing the movement instead of the other factors i mentioned? We could. Repeat the experiment but let the air being expelled outside vacuum.
Your prediction is that it will move because vacuum (which wont be present now) was the reason it didn't move before.
My prediction is that this time it will also not move, because the weight, and the friction (which will still be present now) is the reason id didn't move the last time.
This is about discarding possible reason for the immobility rather than assuming right away it is because of vacuum.
-
No, you are missing my point. You did the experiment (i hope) and the small balloon didn't move, that is the result, but what is the reason?
Your conclusion: The reason is that vacuum is preventing the movement.
My conclussion: the factor preventing the movement is the weight of the larger ballon+the tube+ friction of the larger against earth+ weight of the air being expelled from the small being added to the larger.
Can be sure its vacuum preventing the movement instead of the other factors i mentioned? We could. Repeat the experiment but let the air being expelled outside vacuum.
Your prediction is that it will move because vacuum (which wont be present now) was the reason it didn't move before.
My prediction is that this time it will also not move, because the weight, and the friction (which will still be present now) is the reason id didn't move the last time.
This is about discarding possible reason for the immobility rather than assuming right away it is because of vacuum.
Well go and tape your small balloon to the outside of the flat balloon and watch it fly off the table.
I did, it didn't move.
-
Well go and tape your small balloon to the outside of the flat balloon and watch it fly off the table.
I did, it didn't move.
BS.
I'm telling the truth, you can simply not believe me, or you could try it yourself. I don't have reasons to lie to you.
"I invite anyone on this forum to do the exact same experiments and it will prove what I'm saying is true."
I already did, and proved to myself I was right about it being the weight and the friction the factors stopping the movement. I invite you to do the experiment as I said.
-
lol, is this still going on?
If this thread were a horse, they'd shoot it.
-
A deflated balloon is not a vacuum, quit wasting everyone's time.
I hear that if you pay the entrance fee at the California Exploritorium in San Francisco they have available at that facility an evacuated tube you might be able to convince them to let you try your experiment in.
There is no excuse for carrying on about assumptions on a renowned zetetic forum like this one.
Did I say it was a vacuum?
I said it has no air in it, so it can be used as a simplistic way of showing why a rocket will not work in space.
It shows how space would swallow up the fuel from a rocket, for example, the empty balloon would swallow up the air from the smaller balloon.
A vacuum would do exactly the same thing.
Statements like this indicate that it is clear you lack the cognitive reasoning necessary to contribute to this community.
-
Don't ignore me sceptimatic, i just proved your experiment wrong, you have no arguments left.
This is when you say "Wow ... if this is untrue, then maybe the other 'facts' upon which I've based my beliefs also aren't true. Thank you, kind stranger, for helping me rethink my ideas about the world and the universe we live on!"
Do it for yourself, you don't need to prove anything to me, do it just to be sure you are right.
-
@robertotrevor
I love it. You do his experiment, it doesn't work the way he expects it, and he calls it bullshit, but wont try it himself. I guess he doesn't understand the scientific method and having control groups to rule out all other possibilities.
-
Statements like this show me why your opinion counts for nothing.
Getting angry will just close your mind further, perhaps you should take a break from the forums and watch some amateur rocket videos on the youtube site.
-
The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.
*sigh* This nonsense has gone on long enough.
No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum.
A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure. A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.
An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air. Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).
-
He doesn't understand most of the theory you explain to him, and if he does, he won't accept it anyway. He is convinced his experiment has validity for his argument, so I just went to buy some balloons and proved his conclusions based on the experiment were wrong, I hope he tires it the way I told him..
-
The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.
*sigh* This nonsense has gone on long enough.
No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum.
A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure. A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.
An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air. Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).
I'm smiling.
Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?
-
Well go and tape your small balloon to the outside of the flat balloon and watch it fly off the table.
I did, it didn't move.
BS.
I'm telling the truth, you can simply not believe me, or you could try it yourself. I don't have reasons to lie to you.
"I invite anyone on this forum to do the exact same experiments and it will prove what I'm saying is true."
I already did, and proved to myself I was right about it being the weight and the friction the factors stopping the movement. I invite you to do the experiment as I said.
Your experiment is a fail and you know it.
It actually is a fail, but it was your experiment.
He doesn't understand most of the theory you explain to him, and if he does, he won't accept it anyway. He is convinced his experiment has validity for his argument, so I just went to buy some balloons and proved his conclusions based on the experiment were wrong, I hope he tires it the way I told him..
I hate liars.
Have you tried it?
Do you want a video?
-
The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.
*sigh* This nonsense has gone on long enough.
No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum.
A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure. A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.
An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air. Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).
I'm smiling.
Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?
No. It means I'm dealing with a pack of brainwashed people.
No, it means you are dealing with a pack of brainwashed balloons. Those damn balloons know the Laws of Motion, and know the Laws are wrong, but have decided to make you look bad, just because they have been brainwashed. Try balloons from China, maybe they are not so brainwashed out there.
-
The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.
*sigh* This nonsense has gone on long enough.
No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum.
A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure. A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.
An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air. Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).
I'm smiling.
Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?
No. It means I'm dealing with a pack of brainwashed people.
Then please tell me what part of my post do you disagree with and why.
-
This bit.
A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure. A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.
What is wrong with that bit? Do you understand how a vacuum cleaner works? Can a flat balloon be used to suck dirt from a carpet?
-
Yes, do me a video of it.
You called me a liar already, why would you believe I would not cheat on the video?
I'm only telling you why the small balloon didn't move, but you probably used a different "balloon" than the one I used, so you can still try it for yourself. markjo already said why a flat balloon doesn't simulate vacuum on space, as it doesn't counteract air pressure. We explained how rocket moves because of the gasses expanding and pushing against it, you also know that is possible to get out of your car, push it, and watch it move while not saying the car pushed against itself.
Maybe it's time for you to rethink your ideas.
-
You need to understand that a vacuum on Earth works the opposite way to the vacuum in space, as it's air pressure on Earth against the vacuum but in space, it's the vacuum against the air in anything in space that has air inside it, namely a fake rocket.
How does that make any difference?
-
Let's put it simply again.
A rocket does not need air to push against right?
Let's just go on that and forget the vacuum for a minute.
So if the rocket doesn't need air to push against, then the flat balloon has no air inside it, so the inflated balloon attached neck to neck with it, should fly away from it.
But what you notice is, the air filled balloon doesn't do that, it just deflates into the other balloon, simply filling an airless space, with air.
I already told you why that can happen, the force of the small balloon is not enough to move the big one, the air going inside the big balloon adds weight and a force in the opposite direction.
"I'm calling you a liar because I really did do the experiment and it the air filled balloon dragged the flat balloon off the table"
What kind of balloons did you use, show pictures. I used something way lighter than a big balloon to attach to the tube and it didn't move (a big plastic bag).
You really think vacuum is the thing stopping the small balloon from moving in your experiment? Think about this, after the small balloon starts releasing air into the big one, there is no longer vacuum, its just a small balloon pushing against air into a big balloon and it is still not moving. Not convinced? repeat the experiment the same way when the ballon didn't move and you assumed it was vacuum, but add a bit of air into the big one, it won't move, even though it is pushing against air from the beginning.
-
You are killing off your very own argument man.
Explain
-
No, I'm showing to you that in your experiment, the "vacuum" is not the factor stopping the balloon from moving, because there is air inside the big balloon from the moment the small one starts releasing it, and you are just ignoring that.
-
roberto, leave it be man - he's having fun with this gibberish, no need to play along with him
-
No, I'm showing to you that in your experiment, the "vacuum" is not the factor stopping the balloon from moving, because there is air inside the big balloon from the moment the small one starts releasing it, and you are just ignoring that.
It doesn't matter that air goes into the other balloon, it doesn't create enough pressure against the smaller balloons release of air into it for the smaller balloon to have propulsion.
Now answer the question I gave you.
If I blow up a balloon and let it go, it flies away from me.
It that balloons air pushing against the atmosphere or is it doing something else to propel it forward and if so, what is it doing?
I know I will probably regret this... but I am gonna jump in on this one. Have watched it and it seems like pages and pages of going round in circles with you Sceptimatic.
Will try and explain it in very simple terms.
When you release a single balloon, the air (lets also call it energy) inside it it is expelled out at a greater force than the atmosphere is pushing against the balloon. This propels the balloon. When the air inside is depleted, the atmosphere & gravity then exert more pressure on the ballon and it falls to the ground.
Now a rocket is much like the balloon in this case. It has the energy stored within it. The rocket releases the energy, outside it, which pushes along the rocket. The only differences between the rocket and the balloon are the energy types. Balloon = pressurised air, rocket = hot gasses. Regardless of the type of energy that is expelled from either, the only difference a vacuum makes is that in the vacuum the rocket, balloon, whatever has even less to push against. A balloon expelling energy on earth must fight the atmospheric pressure. A rocket expelling energy in a vacuum has no pressure to fight, therefore the expelled energy is more effective in a vacuum.
What you describe in your mad head is a vacuum that is so full of stuff that it can stop a rocket moving regardless of how much energy it expels.
Or a balloon...
Or MY OWN F***ING BRAIN IF I HAVE TO TRY AND DESCRIBE THIS AS SIMPLY AGAIN!!
So now I am going to ask you... what is it about a vacuum that is so powerful that it can resist this energy and prevent any form of movement from expelling stored energy.
To you vacuum is like a big brick wall. Of which I am now going to go and bang my head off.
;)
-
How does a gas behave in a vacuum?
-
You still just don't get it do you.
Imagine me and you face to face, on Earth, with our hands clamped to to each others hands.
You have to try and push me backwards, now if we were equal size and equal strength and I pushed back, we would go nowhere right.
We are both using all our energy up trying to move one another, yet we are going nowhere and eventually we would both run out of energy and give up.
Now think of that as us being in space trying to push each other away from each other, it would be the same thing, we would counteract each other.
No, it would not be the same thing, if you did that on earth, the only reason none of you would move is because you would be trying to make as most friction as possible with your feet, leaning to the front and down. If you stand straight up and both push into each other, both will fall to the other side (because of gravity and friction still present). If you did this on a pool, besides looking gay, you would both go into opposite directions, that is what would happen on space, on space you would move even more because there is no density as in a pool or the atmosphere.
Now imagine us on Earth doing the very same thing and you say, " I want to be the rocket" and I say, "stop being silly, people are watching, stop acting like a daft kid"....well ok forget the daft kid bit ;D
Anyway, Imagine us on Earth in the same position and you say, " I want to be the fuel of the rocket", so I say, " I will be the vacuum of space"
Then, you start to "push" against me... but as you do...I exert the same force but "pulling" you.
You would start running forward down the street the same pace as I would be running backwards because I'm not opposing you, I'm actually aiding you and as fast as you run, the faster I run backwards, keeping the same pace.
Eventually, all your energy will be used up without actually exerting any upper body force onto me because I am immediately accepting that force.
You can't be the vacuum of space because it is nothing, it is illogical to have someone represent the lack of anything, it cannot exert force, it cannot react to force, it is nothing, is the concept of nothing too hard to understand?
-
How does a gas behave in a vacuum?
It tends towards equilibrium. Since there is no pressure, the gas will simply spread out. If it is in a pressurized container, and a nozzle is made (or a puncture), then the gas will accelerate out of the hole into the lack of pressure, creating a force in the opposite direction in which the gas is accelerating. This is the principle of physics that rockets work on, but the create the acceleration of gasses but burning them under pressure and having one end of the pressure container open, thereby creating the acceleration we know as "thrust." This works better in space because for one, there is no atmosphere and less gravity to resist the rocket's movement, and two, since there is no pressure outside of the rocket nozzle, the gas will accelerate faster out of the rocket, thereby causing the rocket to move forward easier, increasing efficiency.
-
Sceptimatic does have an interesting theory here that is new to me. That something cannot push it self, for instance you are sitting on a chair and use your arm to push yourself off by pushing on your leg, it's not going to happen. Sceptimatic is saying burning fuel and the rocket are considered one item. The burning fuel is considered part of the rocket, rocket pushing on rocket won't move it.
Is this what you are claiming sceptimatic?
-
You still just don't get it do you.
Imagine me and you face to face, on Earth, with our hands clamped to to each others hands.
You have to try and push me backwards, now if we were equal size and equal strength and I pushed back, we would go nowhere right.
We are both using all our energy up trying to move one another, yet we are going nowhere and eventually we would both run out of energy and give up.
Now think of that as us being in space trying to push each other away from each other, it would be the same thing, we would counteract each other.
No, it would not be the same thing, if you did that on earth, the only reason none of you would move is because you would be trying to make as most friction as possible with your feet, leaning to the front and down. If you stand straight up and both push into each other, both will fall to the other side (because of gravity and friction still present). If you did this on a pool, besides looking gay, you would both go into opposite directions, that is what would happen on space, on space you would move even more because there is no density as in a pool or the atmosphere.
Now imagine us on Earth doing the very same thing and you say, " I want to be the rocket" and I say, "stop being silly, people are watching, stop acting like a daft kid"....well ok forget the daft kid bit ;D
Anyway, Imagine us on Earth in the same position and you say, " I want to be the fuel of the rocket", so I say, " I will be the vacuum of space"
Then, you start to "push" against me... but as you do...I exert the same force but "pulling" you.
You would start running forward down the street the same pace as I would be running backwards because I'm not opposing you, I'm actually aiding you and as fast as you run, the faster I run backwards, keeping the same pace.
Eventually, all your energy will be used up without actually exerting any upper body force onto me because I am immediately accepting that force.
You can't be the vacuum of space because it is nothing, it is illogical to have someone represent the lack of anything, it cannot exert force, it cannot react to force, it is nothing, is the concept of nothing too hard to understand?
It's only nothing until something is inside of it like a rocket and like a hungry gas eating lion, it would swallow up anything inside that rocket that held any gas.
And you say that based on what? Vacuum is nothing and does nothing no matter what happens around it. here on earth is hard to have a vacuum space because of air pressure always trying to fill it, but that doesn't happen on space.
-
How does a gas behave in a vacuum?
Well let's put it this way.
If a rocket was in the vacuum of space, the vacuum of space would pull at that rocket until it got the air from it and any gas within it.
If you were to put a tied balloon with a small amount of air inside it, in the vacuum of space , the vacuum of space will want that air, so it would pull on that balloon until it stretched until it burst open to release that air to the vacuum, just like what would happen to a rocket.
Do you not know the answer to this question? This is basic physics and is an excellent starting point for you to hash this problem out.
-
In a fashion yes, because this is basically what these people are trying to put forward because it's the only way they can explain space travel.
They twist is slightly but in effect they are saying that the rocket pushes against itself, yet when I explain how silly this is, they use the fuel somehow managing to go in all directions against the rocket, which is just as silly.
Then they use expanding gases from burning fuel and think this will work fine but the vacuum of space welcomes all of this like a big hungry gaping mouth that can absorb it all as a mere snack.
No
-
No
I'm thinkingman, and I approve this message.
-
I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.
Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?
You do realize that space isn't a "perfect" vacuum, don't you? Traces of the earth's atmosphere reach several hundred miles high. That means that it can be truly said that rockets in space are still operating within the atmosphere.
-
I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.
Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?
You are the only one saying that vacuum is a hungry lion.
-
I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.
Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?
You do realize that space isn't a "perfect" vacuum, don't you? Traces of the earth's atmosphere reach several hundred miles high. That means that it can be truly said that rockets in space are still operating within the atmosphere.
Now "the vacuum of space isn't a vacuum". It never stops with round earth apologists.
-
I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.
Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?
Apparently you do.
Most of my life has been spent working the soil so my formal education is lacking, but i've managed to educate myself concerning rocket combustion chamber design.
Here is an experiment for you to try:
Hold a piece of paper about 12 inches in front of your face.
Now breathe in and inflate your lungs and exhale with all the force your lungs can muster holding your mouth open and watch the behavior of the paper you're breathing against - it should flutter slightly.
Now breathe in and inflate your lungs again and exhale with all the force your lungs can muster - this time pursing your lips as if to whistle - and watch the behavior of the paper you're breathing against - the force of your breath against it should cause it to flutter much more forcefully.
Now ask yourself what is causing that dramatic increase in force - is it the atmosphere sucking the air from your lungs at an increased rate?
Rockets propel themselves forward not by pushing against the atmosphere but by harnessing the power of ignited expanding gasses via specially designed nozzles similar to your pursed lips - the reaction itself pushing the rocket forward, not any external resistance.
If you are still unclear on the matter here is a website I found helpful:
http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm (http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm)
-
Now "the vacuum of space isn't a vacuum". It never stops with round earth apologists.
This just in, vacuum cleaners don't create a vacuum.
-
This explanation of yours proves that what you are saying about rocket propulsion is wrong.
If I breath at the paper with my mouth wide open, I'm expelling my air in a wider area and if I purse my lips and blow, I'm merely concentrating the air onto a certain spot on that paper.
The vacuum of space won;t be choosy, it can take that air as fast or as slow as it's getting expelled, whether it's a million foot wide nozzle or a 1 millimetre wide nozzle.
Either way it's going to be took as fast as the opening allows.
The vacuum of space will simply take any air/gas/fuel from that rocket as fast as the size of the hole allows it.
Either way, the rocket is rendered useless and rooted to the spot.
In the bolded area above - how do you explain the difference in energy - are your lungs contracting at different rates?
In the alleged near-vacuum of space what would happen to the energy released by the combustion reaction produced by the rocket engine?
-
This explanation of yours proves that what you are saying about rocket propulsion is wrong.
If I breath at the paper with my mouth wide open, I'm expelling my air in a wider area and if I purse my lips and blow, I'm merely concentrating the air onto a certain spot on that paper.
The vacuum of space won;t be choosy, it can take that air as fast or as slow as it's getting expelled, whether it's a million foot wide nozzle or a 1 millimetre wide nozzle.
Either way it's going to be took as fast as the opening allows.
The vacuum of space will simply take any air/gas/fuel from that rocket as fast as the size of the hole allows it.
Either way, the rocket is rendered useless and rooted to the spot.
In the bolded area above - how do you explain the difference in energy - are your lungs contracting at different rates?
In the alleged near-vacuum of space what would happen to the energy released by the combustion reaction produced by the rocket engine?
The vacuum of space doesn't recognise combustion, it will simply swallow it up whether it's combustion of simply gas.
You want me to explain the differences in energy.
Ok.
If I'm blowing with the same pressure from my mouth at a feather on the table and I fill up my lungs and expel my air from my wide open mouth, I'm directing a wide volume of air over a wide area "at" and around the feather, meaning that my air is expended in quick time.
If I fill my lungs up and purse my lips and blow at the feather, I can keep blowing it for a decent length of time because the pressure I'm expelling from my lungs can only escape through a small hole between my lips yet it's more concentrated on one spot, for example, I will be directly blowing against the feather and not all around it.
The vacuum of space doesn't recognise combustion, it will simply swallow it up whether it's combustion of simply gas.
You want me to explain the differences in energy.
Ok.
If I'm blowing with the same pressure from my mouth at a feather on the table and I fill up my lungs and expel my air from my wide open mouth, I'm directing a wide volume of air over a wide area "at" and around the feather, meaning that my air is expended in quick time.
If I fill my lungs up and purse my lips and blow at the feather, I can keep blowing it for a decent length of time because the pressure I'm expelling from my lungs can only escape through a small hole between my lips yet it's more concentrated on one spot, for example, I will be directly blowing against the feather and not all around it.
Its the same volume of air in your lungs - the increase in force is due the expansion of the gas as the force from your lungs compress it through the narrow opening of your pursed lips.
Following the same concept - the vacuum of space would only add energy to the combustion reaction as gas expands outward in all directions and pushes against the nozzle as it rushes to fill the void - not subtract from it.
In that link I sent you there is a diagram of different nozzle designs for different elevations and air pressures. Why do you think nozzle shape is so key in efficient rocket design?
-
What happens to the energy resulting from the expansion of gas against the nozzle?
-
To even say that the expanded burning fuel actually pushes back up the nozzle is madness.
In space, that fuel has nothing to expand into to give it lift or movement as space just simply takes what's thrown at it and gives nothing back, rendering the rocket absolutely 100% unmoveable space junk, unless hit by a meteorite or something wandering space.
I am interested to see what data you have to back up the bolded claim.
What is your theory on what propels meteorites through the heavens?
-
I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.
I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.
The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.
If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.
The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.
Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.
If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.
Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.
Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?
-
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.
-
I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.
I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.
The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.
If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.
The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.
Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.
If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.
Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.
Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?
No, you are pushing it.
Take that car off the road and suspend it in the air with you suspended in the air with your hands on the back of it.
Now see if you can push it.
Actually I could, it would move forward and me backward, while both still falling.
-
@Kendrick
I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.
Explain?
We already did. Read the thread over.
-
To even say that the expanded burning fuel actually pushes back up the nozzle is madness.
In space, that fuel has nothing to expand into to give it lift or movement as space just simply takes what's thrown at it and gives nothing back, rendering the rocket absolutely 100% unmoveable space junk, unless hit by a meteorite or something wandering space.
I am interested to see what data you have to back up the bolded claim.
What is your theory on what propels meteorites through the heavens?
I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.
I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.
The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.
If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.
The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.
Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.
If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.
Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.
A more accurate test would be if i were hold an explosive to my chest then set it off to see get pushed away by the rapidly expanding gasses.
If you are saying that a rocket gifted a large mechanical arm could not push itself through space then I agree - but that's not what combustion does.
-
I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.
I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.
The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.
If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.
The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.
Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.
If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.
Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.
Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?
No, you are pushing it.
Take that car off the road and suspend it in the air with you suspended in the air with your hands on the back of it.
Now see if you can push it.
Actually I could, it would move forward and me backward, while both still falling.
Does suspended mean falling?
ok forget about the line after the coma, happy?
-
Well that's settled then.
I've obviously misunderstood the science behind rockets.
I was under the impression that the fuel is under constant burn but it's obvious is propelled by explosives constantly going bang.
Glad I was able to help -
Think of it as one long explosion going bang until the fuel runs out.
-
Well that's settled then.
I've obviously misunderstood the science behind rockets.
I was under the impression that the fuel is under constant burn but it's obvious is propelled by explosives constantly going bang.
Glad I was able to help -
Think of it as one long explosion going bang until the fuel runs out.
*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.
-
Sceptimatic, how have you made this important discovery in rocket science bs.
-
It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.
No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.
Explain?
Newton's second law. You know, action/reaction.
-
@Kendrick
I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.
Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really. There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.
*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.
I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.
-
I thought you were clear on the process - i'm confused.
-
It appears you are descending into madness.
-
Sceptimatic, how have you made this important discovery in rocket science bs.
I'm not saying your theory is bs, I just want to know how you have made this important discovery.
-
When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?
-
When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?
Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.
-
This is getting old. Here is a video of a fire hose that went out of control, not that anyone needs a reminder. Fire Hose Gets Away (http://#)
Sceptimatic explain, citing some sort of evidence, how a fire hose would be stationary in space. Explain how space will "suck up" the water causing the fire hose not to move at all. You seem to have a great understanding of all that is involved so it shouldn't be a problem.
-
When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?
Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.
I assure you my vehicle has never been anything but forthright and honorable.
-
Sceptic, did you develope this theory on your own? Is there anymore material to read about this?
-
@Kendrick
I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.
Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really. There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.
That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.
*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.
I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.
See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.
-
@Kendrick
I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.
Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really. There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.
That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.
*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.
I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.
See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.
Hmmm. In a sceptiworld this might make sense.
But I have picked up something different form his ramblings.
To me it seems that Scpetimatic thinks the vacuum of space is so full, so dense, so powerful that it can actually 'suck up' and resist all forms of energy from having any effect. Which to me sounds like the exact opposite of a vacuum.
But then, what do I know? I am a spoon fed monkey that cannot think for myself.
©Sceptimatic, 35 pages of sh*t, TFES 2012
-
@Kendrick
I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.
Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really. There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.
That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.
*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.
I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.
See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.
Hmmm. In a sceptiworld this might make sense.
But I have picked up something different form his ramblings.
To me it seems that Scpetimatic thinks the vacuum of space is so full, so dense, so powerful that it can actually 'suck up' and resist all forms of energy from having any effect. Which to me sounds like the exact opposite of a vacuum.
But then, what do I know? I am a spoon fed monkey that cannot think for myself.
©Sceptimatic, 35 pages of sh*t, TFES 2012
Then you haven't been reading the thread.
I don't think a vacuum is full of anything and especially not rockets.
You are just mixed up and don't understand it but it's ok, I'm not here to mock you.
Nope, you are merely here to perpetuate a paranoid delusion that has the entire world fooled with you as the only enlightened soul that has seen through the lies.
-
You say you believe is full of nothing, but you don't accept it to behave like nothingness, as you say its constantly sucking what you throw at it, that is not what nothingness does, it does nothing. You seem to compare it to what vacuum behaves on earth, but on earth is air pressure trying to fill the vacuum, not the vacuum sucking air.
-
You say you believe is full of nothing, but you don't accept it to behave like nothingness, as you say its constantly sucking what you throw at it, that is not what nothingness does, it does nothing. You seem to compare it to what vacuum behaves on earth, but on earth is air pressure trying to fill the vacuum, not the vacuum sucking air.
I don't mention suck, I say swallow but in effect it's how it can be construed to behave.
Your air pressure on Earth is indeed trying to fill the vacuum , you are correct there.
Air on Earth is a pressure and is all around us. Think of Earth's atmosphere as like space except it's filled with matter against a small vacuum flask.
The air wants to get into that flask and any breach in that flask will allow the air to rush into it.
Now on that note, imagine it all, the opposite way round.
Space is the vacuum and the rocket is the air filled, instead of vacuum flask.
The Air pressure inside that rocket wants to escape and the vacuum of space is only too ready and willing to aid its escape as fast as it comes out because the vacuum of space is a willing mouth intent of biding it's time until there is a breach in that rocket.
Again, you take vacuum as an active force or energy reacting to what it in it, it is not. The only thing that could make a "breach" in the rocket due to pressure, is pressure itself, the one inside the rocket, but outside there is nothing, and one would think that an engine is made to stand the pressure it creates without problems.
-
The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.
-
When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?
Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.
I assure you my vehicle has never been anything but forthright and honorable.
The events of the last 12 hours have lead me to retract this statement - my vehicle engaged in some serious knavery and should now be regarded with a healthy sense of suspicion.
-
The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.
But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.
But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........
The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.
End result = no propulsion.
Again, you can't imagine vacuum as nothingness can't you?
If the engine is turned on, the expansion of the gases will cause propulsion, if they close it, the expansion stops, easy as that. Is not like the pressure inside the rocket is increasing constantly like if you keep shaking a soda. There is no reason for things inside to try to expand if they are under pressure (and is the lack of pressure what makes gasses and water expand in space), so they don't.
Look, water is always causing causing pressure in the pipe system, it has a higher pressure than the atmospheric, that is the reason if you open the tap, water will go out, but if you close it, it will stop going out. That has never been a problem.
-
The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.
But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.
But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........
The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.
End result = no propulsion.
In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the low pressure environment on the other side.
You can test this by purchasing a CO2 cartridge like this (http://www.airgundepot.com/jt-88-gram-co2-cartridges-2-pack.html) and puncturing it either with a hammer and nail or some other method.
As with anything Zetetic - care should be taken to equip yourself with the appropriate safety gear, I recommend American football pads and a helmet along with shatterproof safety goggles.
-
The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.
But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.
But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........
The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.
End result = no propulsion.
Again, you can't imagine vacuum as nothingness can't you?
If the engine is turned on, the expansion of the gases will cause propulsion, if they close it, the expansion stops, easy as that. Is not like the pressure inside the rocket is increasing constantly like if you keep shaking a soda. There is no reason for things inside to try to expand if they are under pressure (and is the lack of pressure what makes gasses and water expand in space), so they don't.
Look, water is always causing causing pressure in the pipe system, it has a higher pressure than the atmospheric, that is the reason if you open the tap, water will go out, but if you close it, it will stop going out. That has never been a problem.
You simply get mixed up with Earth and the vacuum of space in how we are told it works.
What is your point now? As I said, the pressure inside the rocket is not constantly increasing, so when the engines are turned on, it won't be expelled all into vacuum. It will keep the propulsion of the rockets because of the high pressure combustion it causes.
-
There is no low pressure in space. There is no pressure at all.
Ok - let me make a slight change in the wording of my explaination to make it more clear:
In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the zero pressure environment on the other side.
-
There is no low pressure in space. There is no pressure at all.
Ok - let me make a slight change in the wording of my explaination to make it more clear:
In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the zero pressure environment on the other side.
So what are these expanding gases pushing against?
The rocket's combustion chamber.
-
So what are these expanding gases pushing against?
In this scenario as the gas leaves the high pressure environment into the zero pressure environment it expands in all directions - pressing against the sides of breach and the outside of the container - creating force and propulsion.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
-
So what are these expanding gases pushing against?
In this scenario as the gas leaves the high pressure environment into the zero pressure environment it expands in all directions - pressing against the sides of breach and the outside of the container - creating force and propulsion.
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
What are you talking about "leverage"? no matter how many times you change your question, the answer is always going to be the same. the fact is all forces equalize, and therefore if there is a force in one direction there is a reaction somewhere else. if you were to have a bomb in space the energy of the explosion would expell in all dircections. if you have it so that there is a solid container*, unless the container splits apart and explodes then it has to conform to a certain direction to equalize the force, so if you burn fuel, the fuel tries to expand in all directions causing it partially to try to push the container apart, but because it is funneled and the container does not come apart it conforms to one single direction exactly opposite the direction of force.
* [edit] open at one end.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?
from the burning fuel.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?
There is a combustion chamber in which the fuel is burning at such a high rate that it is essentially a continuous explosion. There is an opening at one end of the combustion chamber. When the fuel burns, it expands in all directions, pushing on all sides of the chamber. Since there is an opening on one side, it escapes out that side, the stuff that is still pushing within the chamber forces the rocket forwards in the opposite direction that the nozzle is facing.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
-
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?
As long as the pressure on one side of the 'breach' is lower - the expanding gasses will create force on the 'breach.'
I 'think' as the pressures on both sides of the breach approach equality the force of the gasses expanding will diminish, someone more versed then I may need to correct or clarify.
The point is - that the difference in pressure in a vacuum will lead to more propulsion via the expanding of gasses against the 'breach' then the pressure at sea-level.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?
from the burning fuel.
Do you think the vacuum of space cares what burning fuel is?
The vacuum of space will treat burning fuel in exactly the same way as non burning. It will simply accept it into it's vastness as fast as it is thrown at it.
Result:
No moving rocket.
Is not the gases against vacuum the ones causing the movement, is the gasses pressing against the rocket that cause the rocket to move. If you push something it will move, if gasses at high pressure pushes a rocket it will move.
-
So what are these expanding gases pushing against?
In this scenario as the gas leaves the high pressure environment into the zero pressure environment it expands in all directions - pressing against the sides of breach and the outside of the container - creating force and propulsion.
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
What are you talking about "leverage"? no matter how many times you change your question, the answer is always going to be the same. the fact is all forces equalize, and therefore if there is a force in one direction there is a reaction somewhere else. if you were to have a bomb in space the energy of the explosion would expell in all dircections. if you have it so that there is a solid container, unless the container splits apart and explodes then it has to conform to a certain direction to equalize the force, so if you burn fuel, the fuel tries to expand in all directions causing it partially to try to push the container apart, but because it is funneled and the container does not come apart it conforms to one single direction exactly opposite the direction of force.
And what is opposite the direction of force?
A vacuum that immediately nullifies that force, rendering the rocket useless as it's force is being took away from it as fast as it is getting expended.
Are you really that clueless, sorry; it seems like you are delibrately missing the point.
Imagine a bomb in space, that has a coating of shrapnel, when it explodes because of a comination of some kind of fuel and fire, the shrapnel will go everywhere. now imagine you have a a bomib in space inside an indestuctable container with one end open, when the bomb explodes it will push all the container's edges, but because it is indestructable, the container will move uniformly in a direction that is an average distribution of the energy propelled into it. now imagine that the bomb is continuous bomb attached to the the inside of the container, this will cause movement. very simplistic explanation, but it should make you realize the mechanism.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
what is more scary is that you think something needs to push against air to move.
-
I 'think' as the pressures on both sides of the breach approach equality the force of the gasses expanding will diminish, someone more versed then I may need to correct or clarify.
I think I know what you mean. For example, if we were talking about a simple can of air in space. If the can were breached, then the air would be propelled out, pushing the can in the opposite direction. As the air pressure in the can drops, there is less force pushing it, so it would diminish, you are correct. In the case of liquid fueled rockets, they have throttle controls, so the "pressure," or force, can be manually raised and lowered. It can fire full force until it's out of fuel if the pilot/person at the controls so desires.
-
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?
Nope -
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?
The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?
from the burning fuel.
Do you think the vacuum of space cares what burning fuel is?
The vacuum of space will treat burning fuel in exactly the same way as non burning. It will simply accept it into it's vastness as fast as it is thrown at it.
Result:
No moving rocket.
Is not the gases against vacuum the ones causing the movement, is the gasses pressing against the rocket that cause the rocket to move. If you push something it will move, if gasses at high pressure pushes a rocket it will move.
You cannot push your own rocket with your own gases, unless it is acting on an external force, which on Earth would be the "expansion" of the gases against the atmosphere.
Think of a "hot air balloon"
The burner heats up the air inside the balloon which forces the cold air out as heat rises, forcing the balloon upwards.
A rocket is a heavy opposite in that, the hot air is at the nozzle so is overcoming the cold air atmosphere all the time at force, which propels the rocket.
The science you are relying on is BS .
the science we are relying on is not understood by you; you have given no rational reason why can't understand it, and given no rational reason why it s flawed, and so your accusation that it is BS, seems to me, a shaming tactic designed to take the pressure off of you being too dumb to understand it.
-
The pressures on both sides cannot create equality because there is no pressure whatsoever in the vacuum of space to do that, so all you have is pressure coming from the rocket and the minute it leaves the rocket, it is swallowed up by space.
Space is neither hot or cold, so it has no preference what it's swallowing up.
Sorry - i think I may have confused you by providing too much detail.
You are in error in thinking that the vacuum 'swallows up' expanding gasses eliminating force from the equation.
-
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
This assumption is wrong
The force is created by the fuel and fire which explodes creating particles in space, and the particles momentum collides with the container causing a transfer of energy.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
No forces do not push against the atmosphere, in fact the atmosphere makes rockets inefficient, you are looking at reality the wrong way round.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
seconded.
-
The pressures on both sides cannot create equality because there is no pressure whatsoever in the vacuum of space to do that, so all you have is pressure coming from the rocket and the minute it leaves the rocket, it is swallowed up by space.
Space is neither hot or cold, so it has no preference what it's swallowing up.
Sorry - i think I may have confused you by providing too much detail.
You are in error in thinking that the vacuum 'swallows up' expanding gasses eliminating force from the equation.
I'm not in error. You are in error because you are relying on what you have been brainwashed to rely on and are sticking to it like glue, which is fine by me as I won;t be pushed off course by any pressure acting upon me, like your fake working space rockets.
If you want to prove anything to me, you better do a hell of a lot better or just accept you are wrong and have been fooled.
Ok explain to us the alternative, which is consistent, more comprehensive than the origincal explaination and which is also easily falsifiable.
If you cannot do this I have no reason to question the already much more corroborated theory.
-
I'm not in error. You are in error because you are relying on what you have been brainwashed to rely on and are sticking to it like glue, which is fine by me as I won;t be pushed off course by any pressure acting upon me, like your fake working space rockets.
If you want to prove anything to me, you better do a hell of a lot better or just accept you are wrong and have been fooled.
I believe I am laboring under the incorrect assumption that you wish to be enlightened - it appears you are merely posting inflammatory statements to attempt to elicit emotional responses for your amusement.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem more interested in calling us brainwashed then making an attempt to experiment or understand the points we are trying to convey.
-
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
This assumption is wrong
The force is created by the fuel and fire which explodes creating particles in space, and the particles momentum collides with the container causing a transfer of energy.Please tell me you haven't stooped to this level.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
No forces do not push against the atmosphere, in fact the atmosphere makes rockets inefficient, you are looking at reality the wrong way round.It's you that is looking at it the wrong way round. The reasons why rockets work on Earth is because of the atmosphere. It isn't the most efficient way to travel on Earth but it is the fastest.
Yes it is more efficient than other modes of travel, this is because of air having less friction (not more), but space is more efficient than that because there is no friction.
-
The pressures on both sides cannot create equality because there is no pressure whatsoever in the vacuum of space to do that, so all you have is pressure coming from the rocket and the minute it leaves the rocket, it is swallowed up by space.
Space is neither hot or cold, so it has no preference what it's swallowing up.
Sorry - i think I may have confused you by providing too much detail.
You are in error in thinking that the vacuum 'swallows up' expanding gasses eliminating force from the equation.
I'm not in error. You are in error because you are relying on what you have been brainwashed to rely on and are sticking to it like glue, which is fine by me as I won;t be pushed off course by any pressure acting upon me, like your fake working space rockets.
If you want to prove anything to me, you better do a hell of a lot better or just accept you are wrong and have been fooled.
Ok explain to us the alternative, which is consistent, more comprehensive than the origincal explaination and which is also easily falsifiable.
If you cannot do this I have no reason to question the already much more corroborated theory.
The alternative to what?
to what we have been "brainwashed"into thinking...
[edit] in scare quotes because noobs like these tend to go "so you admit you have been brainwashed"
-
Carry on like this and you will be ignored. Your choice.
Do you believe you doing the members of this form a courtesy by asking for help to understand physics concepts then abruptly calling us brainwashed?
This is extremely rude behavior.
-
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
This assumption is wrong
The force is created by the fuel and fire which explodes creating particles in space, and the particles momentum collides with the container causing a transfer of energy.Please tell me you haven't stooped to this level.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
No forces do not push against the atmosphere, in fact the atmosphere makes rockets inefficient, you are looking at reality the wrong way round.It's you that is looking at it the wrong way round. The reasons why rockets work on Earth is because of the atmosphere. It isn't the most efficient way to travel on Earth but it is the fastest.
Yes it is more efficient than other modes of travel, this is because of air having less friction (not more), but space is more efficient than that because there is no friction.
Space has nothing, so it's useless.
let me give you an alternate scenario, what is your mind made out of, how can you think and go from one thopugh to another if there is nothing to push against, mind has nothing. I realize I am being fecetious, but this guy is a dumbass.
-
The pressures on both sides cannot create equality because there is no pressure whatsoever in the vacuum of space to do that, so all you have is pressure coming from the rocket and the minute it leaves the rocket, it is swallowed up by space.
Space is neither hot or cold, so it has no preference what it's swallowing up.
Sorry - i think I may have confused you by providing too much detail.
You are in error in thinking that the vacuum 'swallows up' expanding gasses eliminating force from the equation.
I'm not in error. You are in error because you are relying on what you have been brainwashed to rely on and are sticking to it like glue, which is fine by me as I won;t be pushed off course by any pressure acting upon me, like your fake working space rockets.
If you want to prove anything to me, you better do a hell of a lot better or just accept you are wrong and have been fooled.
Ok explain to us the alternative, which is consistent, more comprehensive than the origincal explaination and which is also easily falsifiable.
If you cannot do this I have no reason to question the already much more corroborated theory.
The alternative to what?
to what we have been brainwashed into thinking...
It isn't an alternative, it's how rockets work against what you have been told.
They work by pushing hot gases with force against the atmosphere under it and it's as simple as that.
It does not constantly kick itself up the arse end to do it.
how do things move in space.
Do you believe that space ahs an atmosphere?
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.
A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.
EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.
-
Carry on like this and you will be ignored. Your choice.
Do you believe you doing the members of this form a courtesy by asking for help to understand physics concepts then abruptly calling us brainwashed?
This is extremely rude behavior.
Do you think it's clever to try your little put down?
We are all brainwashed in life, so it's hardly a dig.
We are all brought up on manipulation and lies, it just so happens that when we grow up, we have to sift through what we have been forced to accept as true and what our own logic tells us could be manipulation.
We have all, (hopefully) figured out the tooth fairy is BS and Santa, yet we allow our small children to still believe in them, because it makes them happy.
We even manipulate our own children but we see it as a good cause.
The problem with some people as they get older is, they still dine out on stuff that is blatantly false, like moon landings and once you see that, you just know they will swallow anything told to them, regardless of how intelligent they say they are.
Either that or they know it's BS but care more to protect it.
Brainwashing is a very unscientific term. you used it originally as a shaming tactic and troll, now when you have been called out on it, you accuse kendrick (who has been nothing but respectful to you) of "putting you down" and then you change the conext of your shaming tactic to "everyone is brainwashed", so you expect us all to believe that you did not do it originially to be a contrarian little bitch? if you beleive we are all brainwashed, then nothing you say is worth anything, at all.
you poor sad, little turd.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.
A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.
EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.
How do you think the blades create lift?
Downward force that's how.
Okay, I'll fade away after this brief response. They create lift from the shape of the blade and the way it moves laterally through the air, which creates a "pillow" of air underneath the blade. If the blade is angled properly and moving the right speed, it will live the craft underneath it. It works the same way with airplane wings. You're not going to tell me that wings create a downward force are you? Good, because that would just be ridiculous.
-
Hey Sceptimatic, despite saying bye earlier, I have an experiment and visual aid for you to try should you feel up to it.
Unlike the vacuum chamber, or even the balloons, this one should take minimal resources and setup time.
1. Take an empty, lidless shoebox.
2. Place both hands in the shoebox.
3. Move hands outward and press against the ends (simulating internal pressure, i.e. combustion, etc).
4. Note that while applying internal pressure to both ends, the box does not move either direction.
5. Now, cut an opening in one end.
6. Again place your hands in the box and begin applying pressure outward against the ends.
7. Note that one hand exits the box through the opening and is pushing against nothing, while the other hand is pushing the box and moving it.
Obviously this only simulates pressure to the front and back, as you're not applying equal force to the bottom, sides, or (open anyway) top.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.
A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.
EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.
How do you think the blades create lift?
Downward force that's how.
Okay, I'll fade away after this brief response. They create light from the shape of the blade and the way it moves laterally through the air, which creates a "pillow" of air underneath the blade. If the blade is angled properly and moving the right speed, it will live the craft underneath it. It works the same way with airplane wings. You're not going to tell me that wings create a downward force are you? Good, because that would just be ridiculous.
I'll tell you what.
Just fade away , because you talk in riddles.
Riddle? I understand it, it is concatanted and logical, if a little ungrammatical; are you sure you don't have problems thinking straight?
-
In case you are indeed seeking enlightenment, in addition to 29silhoutte's here is another experiment for you to try or just watch someone else trying that illustrates the concepts you are having issues with
Google 'Hero's Engine'
Home-built Hero of Alexandria steam engine, work in progress. (http://#)
This is a rudimentary device that when water is heated it turns to steam and expands - the gas (steam) expands from the higher pressure environment inside the sphere into the lower pressure environment outside the sphere and provides force and therefore propulsion.
You could perform that same experiment in a vacuum - just would need to get a heat source that would work in that environment.
-
Hey Sceptimatic, despite saying bye earlier, I have an experiment and visual aid for you to try should you feel up to it.
Unlike the vacuum chamber, or even the balloons, this one should take minimal resources and setup time.
1. Take an empty, lidless shoebox.
2. Place both hands in the shoebox.
3. Move hands outward and press against the ends (simulating internal pressure, i.e. combustion, etc).
4. Note that while applying internal pressure to both ends, the box does not move either direction.
5. Now, cut an opening in one end.
6. Again place your hands in the box and begin applying pressure outward against the ends.
7. Note that one hand exits the box through the opening and is pushing against nothing, while the other hand is pushing the box and moving it.
Obviously this only simulates pressure to the front and back, as you're not applying equal force to the bottom, sides, or (open anyway) top.
And what is this supposed to prove?
Here's an experiment for you.
get a shoe box and cut the right end away from it, then place both hands inside it, then shove your right hand towards the open end, but in doing so, follow it out with your left hand.
Does the box move ?..No?
That's space for you.
in your model what stands in for the internal pressure? force doesn't just go in one direction, no matter how you might wish it does.
-
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/297/328/nWdUntitled2Ntd.png)
The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.
You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.
The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.
Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.
A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.
EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.
How do you think the blades create lift?
Downward force that's how.
Okay, I'll fade away after this brief response. They create light from the shape of the blade and the way it moves laterally through the air, which creates a "pillow" of air underneath the blade. If the blade is angled properly and moving the right speed, it will live the craft underneath it. It works the same way with airplane wings. You're not going to tell me that wings create a downward force are you? Good, because that would just be ridiculous.
I'll tell you what.
Just fade away , because you talk in riddles.
Riddle? I understand it, it is concatanted and logical, if a little ungrammatical; are you sure you don't have problems thinking straight?
To be honest, I'm obviously not thinking straight because I've now replied to a few of your attempted put downs, so now I'll think straight and simply give you an ultimatum.
Either debate your points and you will get replies. After you apologise.
Or
Carry on with your attempted put downs and allow me to test out the ignore feature.
Your choice.
The silent tretament does not bother me.
-
In case you are indeed seeking enlighteningment, in addition to 29silhoutte's here is another experiment for you to try or just watch someone else trying that illustrates the concepts you are having issues with
Google 'Hero's Engine'
Home-built Hero of Alexandria steam engine, work in progress. (http://#)
This is a rudimentary device that when water is heated it turns to steam and expands - the gas (steam) expands from the higher pressure environment inside the sphere into the lower pressure environment outside the sphere and provides force and therefore propulsion.
You could perform that same experiment in a vacuum - just would need to get a heat source that would work in that environment.
And what heat source would work in that environment?
Anything that wouldnt require a flame - an electric or chemical heating element would work.
Edit: something else for your brain to chew on - if you decide that this experiment only works because the expanding gas (steam) is pushing against the friction of the atmosphere - do you think performing this experiment in a higher pressure environment - the atmosphere being more dense - would make the sphere spin faster or behave any differently?
-
Hey Sceptimatic, despite saying bye earlier, I have an experiment and visual aid for you to try should you feel up to it.
Unlike the vacuum chamber, or even the balloons, this one should take minimal resources and setup time.
1. Take an empty, lidless shoebox.
2. Place both hands in the shoebox.
3. Move hands outward and press against the ends (simulating internal pressure, i.e. combustion, etc).
4. Note that while applying internal pressure to both ends, the box does not move either direction.
5. Now, cut an opening in one end.
6. Again place your hands in the box and begin applying pressure outward against the ends.
7. Note that one hand exits the box through the opening and is pushing against nothing, while the other hand is pushing the box and moving it.
Obviously this only simulates pressure to the front and back, as you're not applying equal force to the bottom, sides, or (open anyway) top.
And what is this supposed to prove?
Here's an experiment for you.
get a shoe box and cut the right end away from it, then place both hands inside it, then shove your right hand towards the open end, but in doing so, follow it out with your left hand.
Does the box move ?..No?
That's space for you.
So you're saying there's no pressure inside the box, or rocket combustion chamber/nozzle pushing against the inside walls? 1. Yes or no.
1. If no, then there will be a hand/pressure pushing forward inside forcing movement.
1. If yes, and movement of the box relies only on my hands exiting the opening against the atmosphere, then if I move my hand fast enough against the resistance of the air, the box will move correct? 2. Yes or no.
2. If yes, by all means give it a try.
2. If no, then I guess it needs some pressure pushing forward from inside. (Hence, the hand creating pressure against the inside, or rocket fuel combustion creating pressure against the inside, regardless of air pressure, or lack there of, outside)
-
In case you are indeed seeking enlighteningment, in addition to 29silhoutte's here is another experiment for you to try or just watch someone else trying that illustrates the concepts you are having issues with
Google 'Hero's Engine'
Home-built Hero of Alexandria steam engine, work in progress. (http://#)
This is a rudimentary device that when water is heated it turns to steam and expands - the gas (steam) expands from the higher pressure environment inside the sphere into the lower pressure environment outside the sphere and provides force and therefore propulsion.
You could perform that same experiment in a vacuum - just would need to get a heat source that would work in that environment.
And what heat source would work in that environment?
Well, the burning of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in a combustion chamber, for one.
-
Sceptimatic - I really cannot get my head around your complete inability to understand a a concept as simple as a rocket.
Fuel & oxygen combine, liberating large amounts of energy. This causes extreme heating & expansion of the resulting gas. The gas escapes at high speed through the cunningly designed hole in the expansion chamber, and the law of conservation of momentum means that an equal & opposite amount of momentum is imparted to the rocket - sending it the other way.
My 11 yearold son has no trouble understanding this.
-
First of all, let's start with the fire hose on Earth and what is acting on it and why it goes mental if left alone.
Once the pump is started, it forces the water through the hose at pressure and the faster the pump, the faster the pressure.
Pressure isn't a speed.
If you have the hose nozzle turned off, the water will rush into that hose and fill it and then the hose would be laid there doing nothing.
Correct
Pick up that hose and open the nozzle and you feel the pressure of the water push back against you. The water is flowing in "one " direction only and that is away from you, against two acting forces, which are the the atmosphere and gravity.
The water is indeed flowing only one direction and yes it would act against atmosphere and gravity. REMEMBER THIS.
The faster you push the air away, the faster the air comes back which creates a force against you,
That isn't really worded correct but the idea is correct, yes air resistance exists.
Naturally you get told that it's just the mass of the water alone that does this, yet if you were to walk into a thin roofed alley way with the same hose , you will find that you would be blown back onto your arse because the water is compressing the air inside that alley meaning that the air is now acting like a...... for want of a few better words, an "air spring"..
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but the water coming out does disrupt the air. But air and water don't force each other as much as you think. If you turn a bottle of water upside down, air can't hold the water in. Air resistance slows down the water after it leaves the hose. Air resistance does not effect the hose.
All that the water in the hose is doing is creating a friction against the air which is why you are forced back.
Untrue. As you said before, water coming out is impeded by air. As you said, atmosphere applies a force to the water. The water is not the hose. You said this yourself. Although atmosphere has little force on the water coming out of the hose. In a vacuum, the water would be unimpeded by air and could actually come at a little faster. Air resistance slows down the water after it leaves the hose. Air resistance does not effect the hose.
Picture it like this.
Go and run down an alley that is closed off at the end and that it is exactly the same width as your shoulders and 1 inch above your head height and roofed, meaning you can run and your shoulders are mildly touching the sides and not really impeding your movement.
Run as fast as you can towards the wall at the end and you will find that it gets harder and harder to run the closer you get to the end, because what you are doing is compressing the air.
Not entirely true since air can still go around you. But yes, air can be compressed in a confined space. Key word, confined. The hose in the video is not in a confined space. If you take your same experiment but do it in a vacuum(yes I know you can't really do that), does that mean you can't run in the ally, or you can run easier in the ally? You could run easier, your force has no opposite force acting on it so you have no trouble hitting the wall.
When a hose gets left on the floor with the nozzle open, it acts like a mental snake because it is working against air pressure which will push it from side to side because the hose is uneven against it so it pushing the air in all directions making the hose act in this manner.
Incorrect still. As you said, air acts on the water. The hose acts like a "mental snake" because water is leaving the hose. As you said if no water is leaving the hose, the hose doesn't move.
You take away the air/friction against this hose and it would simply shoot out its water in the direction it's facing and would not act in a wriggling snake like manner.
You said the air is against the water. Why are you changing your mind?
The only reason friction/air is denied in experiments is because it would immediately kill off space travel and they know this, so Newtons law comes into play but Newtons law is manipulated to factor in space.
Air friction is not denied in experiments. If I shoot a bullet at a target, air will slow the bullet down as it travels. If no air is present to slow the bullet down, the bullet will not slow down. Noone denies this.
You are just confused. Here is another thought.
A .308 caliber bolt action rifle will have more felt recoil than a .223 caliber rifle. A .308 bullets are around 160 grains and velocity at the muzzle around 2,700 ft/s. A .223 bullet with a mass of 55 grains will have a velocity around 3,200 ft/s. Why is it the faster bullet has less recoil? As you say, it "compresses the air faster".
-
rockets, satellites, rover, space stations etc, have been sent to space. You choose not to believe it. Maybe you don't want to understand it, maybe you can't, maybe a little of both. But that doesn't change the facts or the physic laws.
-
I'm certainly not confused. I'm 100% certain rockets will not work in space.
What you show me on Earth will not work in the vacuum of space, which is what you people cannot comprehend.
How are you 100% certain you are correct in stating that rockets will not work in space?
-
I'm certainly not confused. I'm 100% certain rockets will not work in space.
What you show me on Earth will not work in the vacuum of space, which is what you people cannot comprehend.
If you think that Newtons 3rd law somehow fails to operate in low pressure environments, then you are certainly confused about something.
-
I'm certainly not confused. I'm 100% certain rockets will not work in space.
What you show me on Earth will not work in the vacuum of space, which is what you people cannot comprehend.
How are you 100% certain you are correct in stating that rockets will not work in space?
For all the reasons I've stated.
It's rare for me to say I'm 100% correct because mostly I will say things are a possibility and I'm fairly certain or I have my suspicions, yet I'm 100% certain that no man made object has ever been into space.
So you arent 100% certain as you're just guessing?
-
No. I'm not guessing. I am 100% certain that rockets do not work in space, "if" space is the vacuum we are led to believe it is.
What have you been led to believe about the vacuum of space?
-
I'm certainly not confused. I'm 100% certain rockets will not work in space.
What you show me on Earth will not work in the vacuum of space, which is what you people cannot comprehend.
If you think that Newtons 3rd law somehow fails to operate in low pressure environments, then you are certainly confused about something.
Newtons third law is simply twisted to fit space travel into the equation that's all.
Newton's third law is the conservation of momentum. How is this 'twisted to fit' space travel ? It works under all conditions.
-
That it's a near vacuum, not an absolute vacuum but close to it. Have you been told different?
Since you agree that space is not a perfect vacuum that means that you agree that the air pressure is very near, but not exactly equal to, zero. The air pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi. The pressure inside a rocket's combustion chamber can 100-200 times the air pressure at sea level. Do you honestly think that the the atmosphere at sea level will "devour" the exhaust gasses of a rocket any less vigorously than the near vacuum of space?
-
That it's a near vacuum, not an absolute vacuum but close to it. Have you been told different?
Since you agree that space is not a perfect vacuum that means that you agree that the air pressure is very near, but not exactly equal to, zero. The air pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi. The pressure inside a rocket's combustion chamber can 100-200 times the air pressure at sea level. Do you honestly think that the the atmosphere at sea level will "devour" the exhaust gasses of a rocket any less vigorously than the near vacuum of space?
Devour? ???
No , no, no, you have it all wrong. I never mentioned Earth atmosphere devouring anything, I mentioned space swallowing up anything a rocket gave out rendering it useless.
I know what you said. What I want to know is what does the 14,000+ psi in the rocket's combustion chamber care if it's being "swallowed" by 14.7 psi at sea level or near zero psi in space?
What makes a hot air balloon rise high into the sky?
The same principle that makes boats float; buoyancy. The hot air in the balloon is less dense than the cool atmosphere around it. However, this has nothing at all to do with rockets and vacuums.
-
What makes hot air balloons rise high into the sky.
Fully answer this question.
I already told you, buoyancy is the principle that makes hot air balloons float. Hot air in the balloon is less dense than the relatively cool air of the atmosphere causing the to balloon rise. Seriously, that's all there is to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon#Theory_of_operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon#Theory_of_operation)
The heated air inside the envelope makes it buoyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyant) since it has a lower density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law) than the relatively cold air outside the envelope. As with all aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft), hot air balloons cannot fly beyond the atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere). Unlike gas balloons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_balloon), the envelope does not have to be sealed at the bottom since the air near the bottom of the envelope is at the same pressure as the surrounding air.
-
Just making sure you understood how it worked.
Now think of your rocket nozzle pumping that super hot flame under it, it heats up and expands against the dense cold atmosphere until the rocket is propelled upwards.
It simply works against the atmosphere but they can't tell us that it works this way as it kills off space travel, so they baffle your head with the mumbo jumbo of rockets actually magically kicking themselves up their own arses like a super fast Bruce Lee.
How about a water powered toy rocket. It is not heat propelling it.
-
Just making sure you understood how it worked.
Now think of your rocket nozzle pumping that super hot flame under it, it heats up and expands against the dense cold atmosphere until the rocket is propelled upwards.
It simply works against the atmosphere but they can't tell us that it works this way as it kills off space travel, so they baffle your head with the mumbo jumbo of rockets actually magically kicking themselves up their own arses like a super fast Bruce Lee.
Still now how rockets work. Never has, never will. All the arguments that show how you are incorrect you just ignore. There is a reason you are the only one on this site arguing that rockets don't work in space. I don't know why people are still trying.
-
Just making sure you understood how it worked.
Now think of your rocket nozzle pumping that super hot flame under it, it heats up and expands against the dense cold atmosphere until the rocket is propelled upwards.
No. Rockets do not work like hot air balloons. Rockets are far too dense to be able to use buoyancy to fly.
It simply works against the atmosphere but they can't tell us that it works this way as it kills off space travel, so they baffle your head with the mumbo jumbo of rockets actually magically kicking themselves up their own arses like a super fast Bruce Lee.
No one has said anything about rockets "magically kicking themselves up their own arses", or any such nonsense, except for you.
-
We already explained you how rockets work, first you said they pushed against air, now you say the are like hot air balloons? And you talk about common sense?
The speed of hot air moving upwards is nothing compared to the speed of the gasses expansions because of combustion, that is what moves the rocket.
No, the rocket does not push against itself, not in a nutshell. If that's how you understand it, you are not understanding it.
"They are still trying because I have put doubt in their minds and they are more questioning themselves than questioning my thoughts.
If they were 100% certain on what they were told to believe, they would have simply explained why it works their way and seen mine, then give up."
You really have no idea how everyone else here sees you, ignorance is bliss.
-
Sceptimatic, explain how your "theory" explains this video. This video shows how rockets work. A force is applied to the medicine ball and in return an equal and opposite force is felt back.
Medicine Ball Catch and Throw on Skateboard (http://#ws)
-
Sceptimatic, explain how your "theory" explains this video. This video shows how rockets work. A force is applied to the medicine ball and in return an equal and opposite force is felt back.
Medicine Ball Catch and Throw on Skateboard (http://#ws)
On his throw, he is throwing the heavy ball which has mass and if you notice, it's not until he has released that ball that he move backwards, so it's mass and gravity, plus a small hint of atmosphere against his mass and energy.
No, he already had moving the moment he released the ball.
(http://picturestack.com/329/845/5R7Untitled2BUM.png)
-
Now imagine just before he released that ball, I grabbed it from him with the same force as he was about to release it and flung it behind me......he would be rooted to the spot and that is what space would do to him.
So you're saying that space grabs the exhaust gasses from a rocket engine, right? Tell me, just how does empty space grab anything?
-
Now imagine just before he released that ball, I grabbed it from him with the same force as he was about to release it and flung it behind me......he would be rooted to the spot and that is what space would do to him.
So you're saying that space grabs the exhaust gasses from a rocket engine, right? Tell me, just how does empty space grab anything?
Don't you know? space is like a hungry lion.
-
Sceptimatic, you seem to be some kind of super troll. You are making claims that I don't think have been expressed here before. I can almost believe what you are saying, because of your enthusiasm.
Do you have any proof, beside the 2 balloons?
What makes you the rocket and space expert?
Are you a 14 year old kid with autism?
WTF?
-
Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.
The rocket doesn't stay empty. It uses the fuel to make constant pressure, which pushes on the inside surface in every direction except for the opening.
-
The movement started before he released the ball.
(http://picturestack.com/331/763/9DdUntitled2a6i.png)
It depends which way you want to look at it.
On Earth, you suck out the air from a container and make a vacuum, now the air wants to get back into that vacuum and is all around that container just waiting for the breach so it can flow right back in and equalize right?
Now picture this scenario from the opposite way round.
In space you have the rocket that, (for instance in this case) is air filled against the expanse of space which contains no matter.
Instead of the air just being in that rocket, it now wants to get out and feed the vacuum and because there is no air pressure from outside acting on it, it starts to expand inside the rocket because it wants out and will keep expanding until the rocket casing splits or a nozzle is opened to release it.
Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.
I do not expect you to accept or understand this because I think it's way beyond your acceptance. But there it is.
Doesn't matter, the metal rocket keeps the pressure. It won't expand. There is a higher pressure inside the rocket than outside, true. Rocket pressure is constantly increasing? no.
-
On Earth, you suck out the air from a container and make a vacuum, now the air wants to get back into that vacuum and is all around that container just waiting for the breach so it can flow right back in and equalize right?
Yes, air wants to go from a region of high pressure to low pressure.
In space you have the rocket that, (for instance in this case) is air filled against the expanse of space which contains no matter.
Instead of the air just being in that rocket, it now wants to get out and feed the vacuum and because there is no air pressure from outside acting on it, it starts to expand inside the rocket because it wants out and will keep expanding until the rocket casing splits or a nozzle is opened to release it.
Yes, combustion gasses in the rocket engine want to go from a region of high pressure to low pressure.
Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.
I do not expect you to accept or understand this because I think it's way beyond your acceptance. But there it is.
I think the part that you can't accept is that the action/reaction happens within the combustion chamber before the gasses are released into the vacuum of space.
-
Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.
The rocket doesn't stay empty. It uses the fuel to make constant pressure, which pushes on the inside surface in every direction except for the opening.
If you only sat back and realised what you were saying, honestly, you will kick yourself.
Well, you did say before you needed it explained as simply as possible. So what part will I kick myself over? The rocket combustion chamber not staying empty (until the fuel runs out)? The fuel burn process? The pressure from combustion pushing in every direction?
Speaking of which... Perhaps you could clarify a few questions on the shoebox demonstration.
get a shoe box and cut the right end away from it, then place both hands inside it, then shove your right hand towards the open end, but in doing so, follow it out with your left hand.
Does the box move ?..No?
So you're saying there's no pressure inside the box or rocket combustion chamber/nozzle pushing against the inside walls? 1. Yes or no.
1. If no, then there will be a hand/pressure pushing forward inside forcing movement.
1. If yes, and movement of the box relies only on my hands exiting the opening against the atmosphere, then if I move my hand fast enough against the resistance of the air, the box will move correct? 2. Yes or no.
2. If yes, by all means give it a try. We await the results of this experiment.
2. If no, then I guess it needs some pressure pushing forward from inside. (Hence, the hand creating pressure against the inside, or rocket fuel combustion creating pressure against the inside regardless of air pressure or lack there of, outside)
[/quote]
-
I believe the moon landings are bogus, filmed on earth movies. Speaking of vacuums, I have never understood how "they" say the atmosphere extends up to space, then there is the "vacuum" of space out there. It seems that vacuum of space would remove the atmosphere from off of the earth.... Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say). It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.
-
I believe the moon landings are bogus, filmed on earth movies. Speaking of vacuums, I have never understood how "they" say the atmosphere extends up to space, then there is the "vacuum" of space out there.
The air just gets thinner the higher one goes. There is no 'plenty of air and suddenly no air'.
It seems that vacuum of space would remove the atmosphere from off of the earth.... Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say).
Now you're getting it.
It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.
Well air rushing into a tube to fill the vacuum created by the air pump tends to take little things with it. The more air pressure there is, the better that vacuum cleaner will suck it, and at the upper limits of the atmosphere where the air is barely noticeable, but you're still not in the real empty 'vacuum' of space, there's still gravity.
-
The action and reaction in space renders the rocket useless.
No, the action and reaction is what makes rockets work in space.
Your main problem is hanging on to this combustion chamber and yet I've tried to explain that the vacuum of space does not recognise heat or reaction to expansion as it is simply a void , it just welcomes it with open arms.
And your main problem is not realizing that the combustion does not happen in the vacuum of space. The combustion happens in a chamber where fuel and oxygen are burned at a high rate and the resulting exhaust gasses are expelled under very high pressure through a relatively small hole that leads to an exhaust nozzle. The gasses expand and dissipate quickly, but not instantly. It takes time for the vacuum of space to absorb these gasses and during that time, the expanding gasses push against the exhaust nozzle pushing the rocket forward.
Your major problem is believing that the inside of the rocket expansion can push the rocket and that is absolute madness, it really is.
No. It's not madness, it's physics.
The expelled exhaust "must" play a part, it has to...why can't you see that.
Why can't you see that the exhaust plays a bigger role than you give it credit for?
-
So you're saying there's no pressure inside the box or rocket combustion chamber/nozzle pushing against the inside walls? 1. Yes or no.
Not the way you implied it with the shoe box experiment.
No offence but it's not a clear reference to what you want to prove.
I was just demonstrating that an object with equal pressure inside on both ends doesn't move, but once there's an opening, the pressure is no longer equal, and the pressure on one end moves the object.
You said to only push out through the opening with both hands, implying there is no pressure pushing equally in all directions.
Is there pressure pushing equally in all directions or not?
Ok , now let's deal with the exhaust or rocket nozzle .
what part does this nozzle play apart from obviously just getting rid of exhaust gases that supposedly play no part.
If you look at Roberto's drawing, he has it as of being no importance at all.
Explain.
As for the nozzle, as the combustion/exhaust exits and continues expanding, it also pushes against the inside of the nozzle. Being a cone/funnel shape, this pushes the nozzle forward, thus pushing the rocket.
If you have a typical household funnel, put your fingers or both hands inside if it's big enough, now spread your fingers or hands against the inside. This will push the funnel forward.
-
Ok , now let's deal with the exhaust or rocket nozzle .
what part does this nozzle play apart from obviously just getting rid of exhaust gases that supposedly play no part.
If you look at Roberto's drawing, he has it as of being no importance at all.
Explain.
Roberto's drawing was an oversimplification. The purpose of the exhaust nozzle is to optimize the expansion of the exhaust gasses as they leave the combustion chamber and escape into the vacuum of space. Remember that the gasses don't simply "go away" or get "consumed" by space. Because a vacuum is a region of very low pressure, the exhaust gasses expand as they exit the combustion chamber through the opening (called the throat). As the gasses expand, they push against the walls of the nozzle and help push the rocket forwards.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcNlRT7Nk6-SfuDeKPZkN0B19KETV-uAubUDHhft6Z1vt0xrCvNV3bvEmg)
-
On his throw, he is throwing the heavy ball which has mass
Is that the same mass that magically disappears when an object is in space? Even though you couldn't refute the mass equation.
and if you notice, it's not until he has released that ball that he move backwards, so it's mass and gravity, plus a small hint of atmosphere against his mass and energy.
Whenever there is force applied, there is an opposite force. Starting an object can actually require more force than keeping the object moving.
Now imagine just before he released that ball, I grabbed it from him with the same force as he was about to release it and flung it behind me......he would be rooted to the spot and that is what space would do to him.
Incorrect physics. He already applied a force, the force has o be cancelled out, and the opposite force that moves him back does this. It may be less than if he threw it, but it is still there. As people pointed out, he moves before the ball is let go.
You are already arguing your point incorrectly. You should have claimed that the spring of air pushes him back and that the mass of the ball does not matter. But you changed your argument to include mass. Are you going to show how objects in space have no mass yet?
-
Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say). It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.
A tiny magnet can pick up a nail, thus overcoming the gravity of the entire planet. The weak muscles in a toddlers legs overcome gravity every time they stand up. The electromagnetic force is 10^36 times stronger than the gravitational force.
-
Honestly guys, you would be better off debating quantum thermodynamics with my cat.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step away from the thread.
-
The movement started before he released the ball.
(http://picturestack.com/331/763/9DdUntitled2a6i.png)
It depends which way you want to look at it.
On Earth, you suck out the air from a container and make a vacuum, now the air wants to get back into that vacuum and is all around that container just waiting for the breach so it can flow right back in and equalize right?
Now picture this scenario from the opposite way round.
In space you have the rocket that, (for instance in this case) is air filled against the expanse of space which contains no matter.
Instead of the air just being in that rocket, it now wants to get out and feed the vacuum and because there is no air pressure from outside acting on it, it starts to expand inside the rocket because it wants out and will keep expanding until the rocket casing splits or a nozzle is opened to release it.
Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.
I do not expect you to accept or understand this because I think it's way beyond your acceptance. But there it is.
Doesn't matter, the metal rocket keeps the pressure. It won't expand. There is a higher pressure inside the rocket than outside, true. Rocket pressure is constantly increasing? no.
Go and look at what a balloon does inside a vacuum.
The balloon expands and expands because the gases expand until they fill that vacuum.
Your rocket would do the same, not to mention that any liquid fuel inside it would turn to vapour and expand like crazy, and popping open your rocket from the inside.
I don;t expect you to accept it as it kills off your life long love of rocketry and space travel and all that stuff, so, hang onto what you believe, I'm ok with it, I just don't follow it at all.
A balloon is elastic, a rocket is not. If you open the water tap and put a balloon there, the higher pressure in the pipe system will make the water start going out, start filling it until it explodes. If you close the tap, the pressure wont increase until the tap explodes, why is that?
My life long love of rocketry and space travel and all that stuff? you don't know me.
Now you are not paying attention to the movement happening before he released the ball?
-
I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.
If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.
Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.
-
In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
In physics which is the acting force and which is the reacting force is irrelevant, both happen at the same time with the same force, we might as well say the ball is pushing him away from it. Or both move or none move.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
We could also say his elbows are propelling him away from the ball. If you say only one, is a half true, both happen.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.
Mass is not visual, the movement resulting of a force, and the force an object can apply relies on its mass. Weight is nothing but the way we measure the effect gravity has on our mass. We could still measure weight on space because there is still gravity and mass. Get two objects with enough mass, they will be attracted to each other by gravity, put a bascule between them, and you can measure "weight".
-
In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
In physics which is the acting force and which is the reacting force is irrelevant, both happen at the same time with the same force, we might as well say the ball is pushing him away from it. Or both move or none move. No... On Earth, the medicine ball has mass but the person has more mass than the ball, for instance. (and we know mass isn't weight but weight is still the issue).....In space, the man would weight "nothing" and the ball weighs "nothing"...., now they both have mass but only in the context that they exist in space as something, that's it....If that medicine ball , in space, were touching the mans finger tip from his outstretched arm, the man could not push that ball away, the ball and him would be suspended in space, looking at each other and not being able to do anything about it, except the man could flap his arms and wriggle his legs and punch into the nothingness but as soon as he went to touch the ball, it would be right next to his finger tip, like before...... If he had that ball to his chest, his arms could push that ball away from him because his arms have spring, As long as he released the ball from his grip as he sprung his arms, it would propel into space, yet there would be no force acting against him and he would stay put. I know this is hard for you to grasp but I know it's right. Assuming we can magically have a man alive in space. :)
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
We could also say his elbows are propelling him away from the ball. If you say only one, is a half true, both happen.As above.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.
Mass is not visual, the movement resulting of a force, and the force an object can apply relies on its mass. Weight is nothing but the way we measure the effect gravity has on our mass. We could still measure weight on space because there is still gravity and mass. Get two objects with enough mass, they will be attracted to each other by gravity, put a bascule between them, and you can measure "weight".
Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.
Space doesn't nullify anything. It is only an environment with lack of pressure. Atmospheric pressure is not what causes weight, mass or gravity. So they still exist in space.
-
Not incorrect physics at all, this is were the duping comes in.....The man can apply as much force as he wants but until he lets go, which means, the minute his grip is fractionally released which you will not see in the picture, it is only then that the effects of the mass of the ball comes into play,
Incorrect. F=ma, so a=F/m If he applies a force to a mass it will accelerate. The mass of the ball instantly is taken into account.
If he went to throw the ball yet stopped at the point of release and grabbed it, he would move slightly back and then forward back to the exact same position.Try it if you don't believe me. This experiment is designed to simply baffle people and it works, just not with me.
No, this is correct. He applies a force to the ball and he "would move slightly back" and then counter acts that force with an opposite force and move "forward back to the exact same position". So if he applies a force to the ball, and then you take the ball, he is unable to counter act the force and only moves backwards. Glad you agree that your first assumption of what would happen is wrong.
The problem with physics is, it will not recognise weight and mass.
Physics uses mass all the time. You have no idea what you are talking about. Weight is even used sometimes. Usually it is called the force due to gravity. I can't even comprehend how you think physics doesn't recognize them.
Yes they are different in respect of size to weight ratios but no matter which way you look at it, mass has weight.
No, mass is mass and weight is weight. An object on earth has the same mass as it would on the moon. An object on earth has a different weight than it would on the moon. This is not up for debate. Mass still equals volume times density. Weight still equals mass times gravitational acceleration. SO ass you can see, an object in space will have zero weight but still have the same mass.
the supposed weightless environment of space as we are told it is, simply wouldn't recognise the mass as I explained before, with the cannon ball and the equal sized plastic lookalike cannon ball.....
If you were in space, both those balls would weight nothing and neither would you.
Correct.
You could hold both in your hands and feel no weight because there is no weight coming from the mass.
Correct.
You can push both balls away and because there is nothing acting upon them at all, you could be pushing away two plastic balls or two cannon balls and you would not have a clue which was which, assuming they looked identical.
And here is where you fail again. Force still equals mass times acceleration. If you push them equally, one will float away at different velocity as they accelerated differently. He have not disproved this. IF what you say was true, you could float over to the wall of the space ship and just push it along from inside. But luckily for physics, the spaceship has a much greater mass than you, so if you tried to push a wall of the spaceship, you would simple be pushed away from the wall, the wall wouldn't be pushed away from you.
Disprove this if you think it is wrong.
The problem with debating space, is, it comes down to the chicken and the egg argument, or the round stationary Earth versus the rotating Earth argument. It could (up to now) be only solved by going into space and viewing the Earth from a still point in space.
I don't know who said this because you miss quoted, but scientists don't just sit around and eat cake all day. They actually work.
-
Well this is a new one. Enlighten me.
Is weight caused by atmospheric pressure? no, its caused by gravity acting over the mass (your mass, if you measure your weight), is gravity or mass caused by atmospheric pressure? no, mass is an intrinsic value of the matter that does not depend on the environment, and gravity is how we call what makes objects attract each other with a force proportional to their masses.
None of this is earth or atmospheric dependent, astronomers can watch asteroids, planets, stars etc (with telescopes, of course) and accurately predict their path based on the forces of near bodies acting over them (gravity).
Of course, you can say you are weightless on space, but not because gravity does not act over you, or mass has no value. But because you are not being pressed against earth or any other massive object like another planet.
Now, if you answer to this (as you obviously will), please save us both time by not mentioning how you think Ive been spooned this, brainwashed or anything else. Respond to what I said instead.
-
I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.
If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.
Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.
In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.
Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.
if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?
Mass
In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)"), more specifically inertial mass, is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. (source: Wikipedia)
Weight
In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity (source: Wikipedia)
-
The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.
For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that the sponge ball would be massive is size.
On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.
In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.
The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "
It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.
No, space is not devoid of gravitation, the earth is on space and its gravity keeps us and its atmosphere from floating away.
Gravity is what keeps the whole earth together like a sphere, it is part of how planets are formed.
Mass is an intrinsic value of matter, it don't change, weather it is no water, air or vacuum, it has the same value, it is what gravity acts over, weight is just how we measure the pressure resulting of that gravity between an object and the earth.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.
-
I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.
If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.
Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.
In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.
Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.
if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?
I said they have mass wherever they are if you care to look.
It's just that the mass is not recognised floating in space in terms of weight, no matter what is said.
A medicine ball in space might as well be polystyrene the same as you because you equally have no weight and no gain.
It appears impossible because we cannot get away from what we feel on Earth and it takes some thinking about for many.
No, a medicine as well not be polystirnene; they have different masses, you fool. In space a thing's mass still acts the same way, as in, it still has a resistence to acceleration; polystiene has less, medicine balls have more. so it is harder to push a medicine ball, than a polystyrene one. if your body has equal mass to a medicine ball then you will go back just as much as the ball goes forward from the coincident (origing) of you pushing the ball. now let me ask you , if this is not the case what is stopping you form moving backwards when you push the ball? if you don't go backwards much, you must have more mass, not less. and if you don't go backwards at all, you have infinite mass.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.
I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.
And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?
-
The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.
For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that the sponge ball would be massive is size.
On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.
In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.
The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "
It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.
No, space is not devoid of gravitation, the earth is on space and its gravity keeps us and its atmosphere from floating away.
Gravity is what keeps the whole earth together like a sphere, it is part of how planets are formed.
Mass is an intrinsic value of matter, it don't change, weather it is no water, air or vacuum, it has the same value, it is what gravity acts over, weight is just how we measure the pressure resulting of that gravity between an object and the earth.
That is just a simple guess.
If you are honest, you are literally just going by what you have been told. You have no clue what keeps Earth as it is and you have no clue what Earth actually is in space, or what space is.
Is not a guess, gravity so is the most accurate answer to that (why are objects attracted to earth, why it has a spherical shape, why other planets also do, what causes the shapes of the galaxies, moons rotating around planets etc). Could our idea of gravity be wrong? I'm not as ignorant as you to think i can be 100% sure about something like that. So far it is the best explanation.
-
I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.
If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.
Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.
In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.
Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.
if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?
I said they have mass wherever they are if you care to look.
It's just that the mass is not recognised floating in space in terms of weight, no matter what is said.
A medicine ball in space might as well be polystyrene the same as you because you equally have no weight and no gain.
It appears impossible because we cannot get away from what we feel on Earth and it takes some thinking about for many.
No, a medicine as well not be polystirnene; they have different masses, you fool. in space a things mass still acts the same way as in it still has a resistence to acceleration, polystiene has less, medicine balls have more. so it is harder to push a medicine ball, they a polystyrene. if your body has equal mass to a medicine ball then you will go back just as much as the ball goes forward from the coincident (origing) of you pushing the ball. now let me ask you , if this is not the case what is stopping you form moving backwards when you push the ball, if you don't go backwards, you must have more mass, not less.
Instead of jumping straight in...read what I said.
I read what you said and I addrssed every point rationally: if you don't understand the implications that is not my problem.
-
Space has nothing, so it's useless.
Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.
So space does and, at the same time, does not do things?
-
The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.
For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that the sponge ball would be massive is size.
On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.
In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.
The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "
It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.
From this, it's clear that you don't understand the difference between mass & weight.
Mass is the amount of 'stuff' an object has. Weight is the force that the gravitational pull of the planet exerts on a mass, but even in a weightless environment, it still has inertia - which is the 'resistance' it puts up to being accellerated.
For example - my mass is 85kg. My weight here in southern England is 833.9 Newtons, but at the pole it would be 835.6 Newtons and at the equator 831.3 Newtons, due to a combination of the different distance from the centre of the earth that the equator & poles are, and the circular movement of the rotating planet which has the effect of 'cancelling out' a small amount of the gravitational force.
It's even possible to measure the tiny reduction in your weight when you travel upwards - indeed we did this experiment when I was at University, taking a standard mass & an extremely accurate scale up the Telecom Tower. The reduction in weight is precisely what it is predicted to be using the inverse square law - 0.0032% per 100 metres
Incidentally, if we were on a flat earth that is constantly being accellerated at 9.81 m/s, there would be no measurable difference in weight with either latitude or altitude. The fact that weight varies with position in exactly that way that Newton's equation predicts is how we know with mathematical certainty that the force keeping us stuck to the ground is gravity.
-
The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.
For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that the sponge ball would be massive is size.
On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.
In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.
The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "
It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.
From this, it's clear that you don't understand the difference between mass & weight.
Mass is the amount of 'stuff' an object has. Weight is the force that the gravitational pull of the planet exerts on a mass, but even in a weightless environment, it still has inertia - which is the 'resistance' it puts up to being accellerated.
For example - my mass is 85kg. My weight here in southern England is 833.9 Newtons, but at the pole it would be 835.6 Newtons and at the equator 831.3 Newtons, due to a combination of the different distance from the centre of the earth that the equator & poles are, and the circular movement of the rotating planet which has the effect of 'cancelling out' a small amount of the gravitational force.
It's even possible to measure the tiny reduction in your weight when you travel upwards - indeed we did this experiment when I was at University, taking a standard mass & an extremely accurate scale up the Telecom Tower. The reduction in weight is precisely what it is predicted to be using the inverse square law - 0.0032% per 100 metres
Incidentally, if we were on a flat earth that is constantly being accellerated at 9.81 m/s, there would be no measurable difference in weight with either latitude or altitude. The fact that weight varies with position in exactly that way that Newton's equation predicts is how we know with mathematical certainty that the force keeping us stuck to the ground is gravity.
Major Twang, I understand that we are of the same view that scepticmatic is misguided. But what you have called inertia is mass and what you have called mass is volume. Please look it up before responding.
Edit:
I retract my volume comment.
Edit:
Ignore me.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.
I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.
And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?
What I do, is take a massive step back before I go diving in, to believe what comes out of the media as regards space.
I've swallowed enough of the hype and BS and now I scrutinise it, where-as before, I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to even contest it, I just went with it like a fool.
You don't scrutinise, you presume it is all suspect and then try to prove it is all lies.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
That is all you have to say? You aren't going to refute my claim that you yourself admitted to being wrong?
I showed how you are wrong and you are still preaching your ignorant ways. You lost, give it up.
Oh and btw, I did eat cake at work on Friday. It was good. But I didn't make up lies, we wouldn't stay in business if the company did that.
-
Trying to claim things and attempting to complicate things is fruitless as it proves absolutely nothing.
Your opinion doesn't count as a counter argument. We have all this science and you have nothing.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.
I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.
And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?
What I do, is take a massive step back before I go diving in, to believe what comes out of the media as regards space.
I've swallowed enough of the hype and BS and now I scrutinise it, where-as before, I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to even contest it, I just went with it like a fool.
You don't scrutinise, you presume it is all suspect and then try to prove it is all lies.
Ok.
Whichever way you want to put it.
My comment was not equivalent to yours, but a rebuttal.
-
Space has nothing, so it's useless.
When did I type this? Have you twisted something here?
click on the date-link, you will see I have not done anything to it.
Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.
So space does and, at the same time, does not do things?
no response? I guessed as much.
-
You have showed me nothing about me being wrong, you just assume it.
Oh and I hope you enjoyed your cake and good for you if you haven't told lies.
It would have been easier to say, "I'm a scientist" but never mind, I don't know you and you could be anyone and anything, the same as I can.
If he went to throw the ball yet stopped at the point of release and grabbed it, he would move slightly back and then forward back to the exact same position.Try it if you don't believe me. This experiment is designed to simply baffle people and it works, just not with me.
No, this is correct. He applies a force to the ball and he "would move slightly back" and then counter acts that force with an opposite force and move "forward back to the exact same position". So if he applies a force to the ball, and then you take the ball, he is unable to counter act the force and only moves backwards. Glad you agree that your first assumption of what would happen is wrong.
Here is the argument you ignored. You yourself said an object will move when a force is applied and it takes a counter force to stop the movement and then to move back to the original location.
A rocket engine provides a force(thrust) and moves the rocket. No counter force is present in space, as you said, because there is no "atmosphere." So your own claim states that the rocket will move in the no force providing space.
Also don't forget how you now claim objects in space do have mass, where as earlier in the thread you said they didn't.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
That is all you have to say? You aren't going to refute my claim that you yourself admitted to being wrong?
I showed how you are wrong and you are still preaching your ignorant ways. You lost, give it up.
Oh and btw, I did eat cake at work on Friday. It was good. But I didn't make up lies, we wouldn't stay in business if the company did that.
You have showed me nothing about me being wrong, you just assume it.
Oh and I hope you enjoyed your cake and good for you if you haven't told lies.
It would have been easier to say, "I'm a scientist" but never mind, I don't know you and you could be anyone and anything, the same as I can.
You have been shown to be wrong in almost all of your irrational opinions, but you still persist in thinking you are right.
You are also persisting in the belief that somehow you are unique in the act of questioning and being sceptical of authority. believe me, you are far from it. I am an anarchist myself and don't believe a bloody word that anyone tells me, unless I have weighed the evidence myself, the problem you have is that if you hear an authority say soemthing you believe that it is in actual fact the exact opposite of what they are saying.
-
Space has nothing, so it's useless.
When did I type this? Have you twisted something here?
click on the date-link, you will see I have not done anything to it.
Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.
So space does and, at the same time, does not do things?
no response? I guessed as much.
I see what you done.
I'm saying space has nothing so your rocket is useless.
It's ok, I'm back on track.
You are clealy not back on track: your statement is still a glaring contradiction.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
That is all you have to say? You aren't going to refute my claim that you yourself admitted to being wrong?
I showed how you are wrong and you are still preaching your ignorant ways. You lost, give it up.
Oh and btw, I did eat cake at work on Friday. It was good. But I didn't make up lies, we wouldn't stay in business if the company did that.
You have showed me nothing about me being wrong, you just assume it.
Oh and I hope you enjoyed your cake and good for you if you haven't told lies.
It would have been easier to say, "I'm a scientist" but never mind, I don't know you and you could be anyone and anything, the same as I can.
You have been shown to be wrong in almost all of your irrational opinions, but you still persist in thinking you are right.
You are also persisting in the belief that somehow you are unique in the act of questioning and being sceptical of authority. believe me, you are far from it. I am an anarchist myself and don't believe a bloody word that anyone tells me, unless I have weighed the evidence myself, the problem you have is that if you hear an authority say soemthing you believe that it is in actual fact the exact opposite of what they are saying.
Says you.
...your insinuation is?
-
Sceptimatic, who are you and why do care if some trolls on TFES believe you or not. I can see what you are saying and do not necesarily disbelieve you. You have come out of nowhere with this great theory.Do you know of any other people who believe your theory? The balloon thing just doesn't prove it to me. Is there any other proof or writings about this?
-
The problem some of you have is very simple.
Really?
You cannot get your heads round the fact that a rocket needs an atmosphere to push against because you have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing it doesn't need it.
If you call rational arguement and scientific method "brainwashing" then we are in agreement.
The reason for this, is Newtons law, which you attempt to apply by using a medicine ball and a skate board, skates, wheeled chair, etc.
And...?
Now because this medicine ball is heavy and has mass, you simply accept is as proof that rockets are in effect shooting medicine balls from the back of it.
Laws of physics are true everywhere. we have consistently shown you why you are wrong, and shown you to places that explain the conepts you are so blatantly confused about.
You believe that the burning fuel is acting like a super fast machine gun rat a tat tatting medicine ball out the back end and somehow pushing the inside of the rocket up.
Not literally; if you don't understand analogies, you really need to go wikipedia or some site that explains them to you, and then go back over that discussion.
The ruse is, use the mass because it's a killer blow and it confuses people. Use mass against inertia and all the rest of the crap and that should shut people up.
You are confused because you don't understand, not because we are pulling a fast one. These are signss of paranoia and nothing else.
You have not convinced me 1% that a rocket works in space, in fact , all you have done is strengthen my own thoughts that is doesn't and never will with the technology we have.
It's hard to convince someone who mixes up concepts doesn't undertand how to argue, and sees nothing other than ill-intent.
-
You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.
That is all you have to say? You aren't going to refute my claim that you yourself admitted to being wrong?
I showed how you are wrong and you are still preaching your ignorant ways. You lost, give it up.
Oh and btw, I did eat cake at work on Friday. It was good. But I didn't make up lies, we wouldn't stay in business if the company did that.
You have showed me nothing about me being wrong, you just assume it.
Oh and I hope you enjoyed your cake and good for you if you haven't told lies.
It would have been easier to say, "I'm a scientist" but never mind, I don't know you and you could be anyone and anything, the same as I can.
You have been shown to be wrong in almost all of your irrational opinions, but you still persist in thinking you are right.
You are also persisting in the belief that somehow you are unique in the act of questioning and being sceptical of authority. believe me, you are far from it. I am an anarchist myself and don't believe a bloody word that anyone tells me, unless I have weighed the evidence myself, the problem you have is that if you hear an authority say soemthing you believe that it is in actual fact the exact opposite of what they are saying.
Says you.
...your insinuation is?
Meaning, that's what you say.
That is just a restatement and not in anyway an explication of your insinuation.
-
Sceptimatic, who are you and why do care if some trolls on TFES believe you or not. I can see what you are saying and do not necesarily disbelieve you. You have come out of nowhere with this great theory.Do you know of any other people who believe your theory? The balloon thing just doesn't prove it to me. Is there any other proof or writings about this?
Don't you get it? one day he started "thinking" by himself (after being spooned by conspiracy believers) and came up with all of this.
-
He is right about no one ever going to the moon. I don't understand how the vacuum of space does not pull the atmosphere from off the earth. Also I do see his point somewhat.
-
You see, the wide nozzle makes excellent sense for the ignition of fuel to expand outwards but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for an expansion that would expand inwards.
An expansion that would expand inwards? Are you taking your crusade against the establishment one step further by stating explosive pressure expands inwards?
Is there pressure pushing equally in all directions or not?
Not in the vacuum of space there isn't.
I guess it's a good thing I was talking about inside the combustion chamber then.
Ok , now let's deal with the exhaust or rocket nozzle .
what part does this nozzle play apart from obviously just getting rid of exhaust gases that supposedly play no part.
If you look at Roberto's drawing, he has it as of being no importance at all.
Explain.
As for the nozzle, as the combustion/exhaust exits and continues expanding, it also pushes against the inside of the nozzle. Being a cone/funnel shape, this pushes the nozzle forward, thus pushing the rocket.
Pushes the nozzle forward? You mean back against the rocket?
Pushes the nozzle against the rocket, and in doing so, pushes the rocket.
If you have a typical household funnel, put your fingers or both hands inside if it's big enough, now spread your fingers or hands against the inside. This will push the funnel forward.
This makes no sense.
So you didn't try it.
Open your fingers outward against the inside of a funnel. Your finger nails will contact the inside wall, applying pressure, and it will move the funnel away from you. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
-
Is there any other proof or writings about this?
Because he says so.
I don't understand how the vacuum of space does not pull the atmosphere from off the earth.
My explanation a few pages ago didn't cut it? If you start a thread on it, you'll probably get it explained better.
edit* page 42
-
I am just me.
Small mercies I suppose. Otherwise we would probably still be stuck in caves slinging poo one another.
I do think that anyone who believes scientists spend all their time sitting around "eating cake and dreaming up lies" shouldn't be allowed to use the fruits of said scientists' labours.
Starting with the computer.
Then no using bridges - these are built according to Newton's (now falsified) laws, after all. Then aeroplanes, cars, TVs, electricity....in fact anything invented in the last 350 years.
That should suit you sceptimatic - back in the middle ages, where mass media couldn't "spoon-feed you lies" about the Laws of motion, and you could happily revel in your ignorance.
-
I believe the moon landings are bogus, filmed on earth movies. Speaking of vacuums, I have never understood how "they" say the atmosphere extends up to space, then there is the "vacuum" of space out there.
The air just gets thinner the higher one goes. There is no 'plenty of air and suddenly no air'.
It seems that vacuum of space would remove the atmosphere from off of the earth.... Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say).
Now you're getting it.
It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.
Well air rushing into a tube to fill the vacuum created by the air pump tends to take little things with it. The more air pressure there is, the better that vacuum cleaner will suck it, and at the upper limits of the atmosphere where the air is barely noticeable, but you're still not in the real empty 'vacuum' of space, there's still gravity.
Vacuums are strong, really strong. Look at some demonstrations on youtube, Air is not going to sit there against a vacuum.
-
The irony is, you are the one spoon-feeding yourself crap from the internet - you have become brainwashed. You haven't actually tested anything for yourself - you have carried out no experiments, collected no data and you certainly haven't done any maths. You just read stuff on the web, and go along with it blindly, like a sheep. You have learnt nothing at all, and refuse to learn anything.
Scientists and engineers will carry on using the theories you dismiss out of hand to build useful stuff, that you simply consume with no knowledge of how it works.
Your whining on an obscure internet forum makes no difference to anyone.
-
No maths needed. Just common sense as to what I'm on about.
Really? Try building a computer with "common sense". Try building a bridge with common sense. Try cardiothoracic surgery with common sense. Of course maths is needed.
Aside from anything else, you've never actually displayed any common sense, or any knowledge on the subject you are discussing.
For you, using "common sense" is an excuse to be lazy - it means you don't have to do any study, or anything else that might involve hard work - just sounding off on the internet.
and then you have to try and sift through what you believe is suspect and what is actual fact.
We have a tool for that: the scientific method. Something you have rejected entirely.
I've done the experiments
No you haven't. You are lying.
-
No maths needed. Just common sense as to what I'm on about.
Naturally, if you want to get specific values of ratios and stuff, then maths is needed.
I don't need the aid of maths (in the main) to put my point across and to do my experiments the simplistic way.
Also, what I refuse to do, is blindly follow what I do not accept as being the whole truth.
If one thing becomes questionable, you have to ask yourself how many other things are... and then you have to try and sift through what you believe is suspect and what is actual fact.
It's harder than you think, in this day and age, yet common sense and logic can be a massive help.
I've done the experiments and I urge anyone else to do them as I have put them out. That's all the proof anyone needs to show that rockets do not work in the vacuum of space as we are told it is.
I already proved that in your experiment, the weight alone of the larger balloon is enough to keep the smaller from moving, so your fake vacuum has nothing to do with that.
Also there is no vacuum in the flat balloon as soon as the small one starts expelling air into it. It does not prove anything.
-
I already proved that in your experiment, the weight alone of the larger balloon is enough to keep the smaller from moving, so your fake vacuum has nothing to do with that.
Also there is no vacuum in the flat balloon as soon as the small one starts expelling air into it. It does not prove anything.
If you had performed the experiment as I suggested, you would see that rockets do not work in space, but you decided to tape the balloon neck to the outside of a plastic bag.
Why didn't you just follow my experiment?
I did, but I also have to think for myself right? The balloon didn't move and I thought "hmmm maybe sceptimatic is right, rockets don't work in vacuum" But then I thought "why do I assume is vacuum what is stopping the balloon in this experiment?, what if the small balloon has not enough force to move the big one?" So I atached the ballon neck outside the big plastic balloon and still didn't move. So i concluded "the weight of the big flat balloon alone is enough to stop the small one from moving, so the first experiment proved nothing".
-
I already proved that in your experiment, the weight alone of the larger balloon is enough to keep the smaller from moving, so your fake vacuum has nothing to do with that.
Also there is no vacuum in the flat balloon as soon as the small one starts expelling air into it. It does not prove anything.
If you had performed the experiment as I suggested, you would see that rockets do not work in space, but you decided to tape the balloon neck to the outside of a plastic bag.
Why didn't you just follow my experiment?
I did, but I also have to think for myself right? The balloon didn't move and I thought "hmmm maybe sceptimatic is right, rockets don't work in vacuum" But then I thought "why do I assume is vacuum what is stopping the balloon in this experiment?, what if the small balloon has not enough force to move the big one?" So I atached the ballon neck outside the big plastic balloon and still didn't move. So i concluded "the weight of the big flat balloon alone is enough to stop the small one from moving".
I love to know the description of the plastic bag you taped the balloon to, how big and heavy it was.
around 50x70 extended, Its made of black plastic, thin enough to see trough it. Given the thickness of the plastic or rubber used in most balloons, I would say it could weight as much or less than a balloon less than half its size.
Now, what balloon did you use?
-
Do all rockets need a nozzle to work?
Technically, no. However, exhaust nozzles do make rockets more efficient.
-
Also Roberto...the experiment wasn't about the smaller balloon having enough force to move the bigger one, so where did you get that idea from?
Don't you get it? you conclusion is that the small balloon doesn't move because of the vacuum, you can't blame the "vacuum" if its the weight of the big one that is holding the small one.
-
Also Roberto...the experiment wasn't about the smaller balloon having enough force to move the bigger one, so where did you get that idea from?
Don't you get it? you conclusion is that the small balloon doesn't move because of the vacuum, you can't blame the "vacuum" if its the weight of the big one that is holding the small one.
The reason I asked you this Roberto, is because I have done the experiment you talk about and I also done it again today and my balloon flew off the table, taking the bag with it.
The bag I used was a thin ASDA carrier bag, so how do you account for that?
A shopping bag?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ASDA+carrier+bag&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=2qK7UNSeLIzMswan2YCgBg&biw=1920&bih=891&sei=5aK7UO2AE5D6sgbpnoCQAg (http://www.google.com/search?q=ASDA+carrier+bag&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=2qK7UNSeLIzMswan2YCgBg&biw=1920&bih=891&sei=5aK7UO2AE5D6sgbpnoCQAg)
That bag is not big enough for the air to freely expand inside. the air goes out of the balloon reach the other end of the plastic bag, and now we have the balloon trying to move, but the air it expels pushed the plastic bag in the opposite direction, the forces are even so both are nullified.
The air from the balloon is acting directly against the bag
(http://picturestack.com/474/527/ADdUntitled2uFt.png)
Edit: You should make a drawing about that, i don't see how can a balloon push away from a tube attached to its neck, if the air it expels is not really acting against the tube.
-
Roberto:
You appear reluctant to find out the real truth.
I told you how forces work in your first experiment, now you propose a second that i don't understand so I asked you to make a graphic.
-
Do all rockets need a nozzle to work?
Technically, no. However, exhaust nozzles do make rockets more efficient.
So which rockets do not need nozzles then?
Very simple ones (like balloons) that are not concerned with efficiency.
-
Roberto:
You appear reluctant to find out the real truth.
I told you how forces work in your first experiment, now you propose a second that i don't understand so I asked you to make a graphic.
What is not to understand about the balloons.
The argument was that rockets didn't need an atmosphere to work against, I'm just proving they do.
No you did not, rockets need their expelled energy to be able to freely expand and escape the rocket, if the gasses caused by combustion were still attached to the rocket, the same way air is still attached to the balloon in your first experiment (being held by a plastic bag attached to the balloon), the rocket would not move either.
In your experiment the balloon is still under atmospheric pressure, expelling air against air, inside a plastic bag, and this bag is also under atmospheric pressure. You are not, in any way eliminating atmosphere as a factor by attaching a balloon to a plastic bag or a bigger balloon.
I will repeat my point because you often miss the objective of my posts: For the rocket to move, the gases caused by combustion need to escape the rocket. For a balloon to move, the air it expels needs to escape the balloon. By attaching a bag to the end of the balloon, would be the same that having a larger air container, where air moves from one point to the other, but always stays inside.
-
Do all rockets need a nozzle to work?
Technically, no. However, exhaust nozzles do make rockets more efficient.
So which rockets do not need nozzles then?
Very simple ones (like balloons) that are not concerned with efficiency.
I love it, Nice one.
You are getting weaker.
The principles behind rockets are very simple, but the actual application can be quite complex. Why do you think "rocket science" is a euphemism for something very difficult?
-
Sceptimatic, have you ever convinced anybody that rockets will not operate in space. Family, co-workers, friends if you have any?
-
Roberto:
You appear reluctant to find out the real truth.
I told you how forces work in your first experiment, now you propose a second that i don't understand so I asked you to make a graphic.
What is not to understand about the balloons.
The argument was that rockets didn't need an atmosphere to work against, I'm just proving they do.
No you did not, rockets need their expelled energy to be able to freely expand and escape the rocket, if the gasses caused by combustion were still attached to the rocket, the same way air is still attached to the balloon in your first experiment (being held by a plastic bag attached to the balloon), the rocket would not move either.
In your experiment the balloon is still under atmospheric pressure, expelling air against air, inside a plastic bag, and this bag is also under atmospheric pressure. You are not, in any way eliminating atmosphere as a factor by attaching a balloon to a plastic bag or a bigger balloon.
I will repeat my point because you often miss the objective of my posts: For the rocket to move, the gases caused by combustion need to escape the rocket. For a balloon to move, the air it expels needs to escape the balloon. By attaching a bag to the end of the balloon, would be the same that having a larger air container, where air moves from one point to the other, but always stays inside.
A total cop out.
Don't know what that means (English is not my main language), but im sure its not a response to my argument.
-
Well air rushing into a tube to fill the vacuum created by the air pump tends to take little things with it. The more air pressure there is, the better that vacuum cleaner will suck it, and at the upper limits of the atmosphere where the air is barely noticeable, but you're still not in the real empty 'vacuum' of space, there's still gravity.
Vacuums are strong, really strong. Look at some demonstrations on youtube, Air is not going to sit there against a vacuum.
You're correct, full sea-level 14psi air pressure is going to expand away into that vacuum.
Now think about the increased absence of pressure the higher through the atmosphere one goes. How does a vacuum cleaner work? It pumps air out of the tube, and the outside air rushes in to fill it, taking crumbs or whatever with it.
The thinner the air is, the less pressure there is to rush into that vacuum, and gravity is still pulling it down.
-
Open your fingers outward against the inside of a funnel. Your finger nails will contact the inside wall, applying pressure, and it will move the funnel away from you. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
It's quite simple what you are saying but let's see how you twist it.
Quite simple indeed. I take it you understand it now.
What you are saying is. the nozzle plays the most important part of the rockets propulsion. The burning gases spread out against the funnel/nozzle and in a simplistic term, the rocket lifts off because the hot gases are pushing the sides of this funnel/nozzle and sort of squeezing the rocket into the air as if you were holding the sides with soapy hands and trying to pull the funnel/nozzle apart but can't because the funnel/nozzle keeps slipping upwards from your hands due to the shape of it.
I don't know about "most" important, as I'm not a rocket scientist. It does play an important part though.
Yes, it slips upward from the outward pressure inside it, helping to push the rocket.
In effect, what this proves, is that the gases actually have to be outside of the rocket, which is the whole point of what I was saying as in, the vacuum of space would welcome this in an instant, rendering the rocket pointless for two reasons.
1. Space would not recognise a burn like this as there is nothing in space for this burn to expand into, so in effect, it would not expand into the funnel/nozzle either as it would not get the chance.
2.As fast is the fuel came out, it would be immediately accepted into the void, the very nano second a valve was opened to effect a burn or a thrust.
Not completely outside, but still within the confines of the nozzle.
1. The whole 'pressure expanding unequally against the inside of something' over the last 40 some odd pages covered that.
2. Now if you want to know how they would initiate combustion with a rocket in space, start searching for it I guess.
-
Sceptimatic, have you ever convinced anybody that rockets will not operate in space. Family, co-workers, friends if you have any?
Quite a few yes.
I even convinced someone who was so against it, that he used to get up and walk out with a fuming red face because he was so frustrated by my stance on it.
After a few months and plenty of digging and watching videos of fake launches and fake space pictures, he done the exact same tests I was on about , with me.
After we did this, his head was in the shed but he still tried to hang on to his stance as he couldn't believe for one minute that there was nothing in space but this time, he walked away scratching his head.
All I told him from that point on was to watch as many space videos and launches and do it with a critical eye and not out of amazement.
After a few more months of sifting through stuff and putting his thoughts together, he said to me" you know what?, I can't believe I've went through life hanging onto everything as gospel."
His stance now is like mine.
He casts a critical eye on anything now before he blindly goes with anything.
If the truth be known, I don't care whether no rockets have went into space or if the moon is made of cheese as I can't change anything and I'm not into walking about with cheese boards declaring the end of the world and what have you.
What I am interested in though, is living in a world where the media actually tell it like it is, rather than tell it how it's scripted to be.
I don't expect you to accept or believe what I've said...all I will say to you is...cast a critical eye first on what you have been brought up to believe, because I was once the same and absorbed anything and everything like a sponge and even used to argue with others over them saying the moon landings weren't real, so I thought I would scupper them by getting proof they were.
I got a shock when I started sifting through everything and realised that what they were saying was in fact correct and I had a closed mind.
Watching conspiracy sites, videos and pictures, and accepting them as truth, is not casting a critical eye.
It would have been fair for your friend if you also let him know the answers to the conspiracy claims made by people who know science stuff (the official answer)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html)
I was very amazed when I discovered about this people saying the moon landing never happened, and due to the evidence they provided It was obvious to me it didn't, but after the initial shock the first thing I did was wonder, what does the scientific community and other people says about this? so I looked both positions before making up my mind about anything.
Will you say, why rely on what other people says or other people explanations instead of using your own thinking? to start, i knew nothing about space or physics. Second, that was not possible when I already had filled my mind with conspiracy believers point of view and evidences.
-
Roberto those conspiracy debunkers are experts at making you think you are nuts, and not thinking like every other rational person. You said yourself that it was clear that landings didn't happen afterlooking into hoax claims. If they get caught in a few lies, you will know that they are liars. The moon landings never happened.
-
I'm taking about looking at both sides in the same way before making up your mind about something. If conspiracy debunkers make you feel nuts or not thinking rational, it means you already made up your mind, but that also depends where you are looking at. The site I linked shows the information in a very objective, not derogatory way.
-
I don't need to search for it. I know exactly how they initiate combustion in space. It's called fake video.
So you know how the rockets work then? Good.
What videos are fake? Videos of rockets taking off? Videos of how it works? How do you know it's fake?
-
The one magical trick they play is, they know that nobody can tell how a rocket would work just by looking at it, so they can play Newtons law on it all day long in the knowledge that nobody can disprove it, without them having the Newton counter argument.
It's clever manipulated science but bogus science all the same.
Newtons laws of motion are validated every day in schools, colleges & universities all around the world. Engineers use them. People who build aircraft rely on them. They have never been found lacking as long as objects do not approach relatavistic speeds or quantum scales.
If you are so bloody sure that Newton's laws are wrong, do what any scientist does & construct an experiment to demonstrate what's wrong.
When you can do that, maybe someone will take you seriously. Until then, you're just another delusional person on the internet claiming that black is actually white.
-
What sets you apart from other delusional people that know they are right? Anything more than the balloons, they are pretty flimsy?
-
The one magical trick they play is, they know that nobody can tell how a rocket would work just by looking at it, so they can play Newtons law on it all day long in the knowledge that nobody can disprove it, without them having the Newton counter argument.
It's clever manipulated science but bogus science all the same.
Newtons laws of motion are validated every day in schools, colleges & universities all around the world. Engineers use them. People who build aircraft rely on them. They have never been found lacking as long as objects do not approach relatavistic speeds or quantum scales.
If you are so bloody sure that Newton's laws are wrong, do what any scientist does & construct an experiment to demonstrate what's wrong.
When you can do that, maybe someone will take you seriously. Until then, you're just another delusional person on the internet claiming that black is actually white.
This is where you and others get me wrong.
I'm not discounting his laws on the whole.
Let's put it this way, I'm basically saying his law is getting used with rocketry when it does not rely on his third law in how it's told.
This is the problem.
For instance, his law gets used ridiculously as far as rockets go with people using the reliance on his action reaction forces and using them in the terms of the medicine ball and ice skate type method, when it's simply not the case.
It's action and reaction but it's the action of the burn and thrust against the expanding air from that and not an up the nozzle kick up the arse.
It's still Newtons law on Earth but not in how it's told.
The so called rocket throwing medicine balls out of the back constantly, and using the reaction push up the rocket from that is absolutely 100% bogus science.
You can sit there all day and tell me I'm an fool or I'm wrong but I know I'm right.
You know you're right? How?
-
All of which have been successfully rebutted rationally by Mantaxi (If a little rudely), Major Twang et al?.
I have been through the discussion, and have seen that your inability to understand is only outdone by your invincible ignorance.
instead of being sceptical before you understand it, why don't you do some research? Converesly why not look up actual rational arguments against the concepts you are denying, there are plenty out there that aren't informed by conspiritorial or denialist/wishful thinking.
there are a few good fringe authors aswell, like James Demeo.
-
Why is it so hard to understand Newtons laws? ???
-
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?
Case closed.
-
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?
Case closed.
Case closed my arse.
Oh ok, I see what you mean.
Ok I can relax now. The rocket works by shooting out bursts of gas and goes up via recoil, recoil, recoil,recoil,recoil,recoil...all the way into space.
::)
You've finally got it - except it shoots out a steady stream of gas rather than bursts.
Hot gas goes one way very fast, rocket goes the other. It doesn't need anything to 'push' against.
All objects obey Newton's laws of motion. There isn't a special clause that exempts certain types of machine.
-
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?
Case closed.
Case closed my arse.
Oh ok, I see what you mean.
Ok I can relax now. The rocket works by shooting out bursts of gas and goes up via recoil, recoil, recoil,recoil,recoil,recoil...all the way into space.
::)
You've finally got it - except it shoots out a steady stream of gas rather than bursts.
Hot gas goes one way very fast, rocket goes the other. It doesn't need anything to 'push' against.
All objects obey Newton's laws of motion. There isn't a special clause that exempts certain types of machine.
Think of it this way sceptimatic.
A rifle goes BANG. An explosion goes BANG.
A rocket goes BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG.
Understand?
-
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
If only you had delivered this astounding argument 47 pages ago.
-
I got the bull shit from the very start about Newtons laws applying to the rocket.
The point I'm making, is, it's bull shit science as far as the propulsion of the rocket is concerned.
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I can now no longer believe that anyone is as obstinately stupid as you, and I have concluded that you are an otherwise normal bloke who is just enjoying winding up people.
Newtons LAWS of motion are called laws for the very simple reason that they apply to all objects without exception. If this were not the case, they wouldn't be called the 'Laws of Motion' - they would be called the 'approximate correlations we've noticed in the lab but can't be bothered investigating properly'.
They have been understood, used & relied upon by every physical scientist, engineer & mechanic since the 18th century.
Conservation of momentum states that if a kilo of exhaust gas is expelled from a one tonne rocket at 4,000m/s, then the rocket will gain 4m/s of velocity.
It doesn't need anything to push against. In fact, atmospheric pressure slightly reduces the efficiency by decreasing the pressure differential between the inside of the reaction chamber & the outside. It also provided drag against the rocket.
If you don't like this, you can bloody well lump it, because it's a FACT.
You're wrong. Get over it.
-
I got the bull shit from the very start about Newtons laws applying to the rocket.
The point I'm making, is, it's bull shit science as far as the propulsion of the rocket is concerned.
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I can now no longer believe that anyone is as obstinately stupid as you, and I have concluded that you are an otherwise normal bloke who is just enjoying winding up people.
Newtons LAWS of motion are called laws for the very simple reason that they apply to all objects without exception. If this were not the case, they wouldn't be called the 'Laws of Motion' - they would be called the 'approximate correlations we've noticed in the lab but can't be bothered investigating properly'.
They have been understood, used & relied upon by every physical scientist, engineer & mechanic since the 18th century.
Conservation of momentum states that if a kilo of exhaust gas is expelled from a one tonne rocket at 4,000m/s, then the rocket will gain 4m/s of velocity.
It doesn't need anything to push against. In fact, atmospheric pressure slightly reduces the efficiency by decreasing the pressure differential between the inside of the reaction chamber & the outside. It also provided drag against the rocket.
If you don't like this, you can bloody well lump it, because it's a FACT.
You're wrong. Get over it.
FOR ABOUT THE 30TH TIME IN THIS THREAD... WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
Not that this eejit will accept it... because "he is right, he knows he's right. And we are wrong".
SCIENCE!!!
I'm out.
-
A rocket "burns" it's fuel after initial ignition and it's simply a constant burn, that's it, no bangs and recoils.
It's just the hot gases pushing on the dense cold gases of the atmosphere and that's it.
They just tell you rockets work the way they do because if they didn't...space exploration would be a no go and they couldn't bull shit the public.
I don't understand one thing about this. The hot gases push against the atmosphere, causing THE GASES to move, but not yet the rocket, since they are not one single body. In order for the momentum to be transferred from the hot gas to the rocket, they have to be in contact, so the hot gas has to go upward and "clump" near the bottom of the rocket. However we see the gas expelled from the combustion going downwards.
And also, according to you, a submarine working somehow with jets instead of helixes could easily achieve great speeds, since water is (more or less) 1000 times more dense than air.
-
I wasn't actually in this to win anything but I accept you were wrong and it's an easy mistake to make.
You are out, so there's no need to answer this.
Thanks for the comments.
Nice try but you are still hanging onto the bogus science behind the rockets lift.
I am right and you are wrong.
Like you said, you are done with this thread, so no need to reply to this.
You are not winning anything, everybody will eventually stop answering you because you are incredibly ignorant and incapable of understating any logical explanation.
Apparently by now you've noticed that the best you can do is have the last comment saying "I'm right".
-
Not that this eejit will accept it... because "he is right, he knows he's right. And we are wrong".
It's because we're all not a balloon scientist like he is.
I for one must say this though;
Thank you sceptimatic for creating this thread. That's right everyone, I'm thanking him, and here's why.
By debating in this thread (besides the entertainment factor), I have actually learned more about how rockets really work than before. I never really put much thought into, but after doing a bit of reading on the subject and thinking up experiments that even a four year old could grasp, I have to admit I have a much better understanding of it all even if sceptimatic doesn't.
Anyway, since I'm a curious experimental kind of guy, I might just try something and film it too, so that I can post it here.
-
Now just who is ignorant here?
Me or those who are calling me an idiot for sticking to my stance?
You Sir can choose to take part or not, just like anyone else.
I've said it before and I'll re-iterate it again. Put your point across and as forcefully as you want but if I keep seeing the same old crap of the rocket working against itself, I'm going to sit back and shake my head and come back with what I come back with.
Either post or cry, it makes no difference to me...but don't be so arrogant yourself thinking you know for sure when you are simply following a trend and are working on peer pressure from when you were indoctrinated into all this , just the same as your class mates and most people in life.
You think your argument beats mine when in actual fact , your argument to me beggars belief whilst mine makes absolute sense.
The problem here though, is, my argument to you and others, beggars belief and to you and others, your's makes more sense.
Do you see where we are at here?
I think i do, you seem to believe its your word against ours.
I was indoctrinated this just as my classmates? i didn't have physics as a subject until 3 years before I finished high school and I barley remember some of the things I was taught.
I am being arrogant? you are the one thinking all scientists do is follow what they have been taught not really knowing what they are doing, or not caring to look for a logic behind it because its commonly accepted. And you really believe that because you "think for yourself", your ideas have the same weight or more than an entire scientific community. As if one persons knowledge, obtained only by himself, could surpass the knowledge that has been tested, studied, and used over the centuries by millions of people. You simply dismiss it by saying they were following a trend, believing you are the only one thinking by yourself.
-
After 700 posts, I have to conclude that sceptimatic isn't an elaborate troll, just stubborn and close-minded.
I think we won this argument 48 pages ago.
But if we continue, then we can get on the page for biggest threads!
-
Why did you bother making this thread if your so sure of your self.
-
Why did you bother making this thread if your so sure of your self.
Because he wanted to frustrate people by not understanding their arguments.
-
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?
-
Mr. Sceptimatic -
Now that you've brought your message to this fine forum, what is your next step?
Surely your journey to enlighten the world to the follies of Newtons laws IN SPACE cannot end here.
-
Tell us a story about a toy water rocket with cold water in it on a hot day.
-
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?
The best way to explain this is to tell you a story about it.
It is simply a story, so don' t take it as any put down or offence towards you or any attempt by me to belittle you because this is not my aim...My aim is to try and put it into context as to how it works, using a simple story.
Once upon a time, there was a rocket, who spent all his days sitting on a launch pad but his dream was to go into the sky.
Below the rocket, was a big family of dense cold air and this dense cold air family taunted the rocket and mocked him because he could not fly.
The rocket knew he was full of fuel and oxidiser but he just needed a spark to show this dense cold air crowd that he could launch.
The dense cold air crowd were all around the rocket and under the rocket and gathered together waiting for this spark so that the rocket could ignite his fuel, so they could test themselves against the might of his fierce burning gases.
Just then, a spark ignited under the rockets nozzles and the hot gas family shouted, " ok dense cold air family, if it's a fight you want, we will come at you in force and we will power through you.
The cold dense air crowd started to get really angry as the hot air gas family started rushing out of the rocket nozzle and expanding outwards and pushing the cold dense air family away from the bottom of the rocket, but as they did this, the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.
The hot air gas family finally started to push through into the cold dense air family and lifted off, yet the cold dense air family kept on following it up and attacking the hot air from all angles, squeezing it back as much as the hot air family were trying to still push through.
The fight lasted for many minutes, until the hot air family shouted to the rocket, " we cannot push through, we have sent just about all of our family out to break through but the cold dense air family just keep coming at us, we are fading Mr rocket, we are fading.
The rocket was happy though, because, although he knew he would come crashing back down to Earth, he achieved his dream of launching into the sky, thanks to the spark and fight that the hot air family gave him,
Everyone remembers the day and it's in legend that the gas on gas fight ensured that Mr rocket achieved his dream.
The end.
Cool story bro,
Now back to the point:
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.
If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?
-
The cold dense air crowd started to get really angry as the hot air gas family started rushing out of the rocket nozzle and expanding outwards and pushing the cold dense air family away from the bottom of the rocket, but as they did this, the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.
The hot air gas family finally started to push through into the cold dense air family and lifted off, yet the cold dense air family kept on following it up and attacking the hot air from all angles, squeezing it back as much as the hot air family were trying to still push through.
So what happens if you put the rocket on its side and light the engine?
-
The Saturn V, fully loaded, weighed in at over 6.2 million pounds. The shuttle was 4.4 million pounds. How much hot air do you suppose that it take to lift either of those rockets into the air and out of sight?
-
the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.
Wow... who needs science when you have imagination?
So you have some proof or evidence of this cold air rushing into the direct vicinity under the rocket with enough volume to create the pressure needed to push against several million pounds?
Displacing cold air with hot air, does just work for upwards movement, you should be aware of this.
I guess you've never seen a bottle rocket launched horizontally, or even downward?
-
Sceptimatic needs a lesson in Newtons Third Law
-
The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
Newton's Third Law is usually expressed as, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," and you can also think of it as "Forces always come in pairs." While you are pushing on the medicine ball, Newton's Third Law says that the medicine ball is also pushing on you. Thus, you are accelerated by the force acting (backward) on you by the medicine ball. Never mind that it was you who decided to start the pushing in the first place; you can't push on the ball without having the ball push back. Forces always come in pairs.
Of course, rockets work on more sophisticated principles than just tossing fuel out the back. First, the fuel is burned and its hot exhaust gases are expelled at very high velocity (if you toss the medicine ball faster, your body experiences greater backward force). And the rocket's exhaust nozzle has a narrowing so as to squirt the exhaust gasses out even faster, like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. Exhaust from chemical propulsion (i.e., fuel-burning propulsion) is typically expelled at 2 km/s (= 4500 mph), and your average rocket mass at launch is 80-85% propellant (fuel + oxidizer), most of which eventually gets squirted out.
Thus for example a Delta II rocket can send a 1800 kg payload into geosynchronous orbit, using about 200,000 kg of propellant. The total rocket at launch would have a mass of about 232,000 kg. That's a lot of fuel! This is because 2 km/s (= 4500 mph) is considered "low" speed in Rocket World, so you have to achieve thrust by squirting lots of mass. If you could squirt something even faster out the back of the rocket, you could get more thrust with less fuel, and therefore send heavier payloads.
-
sceptimatic, try geepun92's experiment.
I have a question for you. Would a rocket accelerate faster in water than in air? Can you swim in air?
In fact, if Newton's 3rd law was not responsible for the rocket doing what it does, then the low pressure gas coming out of the rocket would actually pull the rocket down. Think aerofoil.
-
sceptimatic, try geepun92's experiment.
I have a question for you. Would a rocket accelerate faster in water than in air? Can you swim in air?
In fact, if Newton's 3rd law was not responsible for the rocket doing what it does, then the low pressure gas coming out of the rocket would actually pull the rocket down. Think aerofoil.
Just realised, so sceptimatic's theory is that the hot air expands beneath the rocket, then other air rushes in and then pushes the rocket up.... That makes no sense, just have a look at how smoke and other stuff moves away from the rocket's base... And how would a rocket throw out gas, (more particles) and the pressure drops???
-
Your inability to comprehend is not a failure on the part of science
-
Swiss cheese...
-
The only way I can describe it is by imagining the rocket gases pushing against a strong trampoline and pushing down on it, you know, as a person would.
The only problem with that analogy is that air makes for a very weak trampoline.
-
Here you go, sift through this.
I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
-
Here you go, sift through this.
I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.
You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.
-
Here you go, sift through this.
I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.
You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.
Exactly why I skipped it. And Newton's laws work everywhere. And I thought we were talking about star distances and such?
-
Here you go, sift through this.
I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.
You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.
Exactly why I skipped it. And Newton's laws work everywhere. And I thought we were talking about star distances and such?
It would be nice to talk about that. Stars give us a point of reference that we cannot have in any other way. Galileo could not have understood the basic structure of our Solar System without them, and we cannot really accept supposed "theories" like the flat Earth theories seen here if they do not predict at least as much as Galileo did.
-
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.
-
Sceptimatic,
An easy analogy that helped me grasp this concept when I was a kid is watching a ball being kicked from across the field. Have you ever witnessed this? You see the foot and the ball make contact, the ball goes into the air and then you hear the 'thud' from the kick. The thud took longer to travel to you than the light did so it appears to happen later.
When you hear thunder you think it just happened. But what you're actually hearing is lightning that struck a few seconds ago. (Unless you're lucky enough that it struck right near you)
Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos) The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today. We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
As I said earlier. I don't have an issue with the speed of light for most part.
My issue is with the stars actually (as we are told to believe) light years away by calculation.
I just don't believe the distances of the stars that we see.
On what grounds do you mistrust the information? The light leaves the star, moves for six hundred years, and then falls into your photo-receptors (eyes). The light that was ejected at that time is what you see, so you see something that was that way six hundred years previous. So why is that so hard to believe?
I think Scepti has a trouble grasping scale.
-
we should back off sceptimatic is the leading expert on so many different forms of science. he knows things that the leading experts dont even know about.
I'm not putting myself forward as an expert in anything, it appears that you and others are deciding that.
I'm questioning stuff and giving out reasons as to why I think stuff is wrong or suspect. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct on everything, yet I haven't had anything to convince me otherwise, other than people putting up wiki or using Newton, Galileo and what not.
You heard it here first, folks, Scepti is smarter than Newton despite failing to understand first grade Physics. :D
-
Or anything above primary school math.
-
Well done you pointed out a mistake with auto type. You must so excited.
-
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.
As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
-
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.
As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
I don;t believe they fission Uranium. I have my suspicions as to what they could be but I could be so wrong, yet I'm 90% convinced that pellets or metal purported to be Uranium "cannot" sit side by side in tubes and somehow sling neutrons at atoms and go critical mass for years and years with no other energy source needed.
A classic Einstein E=MC2 masterful load of old fable in my opinion.
What convinced you? Have you tried the experiment yourself?
-
This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.
The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.
As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
I don;t believe they fission Uranium. I have my suspicions as to what they could be but I could be so wrong, yet I'm 90% convinced that pellets or metal purported to be Uranium "cannot" sit side by side in tubes and somehow sling neutrons at atoms and go critical mass for years and years with no other energy source needed.
A classic Einstein E=MC2 masterful load of old fable in my opinion.
What convinced you? Have you tried the experiment yourself?
Looking at nuclear bombs was the first thing that convinced me it was a sham. When I looked at how the atomic bomb was supposed to work, I just sat back and thought, "frigging hell, is there anything we have been told in our lives true about history."
From there I thought about power stations and wondered why people would build them in earth quake zones and such and how we have never had any incidents of rogue nations actually using a nuke on anyone, no matter who or what reason, except what we were told about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Asking me if I've tried the experiment itself is a bit lame isn't it.
But nuclear fission has been demonstrated in real world applications ??? It isn't a theory, it's a fact.
-
i dont think sceptic has heard of the radioactive boy scout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn)
-
Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?
-
if i cant see it for what it is? i think you are the only person on earth who sees it for what you do. once again a sceptic statement backed up by no evidence or scientifically coherent explanation.
Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?
blame markjo lol. ;D
-
But nuclear fission has been demonstrated in real world applications ??? It isn't a theory, it's a fact.
It's only fact because they told you so. You haven't directly seen fissioning of Uranium and no university student has either. Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong. I've been to the nuclear reactor at Cornell University. It's real and they really split Uranium atoms.
-
Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?
You can explain why Nuclear fission works because you have read up on it or told that pellets of Uranium somehow fission into super heat emitters for years and years on end and you never think to go and look at just what Uranium supposedly is and how lumps of dense yet super strong "metal" actually does what it does.
Stick them in a tank of water, put the lid on, pull a few so called control rods away and wow, heated water into steam for years and years. ::)
You see I knew you really had a deep understanding of how nuclear fission works, why do you pretend you dont? :)
-
its realy ironic that he actually does show a basic understanding of how the process works but just calls it magic and offers the fact that he dosent understand it for the basis of it being fake.
-
Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."
It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough. :P
-
Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."
It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough. :P
No. I mean , it took me a long time in reading as to how dangerous it was supposed to be in it's entirety.
For instance, I was under the impression it was dangerous but not world wide dangerous until Helen Caldicott said,"just one pound of Plutonium, spread evenly over the planet would kill every person on it."
It was this statement that made me actually delve into it more critically, because I fell for the sucker punch as in, a conspiracy within a conspiracy and I believe that's what we get fed.
We get fed bits of truth and lies and then dis-info proponents take to the stage to totally screw your head up.
I'll explain.
From the start of Nuclear bombs in the 1940's, we have all been dangling by a thread with our wits, wondering if a Nuclear war will happen and it's been with us since the supposed cold war in terms of us really getting fed mass media hype.
From this, Nuclear power is created and power stations built, which naturally brings out the anti Nuclear brigade as in greenpeace and such.
We all start to realise why they are totally against it when we get told how dangerous it is and the fact that it's poisonous for 1000's...millions and what not years and cannot be stored with any real safety.
We see power plants popping up all over the country and yet we are told that it's a clean, safe energy and will result in cheap energy for the future, so naturally everyone becomes happy on one side, which is cheaper bills, but cautious on the other side, as in health wise and environment wise.
Ok so now, it's fully ingrained into our psyche that oil/gas and other supposed non renewable resources are dwindling fast, so we accept Nuclear as the comfortable alternative evil for our energy needs.
The problem is, it turns out that it's not cheap, as it costs a fortune to mine the Uranium etc and the security and manpower needed, plus the cost of building secure reactors, coupled with mammoth disposal of spent fuel costs, means we pay higher bills, not lower.
So you sit there and think, " oh well, at least we will have power, no matter what."
All of a sudden a Nuclear power plant goes boom and the town is cleared, as in Chernobyl and radiation has supposedly spread to farms in England, Wales, Europe etc etc.
Soldiers are sent into dispose of the remains of the reactor fuel and a big concrete sarcophagus is built that will last x amount of years. Ok job done for now but scary all the same, especially when they tell us that not many deaths are reported over the years, which starts to make you think..."huh" , surely this is not right."
So the stories come out that only so many have died because of it, then deformities are massive, then deformities are few, then millions have died over the few decades since, due to it...and it goes on.
You sit back and find out that a Nuclear power station has had to "shut down", yet in shutting down, nobody in that area loses power...they are still lit up like beacons.
Obviously we are being told lies and it's running, or the people who receive their power must be getting it from somewhere else.
Then you find out that amid all the disaster at Chernobyl with one reactor, the workers are still going to work at the other reactors on the complex???
Then you see Fukushima exploding with cameras fixed on it from helicopters, that somehow are there to capture the footage even though nobody knew it was going to explode.
Then you look at the footage and see that it looks absolutely substandard.
From there, panic ensues and people are rushing to get out of Japan, believing it's doomed over the coming weeks, only for the brave 50 to walk in and douse the melting reactor fuel to stop it melting down into the earth and water table etc.
Then you get the experts telling us that the radiation is spreading and the pacific is polluted, plus Japans goods are all tainted and then somehow it's all under control and everything is hunky dory...but...they will turn off "all" of their Nuclear plants that provide a massive proportion of the country with power and guess what?
Nobody suffers at all for it. We see a few snippets on TV where firms are told to not put on their air conditioners from a certain time for a few hours and that's about it.
So in nutshell, we are scared one minute about after effects and the next minute it's fine and it's under control and back to work everyone, nothing to see here.
By this time though, we are all convinced we are not being told the truth about how "dangerous" it really is and the next minute, supposed whistle blowers are telling us how dire the situation is.
It's a classic head scrambler because the masses see it as dangerous and believe the so called whistle blowers, yet doubt the official story from the governments.
The very same people will then argue black and blue that other media events are 100% true and the Governments and those connected, wouldn't lie.
Nobody really gives it a thought that the whistle blowers could simply be planted to play with your emotions and scramble your heads, all in the name of maybe keeping your mind away from what really goes on at those plants and maybe they use a fuel that is actually harmless and abundantly cheap.
What those plants run on, I can only guess. Maybe they really do run on magical metals somehow fissioning, or maybe they are built close to the sea to extract a natural resource from it that's abundant, as in hydrogen itself, or maybe something else. Maybe it's to simply hide a gas pipe into the building. I don't honestly know, yet 6 to 10 years fissioning from long pellet shaped rods with control rods in between doesn't ring true to me, just the same as uranium discs and a Uranium bullet smashed into those discs from a bundle of fused cordite as the trigger and yet as soon as the metal bullet is fired at the disc, ..BOOOOOOM, your city is in ruins. ::)
-
Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."
It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough. :P
No. I mean , it took me a long time in reading as to how dangerous it was supposed to be in it's entirety.
For instance, I was under the impression it was dangerous but not world wide dangerous until Helen Caldicott said,"just one pound of Plutonium, spread evenly over the planet would kill every person on it."
It was this statement that made me actually delve into it more critically, because I fell for the sucker punch as in, a conspiracy within a conspiracy and I believe that's what we get fed.
We get fed bits of truth and lies and then dis-info proponents take to the stage to totally screw your head up.
I'll explain.
From the start of Nuclear bombs in the 1940's, we have all been dangling by a thread with our wits, wondering if a Nuclear war will happen and it's been with us since the supposed cold war in terms of us really getting fed mass media hype.
From this, Nuclear power is created and power stations built, which naturally brings out the anti Nuclear brigade as in greenpeace and such.
We all start to realise why they are totally against it when we get told how dangerous it is and the fact that it's poisonous for 1000's...millions and what not years and cannot be stored with any real safety.
We see power plants popping up all over the country and yet we are told that it's a clean, safe energy and will result in cheap energy for the future, so naturally everyone becomes happy on one side, which is cheaper bills, but cautious on the other side, as in health wise and environment wise.
Ok so now, it's fully ingrained into our psyche that oil/gas and other supposed non renewable resources are dwindling fast, so we accept Nuclear as the comfortable alternative evil for our energy needs.
The problem is, it turns out that it's not cheap, as it costs a fortune to mine the Uranium etc and the security and manpower needed, plus the cost of building secure reactors, coupled with mammoth disposal of spent fuel costs, means we pay higher bills, not lower.
So you sit there and think, " oh well, at least we will have power, no matter what."
All of a sudden a Nuclear power plant goes boom and the town is cleared, as in Chernobyl and radiation has supposedly spread to farms in England, Wales, Europe etc etc.
Soldiers are sent into dispose of the remains of the reactor fuel and a big concrete sarcophagus is built that will last x amount of years. Ok job done for now but scary all the same, especially when they tell us that not many deaths are reported over the years, which starts to make you think..."huh" , surely this is not right."
So the stories come out that only so many have died because of it, then deformities are massive, then deformities are few, then millions have died over the few decades since, due to it...and it goes on.
You sit back and find out that a Nuclear power station has had to "shut down", yet in shutting down, nobody in that area loses power...they are still lit up like beacons.
Obviously we are being told lies and it's running, or the people who receive their power must be getting it from somewhere else.
Then you find out that amid all the disaster at Chernobyl with one reactor, the workers are still going to work at the other reactors on the complex???
Then you see Fukushima exploding with cameras fixed on it from helicopters, that somehow are there to capture the footage even though nobody knew it was going to explode.
Then you look at the footage and see that it looks absolutely substandard.
From there, panic ensues and people are rushing to get out of Japan, believing it's doomed over the coming weeks, only for the brave 50 to walk in and douse the melting reactor fuel to stop it melting down into the earth and water table etc.
Then you get the experts telling us that the radiation is spreading and the pacific is polluted, plus Japans goods are all tainted and then somehow it's all under control and everything is hunky dory...but...they will turn off "all" of their Nuclear plants that provide a massive proportion of the country with power and guess what?
Nobody suffers at all for it. We see a few snippets on TV where firms are told to not put on their air conditioners from a certain time for a few hours and that's about it.
So in nutshell, we are scared one minute about after effects and the next minute it's fine and it's under control and back to work everyone, nothing to see here.
By this time though, we are all convinced we are not being told the truth about how "dangerous" it really is and the next minute, supposed whistle blowers are telling us how dire the situation is.
It's a classic head scrambler because the masses see it as dangerous and believe the so called whistle blowers, yet doubt the official story from the governments.
The very same people will then argue black and blue that other media events are 100% true and the Governments and those connected, wouldn't lie.
Nobody really gives it a thought that the whistle blowers could simply be planted to play with your emotions and scramble your heads, all in the name of maybe keeping your mind away from what really goes on at those plants and maybe they use a fuel that is actually harmless and abundantly cheap.
What those plants run on, I can only guess. Maybe they really do run on magical metals somehow fissioning, or maybe they are built close to the sea to extract a natural resource from it that's abundant, as in hydrogen itself, or maybe something else. Maybe it's to simply hide a gas pipe into the building. I don't honestly know, yet 6 to 10 years fissioning from long pellet shaped rods with control rods in between doesn't ring true to me, just the same as uranium discs and a Uranium bullet smashed into those discs from a bundle of fused cordite as the trigger and yet as soon as the metal bullet is fired at the disc, ..BOOOOOOM, your city is in ruins. ::)
The thing is, nuclear fission as a form of energy is extremely safe and beneficial for the environment. Yes, the chemicals, if exposed to the outside world, would cause great contamination and poison or kill many people, but that's why we strive to build places to store the used fuel rods. It's a far better alternative to coal/oil plants in terms of environmental health. All that is emitted from the towers at these plants are steam from the water. In fact, nuclear power plants emit LESS radioactive waste into our air than coal plants! (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste) This doesn't mean that coal plants are dangerous due to the radioactivity, but it goes to show just how insignificant it hurts us in terms of radiation and that nuclear plants are even less significant than that.
Here's more information on Chernobyl to help you better understand what's going on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Experiment_and_explosion)
And for the sake of learning, water helps dissipate radiation extremely well. (http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/) So much so that you could swim at the top of the pool where spent fuel rods were stored and experience radiation levels so minimal, they're far below the EPA standards. It is entirely safe to do so as long as you remain near the surface. The only real threat you face is the security guard with a gun pointed at your face for breaking and entering into a secure facility without permission, if they haven't decided to shoot yet for ignoring them and jumping into said pool.
-
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry. ;D
They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course. ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.
Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/)
Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
-
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry. ;D
They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course. ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.
Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/)
Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
Disrupting what eco system at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean?
So what you're saying is, they will spew all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and fill the sea with hazardous oil etc, yet they would be worried about what people think about them "secretly" dumping fuel rods into a deep ocean?
Come on man, you don;t believe that do you, seriously.
There are necessities in life, and right now most people realize that even though the coal/oil plants are spewing horrible gasses into the atmosphere it's not a compromise to damage ecosystems elsewhere to make up for our cleaner air. The real alternative is finding more efficient sources of energy. You do realize that there are living organisms even at the deepest points of the ocean, right? Even places we previously thought uninhabitable?
As of right now it's easier to maintain things we have immediate access to, but it's not that easy to make a trip to the bottom of the ocean every time we wanted to monitor the spent rods and ensure that there are no leaks. These coal/oil plants are still heavily regulated and are required to follow specific EPA requirements to operate.
-
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry. ;D
They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course. ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.
Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ (http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/)
Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
Disrupting what eco system at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean?
So what you're saying is, they will spew all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and fill the sea with hazardous oil etc, yet they would be worried about what people think about them "secretly" dumping fuel rods into a deep ocean?
Come on man, you don;t believe that do you, seriously.
There are necessities in life, and right now most people realize that even though the coal/oil plants are spewing horrible gasses into the atmosphere it's not a compromise to damage ecosystems elsewhere to make up for our cleaner air. The real alternative is finding more efficient sources of energy. You do realize that there are living organisms even at the deepest points of the ocean, right? Even places we previously thought uninhabitable?
As of right now it's easier to maintain things we have immediate access to, but it's not that easy to make a trip to the bottom of the ocean every time we wanted to monitor the spent rods and ensure that there are no leaks. These coal/oil plants are still heavily regulated and are required to follow specific EPA requirements to operate.
Leaks?
They're solid metal pellets aren't they? Why in the hell should they leak?
The pellets are stored within these rods and decay over time. The decaying process occurs because the elements are unstable and will continue to decay until they stabilize, but until they do they release energy and this energy is what is used to heat the water. The problem is that when the metal is exposed to air it begins to oxidize. Heat from the spent rods also degrades the metal since they're very hot for a few years after being used. This can eventually lead to exposure of the pellets and then leaking radioactive waste. That's why they're stored in very highly regulated and secure locations in water for a few years until they've cooled enough to be removed and placed into their dry storage casks.
-
The supposed spent fuel rods are stored in a 40 foot deep pool. Forty foot deep pool, for decades allegedly and judging by your stick men, they are only dangerous about six feet above where they are stored and the rest you can go swimming in.
I think the deepest part of the ocean would pose no problems for this stuff do you?
The reason they are in that pool is because it isn't Uranium pellets...more like large elements for dissipating unused electricity, like a dump load and that's how they siphon it off maybe.
False again. You're on a record! The forty foot deep pool is there for precautions in case something were to happen. Again, the problem is that the rods are extremely hot and need to be cooled for twenty years at most. After that they are removed and placed into dry storage casks. All of this is constantly monitored to ensure that if/when the metal does degrade and expose the hazardous material we are able to react and stop any serious damage from happening.
At the bottom of the ocean we would still disrupt ecosystems nearby and if they degraded where we couldn't access them easily then further problems occur with the destruction of ecosystems.
-
The supposed spent fuel rods are stored in a 40 foot deep pool. Forty foot deep pool, for decades allegedly and judging by your stick men, they are only dangerous about six feet above where they are stored and the rest you can go swimming in.
I think the deepest part of the ocean would pose no problems for this stuff do you?
The reason they are in that pool is because it isn't Uranium pellets...more like large elements for dissipating unused electricity, like a dump load and that's how they siphon it off maybe.
False again. You're on a record! The forty foot deep pool is there for precautions in case something were to happen. Again, the problem is that the rods are extremely hot and need to be cooled for twenty years at most. After that they are removed and placed into dry storage casks. All of this is constantly monitored to ensure that if/when the metal does degrade and expose the hazardous material we are able to react and stop any serious damage from happening.
At the bottom of the ocean we would still disrupt ecosystems nearby and if they degraded where we couldn't access them easily then further problems occur with the destruction of ecosystems.
They sure got into your psyche didn't they.
Bloody eco systems ::)
Twenty odd years to cool down a bunch of pellets inside a supposed zirconium tube. It's laughable. I mean, why not keep them inside the reactor and keep producing steam if they're as hot as they say?
The more I read about it, the more I believe it's garbage and other means are at work and Nuclear is simply a made up word.
Why not keep them inside the reactor to keep producing steam? Because they're not as efficient as they were when they began. And even if they decided to keep them inside the reactor, they still need to be cooled at some point after being removed, thus we arrive at the same situation where we were at.
-
It's like..... you understand kind of..... and then you don't, so you just write it off as magic.
Why do you think anything you don't understand is bullshit? I just don't get it. I'm not an astronomer, quantum physicist, rocket scientist, brain surgeon, or molecular biologist either, but that doesn't mean I write off anything they say as bullshit just because I don't understand it. Quite the contrary, these people are professionals in their field so I hold their research to a higher merit. And these aren't 'corrupt nasa employees' or anything, these are your average joes involved in scientific professions. They have no desire to lie to you, they observe the universe and publish their unbiased research(and in some cases apply it to everyday life considering the fact GPS satellites are usually tracking you) because they enjoy science.
-
I don't know whether the original question of this thread was ever resolved, and I can't possibly read through 52 pages of this stuff to find out, but we know that the stars are very far away because we know they are very big yet they appear very small. We know they are very big because they must have reached a critical mass in order to begin performing nuclear fusion. We know they are performing nuclear fusion because we can literally see it happening by looking at the emission spectra of stars...the different wavelengths of light we get from them indicate different elements inside of them (just like they do on earth) that are found in the proportions expected from a nuclear fusion reaction.
Or maybe I'm just spinning my wheels with this "science" stuff?
-
I don't know whether the original question of this thread was ever resolved, and I can't possibly read through 52 pages of this stuff to find out, but we know that the stars are very far away because we know they are very big yet they appear very small. We know they are very big because they must have reached a critical mass in order to begin performing nuclear fusion. We know they are performing nuclear fusion because we can literally see it happening by looking at the emission spectra of stars...the different wavelengths of light we get from them indicate different elements inside of them (just like they do on earth) that are found in the proportions expected from a nuclear fusion reaction.
Or maybe I'm just spinning my wheels with this "science" stuff?
And boom goes the dynamite. I remember using the light spectrum vision things in my astronomy lab. They were a ton of fun, and it was really awesome trying to figure out which colors went to which element.
-
I don't profess to know what goes on, yet I simply don't buy into this space malarkey in how we are told they do it.
If they do it differently, knowing that space isn't really what they tell us, then fair enough but either way they are lying their arses off.
If you don't know what's going on, how can you know they are lying?
-
Also we are yet to see your calculations for the distance to the sun and the moon. Why don't you show us then? I mean you must have some seeing as you are so confident that we are wrong. So step up to the mark and tell us all. What are do your calculations show in relation to the distance to the sun and the moon?
-
Oh that's convenient. How lucky of you. So if its imposible then what's wrong with the ways we do it?
-
Until you can offer us a alternative we can ( and do) safly assume you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-
Oh that's convenient. How lucky of you. So if its imposible then what's wrong with the ways we do it?
Because it's all based on Pinocchio science.
What is Pinocchio Science? Is that science based on lying?
-
I'm not interested whether you believe what I'm saying or that you think I'm talking crap.
Of course you are, otherwise these tedious (and ultimately pointless) discussions wouldn't go on for 5-10 pages at a time.
-
Oh that's convenient. How lucky of you. So if its imposible then what's wrong with the ways we do it?
Because it's all based on Pinocchio science.
What is Pinocchio Science? Is that science based on lying?
Yes. Fabrications. Not all but much of it in my opinion.
-
I'm not interested whether you believe what I'm saying or that you think I'm talking crap.
Of course you are, otherwise these tedious (and ultimately pointless) discussions wouldn't go on for 5-10 pages at a time.
I'm am not interested who believes me, I'm simply stating my thoughts just as you or anyone else does.
I'm just putting across why I believe stuff is faked and also that I don't follow everything we have been schooled to accept as gospel.
Whether you believe none of what I say is of no consequence to me, I do not know you.
-
I don't profess to know what goes on, yet I simply don't buy into this space malarkey in how we are told they do it.
If they do it differently, knowing that space isn't really what they tell us, then fair enough but either way they are lying their arses off.
If you don't know what's going on, how can you know they are lying?
Because of their flimsy thin aluminium space junk craft operating in what they say is a vacuum, plus massive rockets that simply would not get off the ground, stuff like that.
You literally just said you don't profess to know what's going on, and then claim to know what's going on in the very next sentence. So do you know what's going on, or do you not? If you don't know, then you cannot say with certainty that they're lies. If you do know what's going on, provide us with reasons to believe they are lying. Looks can be deceiving, remember this. Just because something appears to be one day does not make it true.
Even exceptionally talented scientists have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of millions of light years of distance between objects in space. It's so difficult to imagine that and see where we came from, yet I still accept it because these "liars" have had other "liars" that share no association aside from their field of study verify their work through repeated experiments.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
-
I don't profess to know what goes on, yet I simply don't buy into this space malarkey in how we are told they do it.
If they do it differently, knowing that space isn't really what they tell us, then fair enough but either way they are lying their arses off.
If you don't know what's going on, how can you know they are lying?
Because of their flimsy thin aluminium space junk craft operating in what they say is a vacuum, plus massive rockets that simply would not get off the ground, stuff like that.
You literally just said you don't profess to know what's going on, and then claim to know what's going on in the very next sentence. So do you know what's going on, or do you not? If you don't know, then you cannot say with certainty that they're lies. If you do know what's going on, provide us with reasons to believe they are lying. Looks can be deceiving, remember this. Just because something appears to be one day does not make it true.
Even exceptionally talented scientists have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of millions of light years of distance between objects in space. It's so difficult to imagine that and see where we came from, yet I still accept it because these "liars" have had other "liars" that share no association aside from their field of study verify their work through repeated experiments.
There are some exceptionally intelligent people out there that believe in a God and go to church as well as going to do their super intelligent scientific jobs and yet they were taught by probably people who also went to church to pray to a God.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
-
I don't profess to know what goes on, yet I simply don't buy into this space malarkey in how we are told they do it.
If they do it differently, knowing that space isn't really what they tell us, then fair enough but either way they are lying their arses off.
If you don't know what's going on, how can you know they are lying?
Because of their flimsy thin aluminium space junk craft operating in what they say is a vacuum, plus massive rockets that simply would not get off the ground, stuff like that.
You literally just said you don't profess to know what's going on, and then claim to know what's going on in the very next sentence. So do you know what's going on, or do you not? If you don't know, then you cannot say with certainty that they're lies. If you do know what's going on, provide us with reasons to believe they are lying. Looks can be deceiving, remember this. Just because something appears to be one day does not make it true.
Even exceptionally talented scientists have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of millions of light years of distance between objects in space. It's so difficult to imagine that and see where we came from, yet I still accept it because these "liars" have had other "liars" that share no association aside from their field of study verify their work through repeated experiments.
There are some exceptionally intelligent people out there that believe in a God and go to church as well as going to do their super intelligent scientific jobs and yet they were taught by probably people who also went to church to pray to a God.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Yes, and these religious scientists keep their biases of religion out of their work. There's a difference between believing in God(s) and accepting the fruits of science's advancements.
The one thing I think you keep forgetting is that scientists aim to disprove theories in their work. They try and find any possible contradictions in the theory, and any contradictions in the experiments. They seek to find ways to break the model in any way possible, and when they're unable to the theory makes it to the rest of us. If you wish to disprove the current scientific theories then you are more than welcome to. The scientific community is ALWAYS looking for those who can make contributions. Learn what they understand, and make counter arguments without letting your emotions or biases get in the way. Question what they do and why, but in a reasonable and professional manner. Don't discard something merely because you don't understand it. Take the time to understand it, and then find the holes and use those to expand on what you already believe/accept.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
What's so fake about these explosions? Note that many are only in the Kilotons range of power, not the Megatons that many are capable of now.
31 Kilotons (http://#ws)
Unknown on date/location/output (http://#)
Underwater explosion; ship for reference of size (http://#ws)
Elaborate on why they're fake or what alternatives could be used to cause such damage.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
-
I don't profess to know what goes on, yet I simply don't buy into this space malarkey in how we are told they do it.
If they do it differently, knowing that space isn't really what they tell us, then fair enough but either way they are lying their arses off.
If you don't know what's going on, how can you know they are lying?
Because of their flimsy thin aluminium space junk craft operating in what they say is a vacuum, plus massive rockets that simply would not get off the ground, stuff like that.
You literally just said you don't profess to know what's going on, and then claim to know what's going on in the very next sentence. So do you know what's going on, or do you not? If you don't know, then you cannot say with certainty that they're lies. If you do know what's going on, provide us with reasons to believe they are lying. Looks can be deceiving, remember this. Just because something appears to be one day does not make it true.
Even exceptionally talented scientists have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea of millions of light years of distance between objects in space. It's so difficult to imagine that and see where we came from, yet I still accept it because these "liars" have had other "liars" that share no association aside from their field of study verify their work through repeated experiments.
There are some exceptionally intelligent people out there that believe in a God and go to church as well as going to do their super intelligent scientific jobs and yet they were taught by probably people who also went to church to pray to a God.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Yes, and these religious scientists keep their biases of religion out of their work. There's a difference between believing in God(s) and accepting the fruits of science's advancements.
The one thing I think you keep forgetting is that scientists aim to disprove theories in their work. They try and find any possible contradictions in the theory, and any contradictions in the experiments. They seek to find ways to break the model in any way possible, and when they're unable to the theory makes it to the rest of us. If you wish to disprove the current scientific theories then you are more than welcome to. The scientific community is ALWAYS looking for those who can make contributions. Learn what they understand, and make counter arguments without letting your emotions or biases get in the way. Question what they do and why, but in a reasonable and professional manner. Don't discard something merely because you don't understand it. Take the time to understand it, and then find the holes and use those to expand on what you already believe/accept.
My main argument is against blatant fakery not against scientists in general.
Scientists will only have their work looked at, if it stays within the way the powers that be want them and that's my opinion.
Who are "the powers" that determine what should or shouldn't be allowed to enter the scientific community? They have their work reviewed by other scientists who also release their own statements about the studies/experiments.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
If you dont know what really went on, how can you say this is fakery. You sound, by your own admission, to be unqualified to do so.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
If you dont know what really went on, how can you say this is fakery. You sound, by your own admission, to be unqualified to do so.
I'm not qualified and neither are you..but I have a mind and I'm using it, qualified or not, just as you do, qualified or not.
I'm not claiming that a well-documented thing, a nuclear bomb, does not work. Your claim is extraordinary and requires some sort of evidence if you want the claim to be taken seriously. Bomb tests have been documented and witnessed throughout their entire existence, for you to say that they don't exist because you cannot comprehend them is something not to be taken seriously until you have something to back up your claim.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
If you dont know what really went on, how can you say this is fakery. You sound, by your own admission, to be unqualified to do so.
I'm not qualified and neither are you..but I have a mind and I'm using it, qualified or not, just as you do, qualified or not.
I'm not claiming that a well-documented thing, a nuclear bomb, does not work. Your claim is extraordinary and requires some sort of evidence if you want the claim to be taken seriously. Bomb tests have been documented and witnessed throughout their entire existence, for you to say that they don't exist because you cannot comprehend them is something not to be taken seriously until you have something to back up your claim.
You explain to me why you believe bits of dense metal smacked into each other can blow up cities. Just tell me if that makes logical sense to you?
Logic aside, it seems to be truth whether I want it to be or not.
-
Alone warrior:
In your videos, tell me what is in the metal, you know the plutonium/Uranium discs and bullet that can create the fire balls. Just explain that bit first of all.
From the Wiki page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_bomb#Fission_weapons)
All existing nuclear weapons derive some of their explosive energy from nuclear fission reactions. Weapons whose explosive output is exclusively from fission reactions are commonly referred to as atomic bombs or atom bombs (abbreviated as A-bombs). This has long been noted as something of a misnomer, as their energy comes from the nucleus of the atom.
In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the "gun" method) or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the "implosion" method). The latter approach is considered more sophisticated than the former and only the latter approach can be used if the fissile material is plutonium.
A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is to ensure that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys itself. The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range from the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards of 500,000 tons (500 kilotons) of TNT.[8]
All fission reactions necessarily generate fission products, the radioactive remains of the atomic nuclei split by the fission reactions. Many fission products are either highly radioactive (but short-lived) or moderately radioactive (but long-lived), and as such are a serious form of radioactive contamination if not fully contained. Fission products are the principal radioactive component of nuclear fallout.
The most commonly used fissile materials for nuclear weapons applications have been uranium-235 and plutonium-239. Less commonly used has been uranium-233. Neptunium-237 and a number of isotopes of americium may be usable for nuclear explosives as well, but it is not clear that this has ever been implemented, and even their plausible use in nuclear weapons is a matter of scientific dispute.[9]
That's how. All bombs work on the premise of releasing energy, and the amount of matter that's required to achieve them is usually minimal in comparison to the devastation they can leave behind. A person wouldn't just pick up two pieces of uranium, smack them together, and expect a giant explosion to occur. These two pieces of material make contact at a high rate of speed due to a regular chemical explosion starting the process.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
If you dont know what really went on, how can you say this is fakery. You sound, by your own admission, to be unqualified to do so.
I'm not qualified and neither are you..but I have a mind and I'm using it, qualified or not, just as you do, qualified or not.
I'm not claiming that a well-documented thing, a nuclear bomb, does not work. Your claim is extraordinary and requires some sort of evidence if you want the claim to be taken seriously. Bomb tests have been documented and witnessed throughout their entire existence, for you to say that they don't exist because you cannot comprehend them is something not to be taken seriously until you have something to back up your claim.
You explain to me why you believe bits of dense metal smacked into each other can blow up cities. Just tell me if that makes logical sense to you?
You explain to me why you believe a giant metal tube can fly through the atmosphere at over 500mph with these so-called 'wings'. Then they tell us the metal is only 4mm thick and someone is actually capable of 'piloting' these tin foil pieces of crap at superspeed. Do they think i'm stupid or something?. Just tell me if that makes logical sense to you.
-
Infact to further the last posters point. Scientist who has doubled checked rival scientists work have conceded that they themselves are wrong after replicating their rivals findings. Why would they do this if the whole things was made up magic in the 1st place?
I am not going against all scientists. I understand that there are some brilliant minds out there, some fantastic thinkers and occasional full on geniuses and I have no problem with them and in fact I am amazed by the stuff they do.
We have some great technology on earth because of these smart people.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that those very same geniuses in their field will be cringing at the thought that they have to go along with stuff they know in their own minds is not true, yet to go against the grain as far as space and other stuff would mean them losing their status in their own fields most likely.
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
I don't accept official media events about many things happening on earth for many reasons.
I "do" accept many other things that are a break through on earth and as to why they work and the good that they do for the benefit of us all.
I question things that I find myself having trouble accepting that's all. You appear to question nothing and that's your prerogative, it's not mine though.
You don't believe Hiroshima was devastated by a nuclear bomb? Do you have any theories on how they faked that? Do disbelieve all history? How do you decide what is real and what is not historically?
By looking at the pictures and looking at how the atom bomb was hastily put together and how all the video evidence looks so fake it's embarrassing.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in my opinion) fire bombed.
Those places were made of mostly wooden shacks.
Bold claim. How did they fake the evidence? There are many accounts by survivors of the event as well. Did they fake the radiation damage they suffered? A fire bombing requires many planes to complete, not one, how did the Enola Gay perform a firebombing by themself?
Witnesses?
It's the 1940's man, anyone can be brought forward as witnesses. You only need a hand full.
Also, people weren't about to get on their cell phones and say, " oh we've been atom bombed" are they?
The atom bomb was first rushed into service, sort of and was "top secret" as we are told, so who in the hell would know what they were seeing?
We are talking about shanty towns of people who may have seen many planes. Equally it could have been a ruse by both Governments to scare off the real enemy in maybe, China or Russia or whoever, so concoct the atom bomb destruction ruse, when maybe they cleared out those towns and simply burned them down ready for re-development, which would make sense as rebuilding was started within days of the supposed atomic bombings.
I'm sure someones mother would be more than happy to have her name on an aircraft that was about to unleash utter devastation and many deaths. ::)
What we know about history is a mixture of truths and literally Chinese whispers and who knows what really went on.
If you dont know what really went on, how can you say this is fakery. You sound, by your own admission, to be unqualified to do so.
I'm not qualified and neither are you..but I have a mind and I'm using it, qualified or not, just as you do, qualified or not.
I'm not claiming that a well-documented thing, a nuclear bomb, does not work. Your claim is extraordinary and requires some sort of evidence if you want the claim to be taken seriously. Bomb tests have been documented and witnessed throughout their entire existence, for you to say that they don't exist because you cannot comprehend them is something not to be taken seriously until you have something to back up your claim.
You explain to me why you believe bits of dense metal smacked into each other can blow up cities. Just tell me if that makes logical sense to you?
You explain to me why you believe a giant metal tube can fly through the atmosphere at over 500mph with these so-called 'wings'. Then they tell us the metal is only 4mm thick and someone is actually capable of 'piloting' these tin foil pieces of crap at superspeed. Do they think i'm stupid or something?. Just tell me if that makes logical sense to you.
Yes it makes logical sense, although it does fill me with dread when flying on them but their track record is pretty good.
Spoonfed bullshit
-
I don't accept the moon landings for hundreds of reasons.
I don't accept Nuclear bombs work for many reasons.
I don't fully accept that Nuclear power is what we are told for various reasons.
I don't accept a round rotating earth for various reasons.
My guess is that you expect these things to be intuitive to an average person. You think that anyone should be able to just look at these things and figure them out. Well, I'm sorry to say that this is not the case.
Sending men to the moon was (and still is) a fantastically complex, difficult, dangerous and expensive project where it took thousands of the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the world to invent much of the technology required as they went along.
Developing the first atomic bombs was a fantastically complex, difficult and expensive project where it took thousands of the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the world to invent much of the technology required as they went along.
Determining the shape of the earth really isn't that difficult, but saying that the earth rotates and orbits the sun does indeed seem counter-intuitive, which is why it took so long to figure out.
Science and technology tend to be self-correcting. If you continue building on a false premise, eventually you will find out. For example, the Ancient Greek philosophers couldn't continue to build on the flat earth, geocentric model of the time, so they discarded it if favor of a round earth, geocentric model. That model worked so well that philosophers and scientists were able to build on it for over 1500 years. However, it too had reached its limit and was discarded for a round earth, heliocentric model which has serves as the foundation for almost all of modern astronomy.
Modern astronomy may not be intuitive to a lay person, but if you follow the progression of astronomy from ancient times to the present, then it begins to make more sense. The same goes for rockets and nuclear bombs; they make a lot more sense if you follow their development from the beginning.
-
Or they are all a fabrication.
How can you make an informed decision without knowing their histories?
Anyway, Nuclear weapons becomes less sensible the more you actually look into it and so does Nuclear power, seriously.
Obviously that's just from my point of view though.
That's because you're expecting nuclear weapons to be intuitive to someone who doesn't understand anything about nuclear physics. They aren't.
The way I see it, is...we always seem to be using ancient Greeks and 14th century etc, theorists. There is always some icon, all through the ages that many people hang on to.
Today we have Stephen Hawking who tells us all that the universe was created from...."NOTHING"....yep, "NOTHING" and he knows this because he's sat and thought about it supposedly.
And he was able to do the math to support that claim. Others have checked the math and haven't been able to prove him wrong, yet.
Well why don't we all think about it. I'll start.
What makes you qualified to speculate on the origins of the universe?
I believe the universe was started from one small pin head sized globule of mercury mixed with dust, which expanded instantaneously into nothingness then exploded sending trillions upon trillions of globules throughout this nothingness, that also expanded into bigger objects, eventually slowing down over quintagillion eonite years, which is hard to calculate for even the most brilliant scientists, because I say so.
Can you provide some math that supports your notion?
This is your space science and this is the fantasy thoughts that get pasted into our minds.
Not at all. Sure, you can come up with any crazy idea that you want, but if you can't provide any math to support your idea, then no one will take you seriously. And even if you come up with some pretty convincing math to support your idea, you still need to be able to test your ideas to see if they match reality. This is one of the major problems with M-theory. For all of the wonderful and compelling math that supports it, there really isn't any practical way of testing the theory. This means that even though it has a lot of support in popular culture, the scientific community in general doesn't take it too seriously.
The simple truth is, it's a case of pass the buck so if it all ends up being pulled apart, then we can blame the Greek, the the 14th century theorists, then as time goes on and people become more inquisitive, they can blame the newer theorists for miscalculations.
Like I said before, science is self-correcting. If current theories are wrong, then somewhere down the line someone will find it and figure out why it's wrong. This is a good thing.
Pinocchio science= Amaze the masses with the magic of it and baffle the hell out of them with the bull shit of it all.
Sure, there probably is some "Pinocchio science" out there, but enough of our modern, technological life is built around a space based and nuclear technologies that after a while, even the most jaded "skeptic" has to give in and say maybe.
-
What I can do though is sift through it all and pick up stuff that I believe adds to the possibility of fabrication. Whether I can directly prove it is not an issue, as most of the science that I'm against cannot be directly proved by anyone here.
But that is the point. If you can't give any reasons why you think that something is fake beyond "it looks fishy to me", then we have no reason to believe you. If you take the idea that anything that can be done for real can be faked, then you run the risk of believing that nothing is real. That really isn't a very productive way to live.
Obviously I know you and others can say, "yes we can because so and so proved it and all the scientists aren't all wrong."
You can also cite the equations and calculations for much of this stuff, yet if you are 100% honest with yourself, you cannot say with absolute certainty that it's all legitimate.
I've been through enough science courses to know that the instructors walk you through step-by-step where a lot of those calculations came from and actually perform experiments in a lab to test those calculations. So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of the fundamental concepts that you reject are legitimate.
It is possible that you have been duped into believing what you believe, right?
Some of it? Maybe. All of it? No.
It's also possible that I'm barking up the wrong tree as well, because I cannot directly prove anything either, physically.
That still does not stop me questioning it and also it still does not stop you counteracting my questions, as that's what keeps up a sort of challenge, where there is either an eventual stalemate or one or the other figures that they are wrong about their thoughts.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't question everything. You should absolutely question everything. I just asking you to not assume that all of the answers are wrong without doing the proper research.
-
What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.
Sure, it's easy to doubt something that sounds absurd. But what I was to tell you that atoms of certain elements are unstable and periodically "explosively self-destruct" releasing energy and "shrapnel" and some of the shrapnel from these explosions can cause other nearby unstable atoms to explode as well and these explosions can cause more explosions and so on an so on in a chain reaction, and if you get enough of these unstable atoms close enough together, then this chain reaction becomes uncontrollable and the result is a massive explosion that could destroy a city. Does that sound more reasonable that "smashing lumps of metal together can blow up a city"?
-
Of course it sounds reasonable. I've diluted it to lumps of metal because of that very reasonable reason.
Ahh, so you don't want a reasonable discussion. That explains a lot. Good day.
-
What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.
Science is the result of people questioning and being sceptical about things, it didn't just spring fully formed one day from the mind of Steven Hawking. If you read up on the history of our scientific progress you'll realize that it's a true progression from knowing really nothing but what our own senses tell us to being able to draw some pretty powerful conclusions about how our world works. Accepted scientific theories seriously aren't just scientists making things up, and while it's debatable as to whether we can know if any of them are true, we can confidently use them because they are consistent with each other and they make astounding predictions about natural phenomena, often before we can actually observe them.
Let me give you an example: the search for DNA, a molecule that we can observe with our own eyes, was driven by the knowledge that there must be some biochemical means of storing genes, which we know exist because of Mendel's observations and we know must evolve because of Darwin's observations, which were corroborated with fossil evidence that also predicted continental drift, a theory that arose to explain obervations about the shape of Earth's continents. All of these relatively diverse theories can make predictions about one another. Could they be wrong? Possibly. But with every new piece of data that fits with accepted explanations, that becomes less and less likely.
There's a difference between healthy skepticism and rejecting scientific theory because it is difficult or because you mistrust scientists (which, if you have ever met a real scientist, is a ridiculous proposition). Science is difficult and complex, but that doesn't make it elitist — it just means that scientists are doing their jobs. In fact, most of our theories are a result of healthy skepticism; questions about retrograde motion brought us heliocentrism, blackbody radiation brought us quantum theory, trying to reconcile EMF theory and Newtonian mechanics brought us relativity, observations about diseases brought us germ theory, the list goes on. The beauty of science isn't that we can come up with nice-sounding ideas about how the world works, because in reality the details are usually horribly complex and can take centuries to work out. The beauty is that our best ideas are all consistent with each other, and can be used to make predictions and draw conclusions about the world, improve human lives, and provide a framework to ask new questions and test new ideas. It's a beautiful process, frankly one of the best things a human being can be part of, and if you can't see this beauty I honestly feel sad for you.
-
If my daughter brought home a guy who looked iffy, I could warn her about him, yet I would be doing so by judging the book by it's cover and she could say, " no , no, he's nice, he just looks crazy."
I could take her at her word but I'd be more vigilant and gather information to satisfy my own worries to make sure the guy is sound.
If the more I delve into it, to find that he is a bit iffy, I'm going to delve deeper. If he turns out to be a good guy, I'll give myself a slap and start to trust him.
Well I'm like this with the science I'm arguing against and I'm gathering info as I go, yet only time will tell whether it turns out to be good science or Pinocchio science.
(Emphasis my own)
You should take this idea and run with it. Gather more information on the science behind these things before you cast them off as conspiracies. You sound rather ignorant about nuclear physics and there is a good deal of information out there; scientific journals, textbooks and so on. This is what I have tried to do with science in my life, even though it is only a hobby. Right now, with your frame of mind, you seem to look for possibilities of conspiracy but maybe if you read -a lot- and try to understand the technical material you can see where it comes from? That would be a much more credible place to level your criticism from. Do what you will, you make me think, which is why I am here.
-
What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.
Science is the result of people questioning and being sceptical about things, it didn't just spring fully formed one day from the mind of Steven Hawking. If you read up on the history of our scientific progress you'll realize that it's a true progression from knowing really nothing but what our own senses tell us to being able to draw some pretty powerful conclusions about how our world works. Accepted scientific theories seriously aren't just scientists making things up, and while it's debatable as to whether we can know if any of them are true, we can confidently use them because they are consistent with each other and they make astounding predictions about natural phenomena, often before we can actually observe them.
Let me give you an example: the search for DNA, a molecule that we can observe with our own eyes, was driven by the knowledge that there must be some biochemical means of storing genes, which we know exist because of Mendel's observations and we know must evolve because of Darwin's observations, which were corroborated with fossil evidence that also predicted continental drift, a theory that arose to explain obervations about the shape of Earth's continents. All of these relatively diverse theories can make predictions about one another. Could they be wrong? Possibly. But with every new piece of data that fits with accepted explanations, that becomes less and less likely.
There's a difference between healthy skepticism and rejecting scientific theory because it is difficult or because you mistrust scientists (which, if you have ever met a real scientist, is a ridiculous proposition). Science is difficult and complex, but that doesn't make it elitist — it just means that scientists are doing their jobs. In fact, most of our theories are a result of healthy skepticism; questions about retrograde motion brought us heliocentrism, blackbody radiation brought us quantum theory, trying to reconcile EMF theory and Newtonian mechanics brought us relativity, observations about diseases brought us germ theory, the list goes on. The beauty of science isn't that we can come up with nice-sounding ideas about how the world works, because in reality the details are usually horribly complex and can take centuries to work out. The beauty is that our best ideas are all consistent with each other, and can be used to make predictions and draw conclusions about the world, improve human lives, and provide a framework to ask new questions and test new ideas. It's a beautiful process, frankly one of the best things a human being can be part of, and if you can't see this beauty I honestly feel sad for you.
A nicely written post.
The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.
-
you are ignorant not inquisitive. if you were seeking the facts you would be more than an arm chair scientist.
calling yourself skeptical isnt even entirely accurate, you just dont have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
-
That is not my opinion that's is what you are.
-
There is a difference between a fact and opinion.
Perhaps this is your whole issue. You display a lot of opinion and no facts.
-
A nicely written post.
The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
You're right. It's to be edited to add the following:
Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none. Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies. Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps. One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier. Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments (*edit- until he gets access to said building I suppose), that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist. They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.
-
A nicely written post.
The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
You're right. It's to be edited to add the following:
Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none. Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies. Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps. One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier. Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist. They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.
Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?
I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?
-
Just ignorance.
-
(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.
-
(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.
Scepti is one of the most eminent minds of this century. How.dare you demand his deposition, he's never even heard of you.
-
A nicely written post.
The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
You're right. It's to be edited to add the following:
Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none. Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies. Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps. One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier. Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist. They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.
Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?
I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?
Good question.
It all depends on who is allowed access to whatever is being hidden. I mean, none of us get to see what's behind the scenes of a lot of stuff for top secret reasons, so it leaves us only two choices.
Accept what's told or question the validity of what's been told.
Seriously, what kind of stuff? Science is pretty open-source and well-documented.
-
(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.
My keyboard is bad, my ass .... blah blah blah. If this is all you have to say, it's better to keep your mouth shut. Very few people in here doubt his knowledge of the physical laws and their impact on the earth. Well, some of them may be homemade, however we spotted that they work in practice. He shows us that it works again and again, using illustrations and pictorial evidence of high class. And what do you have? A broken keybord and a blah blah blah?
-
pretending to support septic is the new cool club is it?
-
(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.
My keyboard is bad, my ass .... blah blah blah. If this is all you have to say, it's better to keep your mouth shut. Very few people in here doubt his knowledge of the physical laws and their impact on the earth. Well, some of them may be homemade, however we spotted that they work in practice. He shows us that it works again and again, using illustrations and pictorial evidence of high class. And what do you have? A broken keybord and a blah blah blah?
I don't know whether to laugh or barf
-
Sceptic I have to ask you one question from your previous rant. What do you think a hydrogen stack is?
A nicely written post.
The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
You're right. It's to be edited to add the following:
Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none. Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies. Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps. One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier. Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist. They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.
Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?
I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?
Good question.
It all depends on who is allowed access to whatever is being hidden. I mean, none of us get to see what's behind the scenes of a lot of stuff for top secret reasons, so it leaves us only two choices.
Accept what's told or question the validity of what's been told.
Seriously, what kind of stuff? Science is pretty open-source and well-documented.
Well I'm not talking about general science am I. I'm talking about the stuff that they tell you about, as in Nuclear bombs can do this and that, yet the only thing anyone will ever do to even sample seeing a small Nuke going off, is if it's on video.
The same with Nuclear power. Of course, anyone who reads up on it, knows the concept and how it boils water into steam by Uranium fissioning inside a big cylindrical kettle, sort of, yet it's super safe as long as it's looked after, unless a problem occurs and it goes super critical and boils off the water, making the rods melt down into a big super hot mass blob that burns through the casings of the reactor and housing, into the earth and carries on.
Sounds scary right?
Nobody questions why a mass blob of molten uranium should be fissioning still. Why?
Because we aren't Nuclear scientists, so we don't know do we?
You aren't allowed to use logic, because you need a certificate and a few letters after your name.
I mean...do submarines have a spent fuel pool on them?, do they have a 40 foot fuel pool or even a 10 foot one, where they store all their spent fuel?
If not, then how do they manage to get the spent fuel rods out of the reactor deep inside the hull?
How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from and is a danger, yet Nuclear power stations supposedly use hydrogen stacks for this problem.
What do submarines use, because I don't see any hydrogen stacks on them..or does the periscope act as a relief. ;D
Is it possible that these hydrogen stacks are indeed hydrogen stacks for real, to vent hydrogen that the plants burn?
Is it possible?
Maybe the Nuclear power is really Hydrogen taken from the sea and is an abundant, limitless energy source, disguised as Nuclear, so nobody dare to check it out.
Maybe the spent fuel pools are dump loads for excess electricity that does not get used, because creating electricity and keeping up with demand is only one part.
The other part is if demand drops, like through the night, they need to siphon off the excess , so what better way than to use massive elements to heat the water pools whilst circulating cold water through them so they don't boil.
I question stuff because some things appear too good to be true. Whether they are or not, I honestly don't know, yet I can have a theory on it.
-
Thaggy:
From what they say, I think they say that the hydrogen stack is sort of a safety stack to vent off any build up of Hydrogen from the fissioning process.
can you show me a picture of a hydrogen stack please
-
(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.
Then don't teach me. :)
Thats excactly what im saying. And if you read carefully you will see that not only am I not trying to teach you anything. but my post wasnt even for you.
-
can i have link to the conspiracy website you got this picture from pleas.
-
can i have link to the conspiracy website you got this picture from pleas.
No.
-
fair enought then we will disregard your photo. so the origional question stands. show me a picture of a hydrogen stack.
-
what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. ??? all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?
-
what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. ??? all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?
Look it up Thaggy. I'm not that interested in what they say they are anyway.
-
lol what a fool. wont even give me a link to his suposed evidence.
well let me explain something to you. you keep on saying things like
"How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from "
well they dont. why did you think they do? ??? in disasters like fukushima they do but under normal operations hydrogen is not created in any meaning full quantity. so what the WTF are you on about?
i would gues that you have absolutly no idea how a nuclear power station works whcih is once again why you refuse to admit they exist. poor you ikea flat packs must be like dark magic to you.
-
well 1stly let me point out to you that i said under normal operating conditions they do not create hydrogen. secondly may i point out that in your source they quite clearly say that the hydrogen build up is completly unrelated to the nuclear reactor. the hydrogen build up is in a cooling network for a generator on the non nuclear side of the cooling system. once again i repeat nothing to do with the nuclear reactor. the headline should read Hydrogen build up in cooling system. the fact its at a nuclear powerstations is irelivant
so well done sceptic. you are a fool.
Edit*
in fact hear is a quote for his statment before he delets it
lol what a fool. wont even give me a link to his suposed evidence.
well let me explain something to you. you keep on saying things like
"How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from "
well they dont. why did you think they do? ??? in disasters like fukushima they do but under normal operations hydrogen is not created in any meaning full quantity. so what the WTF are you on about?
i would gues that you have absolutly no idea how a nuclear power station works whcih is once again why you refuse to admit they exist. poor you ikea flat packs must be like dark magic to you.
Just Japan eh?
http://www.isssource.com/fermi-2-shuts-after-hydrogen-build-up/ (http://www.isssource.com/fermi-2-shuts-after-hydrogen-build-up/)
-
I have to ask. Did you even read the article or did you jsut see the headline and think score il post that?
-
inexhaustable hydrogen plants. wow once agian you invent tech thats dsnt exist with no explination to replace a tech that does and is extremly well understood. well done once again.
you do know that people dont actualy swim in reacto pools right? ??? its just to give an example of how the water absorbs the radiation.
when will you show us the calculations that show nuclear fission not working?
and your nuclear power stations shutting down and grid problem, whats that about? more random uneducated ranting?
care to exlain? i urge you to actualy read your sources before posting them this time. i feal bad proving you wrong all the time but its just so easy.
-
As silly as this may sound, the energy we use today is probably nothing like we used years ago, due to the technology of designing low energy products, unlike years ago when we had energy zapping electric fires and electric ring cookers and big televisions etc.
A growing population requires even more energy than what we used to use. If the population stayed the same, and electrical devices continued to be made more efficient, then yes, we would use less.
Or did you mean something different?
-
Harping on about calculations? I asked you to show me hudrogen stacks and how hydrogen build up is a problem for working power stations. So far you have epicly fails to do so. Even with a new story that is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. After you fail to do so you the. Say this
what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. ??? all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?
Look it up Thaggy. I'm not that interested in what they say they are anyway.
Well il tell you now. I have looked it up. And you are wrong. Pure and simple realy. We shouldn't be surprised realy iv yet to see an occasion that you are completely right.
I may be wrong but I am yet to see anything apart from what I have described.
-
Scepti, is there evidence of this¿ Is this just a possible theory¿
-
No your just wrong. All opinion and uneducated guess work. Lack of understanding isn't bieng sceptical it's just being ignorant. Your theory is so stupendously idiotic it is just dumbfounding. The most basic problem is where do they get this vast amount of hydrogen needed from? You can't generally find in its basic form on earth. It's generally chemically tied to another substance eg oxygen = water. Which requires energy to split. More energy than you would get back may I add. I think you theory needs work. Maby a basic understanding of chemistry. Or are chemists all in on the conspiracy as well
-
what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. ??? all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?
did you find this, pythagoras?
http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/ (http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/)
photo 6
-
Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?
-
Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?
Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.
-
Maybe I'm wrong. Ok , I'll accept that if that becomes the case...
Yes, you are wrong. The problem is that you refuse accept it.
-
Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?
Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.
Yes. Which page, please?
-
Maybe I'm wrong. Ok , I'll accept that if that becomes the case...
Yes, you are wrong. The problem is that you refuse accept it.
Tell me why I am wrong.
You are wrong because you have already admitted that you do not understand what you are talking about. You over simplify and misrepresent things so that you can say that they are fake.
-
Is there anything worth reading in these 57 pages of discussion?
Only if you like to see the Round Earth Theory being debunked.
Yes. Which page, please?
Pretty much everyone.
-
I cannot and will not look at stupid equations that are (in my opinion) based on absolute none-sense.(again, my opinion)...
Just because it doesn't make any sense to you, that doesn't mean that it's fake.
You can sit there and tell me you know that Nuclear fission works, yet you have not seen it working in any laboratory or any power plant, or any bomb.
Have you been reading Wilmore's "only trust direct sensorial evidence" rants? Of course you can't see atoms splitting. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that they could. But that doesn't mean that you can't observe effects of nuclear decay, such as tritium night sights (http://www.glockstore.com/sights-lights-lasers/sights-and-lasers/tritium-night-sights-for-your-glock) or radium watch dials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_dials).
You can profess to know the make up of what it's supposed to be and you could amaze and baffle the most intelligent people with what you know, yet all you would be doing is telling a story.
If can tell that things are fake, then what makes you think that intelligent people can't figure out that things are fake too?
If I believe Nuclear weapons are fake, I'm not believing that because I don't like equations, (although this would be true)..I'm doing it because most of this stuff raises more questions than they answer.
What makes you think that those questions haven't been answered too?
Detective work can hinge on a gut feeling, yet to satisfy it, you have to keep delving, which is what I am doing.
Detective work can start with a gut feeling, but it should never end there. It should end with good, solid evidence. Seriously, take a college level physics course that includes labs were you can put your questions to the test.
-
Exactly what is your expertise in lunar surface composition? Which materials do you know on Earth that do not reflect radio waves? Or are you telling us that the Moon is made of magical cheese, the only substance on Earth or Heaven that absorbs radio waves apart from the painting on the F-117?
Every time you are asked to support something about your claims you suddenly become the premiere expert in that subject on this whole planet. And you don't call that trolling?
Listen, I've had my fill of sceptimatic, but this post is full of irony.
Edit: Apologies, as I just noticed I replied to a very old post that in a thread I had not read before.
-
what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. ??? all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?
did you find this, pythagoras?
http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/ (http://allthingsnuclear.org/annotated-photos-of-fukushima-continued/)
photo 6
I had a look at the photo and it seams to suggest its a exhaust system for the air inside the chamber. Can't realy tell more than that. But I do appreciate the link because I actually can't find anywhere what those towers are.
Oh and sceptic. I have found out why you won't give me a link to your photo you showed me and refused to Give the link. It's because it's a generic photo of Fukushima and you have put the annotation on their describing it as a hydrogen stack. shame on you for falsifying evidence like that this is why I wanted a link and we can see clearly now why you didn't provide it.
You have yet to explain to me where we get this endless supply of hydrogen from as a alternate fuel source.
Thaggy:
From what they say, I think they say that the hydrogen stack is sort of a safety stack to vent off any build up of Hydrogen from the fissioning process.
can you show me a picture of a hydrogen stack please
(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6069/fukushimatoptext1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/fukushimatoptext1.jpg/)
-
I will happily accept that if you I've me the link to the website you got the pic from. I don't see what's so hard about that? I provide links most of the time and if I don't I will quite gladly put them up. Until then you have yet to prove they are hydrogen stacks. A term I have never yet seen used In regards to any part of a nuclear power plant. Let alone under normal operating conditions power plants don't produce hydrogen in any meaningful quantity.
You are also yet to show me where the vast quantities of hydrogen come from to power your hydrogen power stations.
You are all big on talk but when it gets down to things called evidence and sources you run for the hills.
-
That link is to a rabid Conspiricist site......Isreal destroyed it did they? :D
Why do all Conspiracist idea's always seem to have more than a hint of anti-semitism about them?
-
Nuclear atoms cannot be seen, They are invisible, yet they can be split and better split by invisible neutrons. It's merely a magic show where the magician pulls out an invisible rabbit from his hat and looks to be holding it up, yet the audience cannot see it. The only difference is, the audience would never go to another magic show because they had to rely on the belief the rabbit was invisible and they are not stupid enough to accept this, yet the very same people will accept invisible atoms somehow splitting and blowing up cities and creating worldwide destruction.
Atoms can be seen with Electron Microscopes and STMs.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg)
-
Nuclear atoms cannot be seen, They are invisible, yet they can be split and better split by invisible neutrons. It's merely a magic show where the magician pulls out an invisible rabbit from his hat and looks to be holding it up, yet the audience cannot see it. The only difference is, the audience would never go to another magic show because they had to rely on the belief the rabbit was invisible and they are not stupid enough to accept this, yet the very same people will accept invisible atoms somehow splitting and blowing up cities and creating worldwide destruction.
Atoms can be seen with Electron Microscopes and STMs.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD85gk2FGL8/TnOzMXotV_I/AAAAAAAAh_0/XtYp-FlP3k0/s1600/colloid_sphere_atoms.jpg)
Are they "Nuclear" atoms?
Of course. There is no other kind in that all atoms possess a nucleus. If you mean an atom of uranium or plutonium or something, no that is not. This is:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5121/5202601154_d07b013919_z.jpg)
-
You seem to be in danger of embarrasing yourself now....
Do you really believe that anything you havn't seen with your own eyes doesn't exist?
How about the billions of individual cells that make up any living organism, or are they made out of magic pixie dust too?
-
1. Google electron microscopes. 2. Google atoms. 3. Take a look at Rama Set. 4. Have a laugh.
-
you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.
Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.
-
1. Google electron microscopes. 2. Google atoms. 3. Take a look at Rama Set. 4. Have a laugh.
Now now Dr. Nor. Be respectful. I could have posted the scientific paper I also found on new methods of creating higher contrast in such images but I just wanted to show that such visual evidence is easily accessible. Evidence of a global conspiracy is still being looked for. I would like to see some.
-
you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.
Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.
I don't do the inventing, I question the invented, as in Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons.
My stories are no less legitimate than the stories told to yourself. You know. The one's you cling to like a limpet.
They aren't the same. Scientific theories are subjected to falsifiable experimentation. The results are published in peer-reviewed journals, studied by whomever has the time (you can do it too). Subjected to criticism, revised as necessary and sent back to experimentation if necessary.
Your stories are mulled over by you, criticized by only you and not subjected to any sort or review. Please tell me if that is not true. I will trust science over you every time.
-
wow. that link was a nice little read wasn't it. :-X i can see adsactly why you didn't want to post that. so my original point stands. where are the hydrogen stacks. this man just randomly calls them that he is a conspiracy nut a few steps behind you in his path to embarrassment. show me a hydrogen stack at another power station. show me one at Fukushima for that matter because a conspiracy nut calling a tower that does not make it one.
also you still haven't answered my question where does the vast quantities of hydrogen come from to power your hydrogen power stations?
-
and how do you extract hydrogen from the sea?
-
but yous say nuclear power is all a hoax ???
kind of biting your own tail off hear.
so let me get this straight.
nuclear reactors create electricity.
then nuclear reactors use said electricity to split hydrogen and oxygen from water
than they burn now extracted hydrogen for electricity?
hmmmmm..... ??? somethings not adding up hear
-
no im trying to get a straight answer out of you.
step up to the plate them and explain to us all how it works then? you are obviously all clued up about the secret underworld we are all to brainwashed to see. so come on then hear is your chance.
-
thats a no then? ??? am i corect?
what a suprise.
-
you - thats who is or rather should be embarrassed.
Lack of ability to comprehend a subject shouldnt be taken as a green light to invent al sorts of unworkable hypothesis to cover up your ignorance, it really shouldnt.
I don't do the inventing, I question the invented, as in Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons.
My stories are no less legitimate than the stories told to yourself. You know. The one's you cling to like a limpet.
They aren't the same. Scientific theories are subjected to falsifiable experimentation. The results are published in peer-reviewed journals, studied by whomever has the time (you can do it too). Subjected to criticism, revised as necessary and sent back to experimentation if necessary.
Your stories are mulled over by you, criticized by only you and not subjected to any sort or review. Please tell me if that is not true. I will trust science over you every time.
There's science and there's Pinocchio science.
Not sure what you are getting at, but I am going to move on. You should try and address Pythagoras' concerns. They seem to be legitimate.
-
lol you dont have an answer do you. in absence of an answer what else im a suposed to do but try and figure out what on earth you are on about myself and the only thing i can come up with is
nuclear reactors create electricity.
then nuclear reactors use said electricity to split hydrogen and oxygen from water
than they burn now extracted hydrogen for electricity?
which is absolutly rediculous becasue at every stage you lose electricity which means its more eficiant to just use the nuclear energy in the 1st place.
below is a source which isnt a conspiracy website explaining how energy transformation isnt 100 % eficiant.
-
no im not im standing hear with the in front of the whole forum asking you for a straight answer to my question. you said hydrogen powers these stations but wont tell us how or where they get the hydrogen from. feel free to enlighten us all. but so far you are trying your hardest to avoid answering.
why is that....... ???
-
wow you must relay be struggling to keep this up musnt you. lol this is quite amusing.
i will explain again. how do they extract the hydrogen from the sea?
-
:-B
-
We use far more electricty now than even a few years ago....Where do you get these mythical ideas from?
A small amount of proof....
A typical house in the Uk used to have one ring main, they dont now ;)
-
wow you make this so easy. thank you sceptic. so where shal we start?......
problem one
in the source you provided it describes how the ENERGY PRODUCED by nuclear power stations is used in electrolysis to create the hydrogen. didn't you say nuclear power plants dont create electricity? ???
problem 2
the hydrogen produced isnt a form or energy because it uses more energy to create than it will ultimately produce. its what they call in the industry a energy transporter.
its energy density is higher than modern day batteries which means its a more efficient form of energy to propel our cars. if we can produce the hydrogen cheaply in the 1st place.
and sceptic. enrgy consumption has gone up by many magnitudes in just the last few decades unless you have a source that says other wise. but i wont hold my breath :-X
-
Ive just given you an example of how we use more electricity, and it alters the requirements for wiring a house
Did you not read that line??
-
I5 years or so since it was advised to have two ring mains one for upstairs, one for down....
Its hardly the stuff of Conspiracy to realise that the average home uses far more juice than it did in even the recent past
-
so where does the electricity used for the electrolysis come from? im can only go from your source which clearly says they are using nuclear power stations to create electricity for electrolysis. so in you world what produces the electricity? and why not just use the electricity from that. why produce hydrogen because i have just shown you how you lose energy in the conversion. you realy need to think your next answer through a but because you sounding all kinds of crazy right now
-
:o
I'll take a wild guess (and a fervant hope) you are not an electrician ?
Its not the "house" that uses the electricity its the multiple gadgets within it, just think how many electrical items a typical house has that it didnt have even ten years ago...
-
simple question sceptic you should be good at theses. what produces the electricity for the electrolysis?
-
exept that as I said, we now need two ring mains :D
-
exept that as I said, we now need two ring mains :D
So what.
-
simple question sceptic you should be good at theses. what produces the electricity for the electrolysis?
Candles?
lol you have no real answer what a surprise. but in the absence of a answer from you we will continue.
why do they produce hydrogen with the electricity you dont know how they produce?
-
because the power requirement is a lot higher.... Because we use a lot more electricity.........
-
awww dont be upset sceptic this was going to happen eventually. you being wrong is like death and taxes. a certainty in life.
so we can take from you cop out answers that you are indeed wrong. thank you pleasure doing business with you.
if you want to try and prove you are right then answer my questioner properly.
untill then all we can take from this is that your are wrong.
-
What do you mean Wrong"??
Its obvious we do use more electric, you only need to add up the Kw rating of things in your own bedsit to work that one out
-
:o
I'll take a wild guess (and a fervant hope) you are not an electrician ?
Its not the "house" that uses the electricity its the multiple gadgets within it, just think how many electrical items a typical house has that it didnt have even ten years ago...
yes we use more gadgets , but they are way more efficient nowadays...i can now light my whole house using the same wattage as it used to take to light 1 bulb
-
and now go and check out your Frost Free Refrigerator ;)
Lighting isnt really the issue is it - Though if you can light a whole house on 100W its either a very small house or rather dark in the corners
-
and now go and check out your Frost Free Refrigerator ;)
Lighting isnt really the issue is it - Though if you can light a whole house on 100W its either a very small house or rather dark in the corners
Frost free Refrigerators have been around for years ..and are way more efficient now than 10 years ago
LED's ;)
-
graph of energy consumption over time
(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1936/energyconsumptionbyyear.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/energyconsumptionbyyear.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
can we put this to rest now. fact we use ever more electricty than before and will contiue to do so for the forseable future.
source
http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption (http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption)
-
A typical house in the Uk used to have one ring main, they dont now ;)
i use different codes where i live.
what's your amperage for a standard residence?
what's a "ring?"
-
You are using world wide energy consumption Thaggy. This includes industry and all of the rest.
I'm talking about normal household usage.
So you're saying that industry and the rest don't count? And don't forget that as the population increases, there are more and more "normal households" that need energy.
-
You are using world wide energy consumption Thaggy. This includes industry and all of the rest.
I'm talking about normal household usage.
So you're saying that industry and the rest don't count? And don't forget that as the population increases, there are more and more "normal households" that need energy.
My stance was on households using less energy.
I agree, it can appear that we use more but technology has made appliances 50/60/70/80 % more efficient in the home, so even with more gadgets, we don't use them all at once and also, a large proportion of people are scoffing their meals at Macdonalds etc these days and many don't even know their way round a proper kitchen.
That's all I was getting at.
I was saying that we have built many more power stations and can easily keep up demand, which isn't a problem.
The problem is when demand falls...power stations needs to dump electricity. (waste it) because they cannot overload the system and cannot just turn it down like a simmering pan on the stove.
Where do you get this info? Do you just make it up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage)
-
no its not, they can alter the amount to suit demand.....thats what the Hydro Power station in North Wales is used for..... peak tea time demand
Its interesting that when you talk about something I really do know a lot about, how stupid your reasoning really appears :D
-
No I don't just make it up.
Excess electricity from power plants is hard to control. There is only so much that can be stored, so it has to be dumped.
During the day, it's not a problem but during the night when people are relaxing or asleep, the energy is still produced at full pelt,
I don't suppose you'd mind sharing your source for this info would you?
-
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif)
-
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif)
I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.
-
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif)
I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.
I bet it was funny. :(
-
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif)
I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.
That was my reply, what he quoted. Funny eh? ;)
Yeah
-
Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.
Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.
NEXT QUESTION
-
Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.
Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.
NEXT QUESTION
You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?
Those plus the animals that have been mutated:
Chernobyl Mutations (http://#ws)
-
i want a 2 headed turtle! hero in a half shell!
-
i want a 2 headed turtle! hero in a half shell!
There is hope, you may eventually evolve up to one of those.
-
Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.
Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.
NEXT QUESTION
You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?
There are animals there, but to say they were thriving is not entirely accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health)
-
in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.
i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.
look skeptic this is a source.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html (http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html)
-
Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.
Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.
NEXT QUESTION
You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?
There are animals there, but to say they were thriving is not entirely accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health)
The documentary on TV showed it as thriving. Of course,me being a sceptic, I also know that what we see and are told, could be anything but, either way to be fair.
What does "showed it as thriving" entail? Perhaps that is your interpretation of the health of the animals as shown in footage, or did they actually say that? Was it a documentary on PBS or FOX? There are links in that wikipedia article that speak to the long-term effects on the health of animals living in and around Chernobyl.
-
well being as i am not a brainwashed sheep such as your self i believe my own research and my own research shows far more studies show adverse effects on wildlife. some even go as far as to say that Russian and Ukrainian investigators are playing down the health effects to try and make the disaster seem not as bad as it really is.
-
in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.
i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.
look skeptic this is a source.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html (http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html)
It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.
Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend :)), what Hydrogen explosions?
-
in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.
i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.
look skeptic this is a source.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html (http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html)
It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.
Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend :)), what Hydrogen explosions?
its hilarious. its well worth a flick back a few pages. but ill sum it up sceptic says nuclear power stations use hydrogen for power. then he says nuclear power is used in electrolysis to create hydrogen which is then burnt for power. then he realizes he said nuclear power doesnt exist so changes his mind and says he didnt say they produce hydrogen in the 1st place and its just 1 of his theory's. but he still thinks hydrogen is used some where he just doesn't know where. he seams to have a fixation with hydrogen because of the hydrogen explosions at fukushima.
-
in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.
i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.
look skeptic this is a source.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html (http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html)
It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.
Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend :)), what Hydrogen explosions?
its hilarious. its well worth a flick back a few pages. but ill sum it up sceptic says nuclear power stations use hydrogen for power. then he says nuclear power is used in electrolysis to create hydrogen which is then burnt for power. then he realizes he said nuclear power doesnt exist so changes his mind and says he didnt say they produce hydrogen in the 1st place and its just 1 of his theory's. but he still thinks hydrogen is used some where he just doesn't know where. he seams to have a fixation with hydrogen because of the hydrogen explosions at fukushima.
K, I'll have a look back later on. I thought he might have got on to hydrogen bombs.
-
uneducated opinion with no source or evidence. well done sceptic.
-
im just pointing out that your opinionated statement isnt backed up by any scientific evidence or knowledge on your behalf. sorry if this upsets you.
-
Let me ask you this: what is it about nuclear power that you find so incredibly difficult to believe in?
-
Those plus the animals that have been mutated:
Chernobyl Mutations (http://#ws)
markjo, this video is a hoax.
the very first two headed turtle seems to be a baby african spurred tortoise, found in subsaharan africa.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/1716820911_2f4eba0aee.jpg)
other pictures show indian zebus, baby alligators, a picture of an apparently ordinary parrot, and so on.
reptiles and amphibians do this all the time, even without radiation. i've seen adult two headed snakes and turtles before in the US
-
Don't forget the mutated frogs, cattle, chickens, pig and duck. Also, parrots aren't supposed to be orange like that.
-
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_48/1143354130GO188j.jpg)
-
Compare that parrot with the one in the video and tell me that the one in the video looks normal.
-
i refuse to take the bait
i don't need help looking like an idiot. i do that fine already
-
Let me ask you this: what is it about nuclear power that you find so incredibly difficult to believe in?
6/10 year continuous heating of a metal that uses nothing but a side by side fissioning.
You see, it's not the metal itself that supposedly fissions. What you have to do is put rods or pellets side bay side and control rods between them.
Yet when this piece of crap metal over heats, it melts down into a molten mass at the bottom of the reactor.
Does this stop it's fissioning, now that it's melted together like a pan full of liquid lead?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
It just continues to melt down for some reason and going super mantal all the way into the ground.
Somehow, it forgot that it was fissioning between rods and decides to go stupid when molten.
I wish I had the opportunity to go and clean it up when this happens, because I'd make sinkers out of it. ;D
I will take you seriously when you can first explain to me what a nuclear reaction is and then tell me specifically what part of accepted nuclear physics you think makes fission reactors impossible. "It's sooo crazy it can't be true" isn't a real argument against anything, and it makes you sound almost purposefully ignorant. I am sincerely sure you're capable of better.
Somehow, it forgot that it was fissioning between rods and decides to go stupid when molten.
I can answer your question (was it a question?) about control rods. Nuclear fission happens when a neutron knocks more neutrons off of an atom, causing those neutrons to scatter and hit more atoms, causing a chain reaction. All that control rods do is provide a material that absorbs those neutrons to prevent the reaction from continuing. It's not magic, it's science. This is kind of a good example of why Zeteticism in general is so idiotic — it asks us to rely on our senses alone for explanations about the natural world, but our senses can detect just the tiniest fraction of phenomena going on around us. That's why we have tools like math, and logic, and telescopes, and spectrometers, and particle accelerators: to see what our eyes can't. The people who use these tools are called scientists. You should get to know one.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
-
Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all? For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?
-
Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all? For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?
I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.
If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?
-
Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all? For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?
I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.
If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?
In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.
I think you should change your name to "The Contrarian".
What about Radium?
-
Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all? For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?
I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.
If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?
In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.
Do you believe that any elements are naturally radioactive?
-
Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all? For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?
I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.
If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?
In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.
Do you believe that any elements are naturally radioactive?
It all depends on what you actually mean by saying "radioactive"..just simply explain what you mean by this.
I mean radioactive in that it releases radiation.
-
Some atomic nuclei are instable. They decay emitting radiation consisting of electrons ("beta rays"), protons/neutrons ("alpha rays") and electromagnetic waves ("gamma rays"). That all is easy to verify and easy to understand. What is so incredible in that? A friend of mine while studying physics was involved in experiments involving beta rays. Is he one of "them"?
-
Wow he just doesn't get it.
-
Wow he just doesn't get it.
Oh but I do, I'm just waiting for confirmation of just exactly what you lot mean before I jump in.
Nuclear fission and fusion does not produce a unique variety of ionizing radiation. Uranium and Plutonium do not produce unique kinds of ionizing radiation. The radiation used in cancer treatments is the same as the radiation in an H-Bomb, is the same as produced by the sun.
-
What the hell is a "NUCLEAR ATOM", man?!?
-
DO YOU KNOW WHAT NUCLEAR MEANS???????
-
I think sceptic thinks nuclear just means something to do with bombs and power ???
-
Humans allways need to have an opinion, regardless if they know anything about the stuff or not. Your opinions are more precious to you than seeking for the facts.
By the way, aren't you the guy from this series, which mixed photon torpedos with pregalileian physics?
-
Scepi do you know what a NUCLEUS is? Do you know where the term NUCLEAR comes from? facepalm.gif
-
scepti only believes in the admittedly flawed FAQ.
everything else is fake.
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, give me an example of the simplest form of "radioactive" in your mind and tell me what it does.
Well, let's take tritium for example. Tritium is an unstable isotope of hydrogen. This means that from time to time a tritium atom will undergo what scientists call beta decay (a type of radiation) and it turns into a form of helium. During this decay process, an electron is released which can be used to excite phosphor causing it to glow. This is how tritium glow lights work.
Now, do you accept that this is what's going on in the tritium glow light, or do you think that the scientists and tritium glow light manufacturers are lying and something else is going on?
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, give me an example of the simplest form of "radioactive" in your mind and tell me what it does.
Well, let's take tritium for example. Tritium is an unstable isotope of hydrogen. This means that from time to time a tritium atom will undergo what scientists call beta decay (a type of radiation) and it turns into a form of helium. During this decay process, an electron is released which can be used to excite phosphor causing it to glow. This is how tritium glow lights work.
Now, do you accept that this is what's going on in the tritium glow light, or do you think that the scientists and tritium glow light manufacturers are lying and something else is going on?
I don't accept tritium either.
Then what causes tritium glow lights to glow?
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, give me an example of the simplest form of "radioactive" in your mind and tell me what it does.
Well, let's take tritium for example. Tritium is an unstable isotope of hydrogen. This means that from time to time a tritium atom will undergo what scientists call beta decay (a type of radiation) and it turns into a form of helium. During this decay process, an electron is released which can be used to excite phosphor causing it to glow. This is how tritium glow lights work.
Now, do you accept that this is what's going on in the tritium glow light, or do you think that the scientists and tritium glow light manufacturers are lying and something else is going on?
I don't accept tritium either.
what a surprise
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, give me an example of the simplest form of "radioactive" in your mind and tell me what it does.
Well, let's take tritium for example. Tritium is an unstable isotope of hydrogen. This means that from time to time a tritium atom will undergo what scientists call beta decay (a type of radiation) and it turns into a form of helium. During this decay process, an electron is released which can be used to excite phosphor causing it to glow. This is how tritium glow lights work.
Now, do you accept that this is what's going on in the tritium glow light, or do you think that the scientists and tritium glow light manufacturers are lying and something else is going on?
I don't accept tritium either.
Then what causes tritium glow lights to glow?
I don't know what causes tritium lights to glow because tritium supposedly only comes from nuclear power.
Just simply chemical reactions of substances. Not big fissioning nuclear reactions, which is what I was on about in the first place.
Then what about radium? It was one of the first radioactive elements discovered back in 1898, long before any nuclear power. Radium was also widely used in self-luminous paint applications.
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, give me an example of the simplest form of "radioactive" in your mind and tell me what it does.
Well, let's take tritium for example. Tritium is an unstable isotope of hydrogen. This means that from time to time a tritium atom will undergo what scientists call beta decay (a type of radiation) and it turns into a form of helium. During this decay process, an electron is released which can be used to excite phosphor causing it to glow. This is how tritium glow lights work.
Now, do you accept that this is what's going on in the tritium glow light, or do you think that the scientists and tritium glow light manufacturers are lying and something else is going on?
I don't accept tritium either.
Then what causes tritium glow lights to glow?
I don't know what causes tritium lights to glow because tritium supposedly only comes from nuclear power.
Just simply chemical reactions of substances. Not big fissioning nuclear reactions, which is what I was on about in the first place.
Then what about radium? It was one of the first radioactive elements discovered back in 1898, long before any nuclear power. Radium was also widely used in self-luminous paint applications.
Let's just clarify something.
There will be plenty of stuff in the medical field and in life that use chemical reactions and luminous effects due to reactions and that's fair enough.
My struggle is with the energy gained from metal pellets that simply sit there slinging neutrons backwards and forwards at atoms and creating more and more and more and super heating water for a decade in the process and yet it's still only supposedly using 10% of it's energy.
So asking me about other reactions that do not do what this does, is pointless.
Radium produces the same radiation as uranium in a nuclear reactor it is just not fissile. Its not a chemical reaction, its a nuclear reaction. All alpha, beta and gamma radiation is nuclear and it exists widely outside of nuclear reactors. A nuclear reactor is a specific technological application of nuclear radioactivity.
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
I know and you seem to think that it is a special case that has different rules than all the other radioactive examples in the world. Nuclear Reactors are not special examples of radioactivity that can be separated from other form of radioactivity, with different laws governing it. Fission is just a specific way to apply radioactivity. Just like superconducting is a specific way to apply conductivity. There is no mystery here, it is well understood and well documented.
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
I know and you seem to think that it is a special case that has different rules than all the other radioactive examples in the world. Nuclear Reactors are not special examples of radioactivity that can be separated from other form of radioactivity, with different laws governing it. Fission is just a specific way to apply radioactivity. Just like superconducting is a specific way to apply conductivity. There is no mystery here, it is well understood and well documented.
Of course there's no mystery, if you accept it all as gospel.
That is an Ad Hominem fallacy.
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
Fission is merely a heavy atom splitting into 2 or more lighter atoms and, in the process, releasing energy. This can occur naturally or it can be helped along. Nuclear reactors are merely a man made way of helping the process along in a (hopefully) controlled manner while harnessing the energy released.
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
Do you accept Einstein's mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2) as given by relativity?
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
Fission is merely a heavy atom splitting into 2 or more lighter atoms and, in the process, releasing energy. This can occur naturally or it can be helped along. Nuclear reactors are merely a man made way of helping the process along in a (hopefully) controlled manner while harnessing the energy released.
Markojo:
I understand what you are trying to say and I know what we are told but have a think about it.
Neutrons smashing into atoms and splitting them and they go on to split again and again releasing all this so called energy under their own steam.
They supposedly smash into each other and split, yet somehow this creates massive heat for some reason.
Now if it was molecules under agitated friction by the sun or some means of energy put into it, I'd accept it , but it isn't, it's a magical fissioning process that merely bounces around smacking into other atoms and splitting them.
The concept of it sounds magical and to most it's an evil wonder of science genius, yet to me it's an evil story made up to serve a number of purposes, good and bad.
It's simple conceptually. The mathematics are complicated.
-
Neutrons smashing into atoms and splitting them and they go on to split again and again releasing all this so called energy under their own steam.
Actually, the chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms generally only occurs when the concentration of radioactive material is fairly high. And even then, only certain isotopes of certain elements can be split by a neutron. In radioactive ores found in nature, the concentration of unstable atoms is generally low enough where they just go through their natural decay process.
They supposedly smash into each other and split, yet somehow this creates massive heat for some reason.
When an atomic nucleus splits, a certain amount of energy is released in the form of heat. With a controlled chain reaction, quite a bit of heat energy can be released. In an uncontrolled chain reaction, you can get a rather powerful bomb.
The concept of it sounds magical and to most it's an evil wonder of science genius, yet to me it's an evil story made up to serve a number of purposes, good and bad.
Again, it only sounds magical because you can't (or don't want to) understand. Besides, if nuclear bombs are so fake, then why do countries like Iran and North Korea want them so badly?
-
I am talking about "fissioning" nuclear power as we are told happens inside nuclear reactors.
Do you accept Einstein's mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2) as given by relativity?
Absolutely not. It's hogwash to me and simply a made up equation to cater for the crap we have to swallow in life.
Alright, whatever. But what exactly do you think holds the nucleus of an atom together? Peanut butter?
I'll give you a hint. It's not peanut butter. It's the strong nuclear force.
-
you can see atoms under a microscopic. who told you you couldn't?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jul/16/electron-microscope-sees-single-hydrogen-atoms (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jul/16/electron-microscope-sees-single-hydrogen-atoms)
and you can see the results of neutrinos with neutrino detectors
http://lbne.fnal.gov/neutrino-detectors.shtml (http://lbne.fnal.gov/neutrino-detectors.shtml)
-
oh so i have to of actually seen them myself to know they are real. iv never seen you before but unfortunately i do believe you are real.
-
you constantly come back to this " have you seen it with your own eyes" statment. have you ever seen a episode of Eastenders being filmed with you own eyes? no? then how do you know its not in fact a fly on the wall documentary of a real place in east London?
have you ever seen a factory making chocolate milk with your own eyes? no? then how do you know cows cant produce chocolate milk?
we could go on. you just accept these things because you have been told by people in their respected fields that this is the case. but you have no problems with these 2 statements do you? so why do you with anything regarding science and scientific experiments? because they are to complex for you to understand? thats not an insult. many people don't understand many hard to grasp scientific facts. but for you to then say these people are wrong and even that they are directly lying to us all is just blind ignorance on your behalf
-
no i don't know who it was and what do you mean by discover? 1st theorize about their existence or 1st to directly observe their existence or a consequence of their existance
-
well i will wait for your findings.
-
i said in my last post i don't know. let me know when you find out.
-
You make this look like a chat. Idreyn asked to scepti what is holding atoms together. and now scepti is questioning weather or not atoms exist. why didnt you say that from the beggining? You can also use google or wikipedia to find that kind of information.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
People could make all sorts of indentifixations about even sub atomic particles well before the nuclear reactor. Their mass, spin, charge light spectra and on and on. You want to put a premium on visual identification for some reason. Way to exclude blind people.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
That's a tricky question to be honest.
I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.
So, no?
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
That's a tricky question to be honest.
I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.
So, no?
They don't create energy from nothing.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
That's a tricky question to be honest.
I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.
So, no?
They don't create energy from nothing.
Once you roll the ball down the endless steep hill, it rolls and rolls with the slightest of input.
Not sure what you mean here.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
That's a tricky question to be honest.
I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.
So, no?
They don't create energy from nothing.
Once you roll the ball down the endless steep hill, it rolls and rolls with the slightest of input.
Not sure what you mean here.
Let's take the nuclear reactor scenario.
You put in your rods...move the control rods slightly and somehow the atoms start attacking each other and creating heat for years and years continuously.
It's all based on fantasy.
Eventually the fuel runs out though. Why do you think the fuel should be spent quickly? There are probably trillions and trillions of atoms in the uranium fuel and nuclear fission is, by many times, the most efficient way to extract energy from fuel.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
Not quite, that's a fairly simplistic view of how it went.
1. First eastern concept of atomism dates back to Indian Jainism in ~6th century BC.
2. First western concept of atomism is 5th Century BC, by Leucippus (Democritus' teacher).
3. Democritus systematises Leucippus' views, and coined the phrase atom. (Well the greek word atomos IIRC)
4. Robert Boyle expands on corpuscularianism in the mid 17th century.
5. Newton then uses corpuscularianism in his theory on light in the 1670's.
6. The chemist Lavoisier defines elements as substances that can't be broken down further in mid/end 18th century.
7. John Dalton uses atomism in the early 19th century, to describe how elements always react in whole number ratios. Leading him to postulate a hypothesis that ultimately leads to atomic theory.
8. At around the same time Robert Brown is looking into Brownian motion.
9. Brownian motion is analysed by Einstein in early 20th century.
10. Einstein's work is then used by Jean Perrin to experimentally verify Daltons hypothesis.
11. Mendeleev publishes his first version of the periodic table of elements.
I think I could describe another 20-30 (still wouldn't be everyone) notable individuals who contributed to atomic theory. But I'll need to get to the rest of my science history/text books which involves getting a step-ladder. My wife's asleep and I'm not sure she'll appreciate the noise of bringing it in through the bedroom door to the garden.
Ta Ta
-
You might as well add Donald Duck into it and Mickey and Minnie, because it's all an absolute joke.
I look forward to your alternative theory for the composition of matter!
Toodles
-
You might as well add Donald Duck into it and Mickey and Minnie, because it's all an absolute joke.
Yours was a joke. dephelis is being more accurate.
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
So here's how it all works.
You get someone sat on a rock (probably) looking about on the beach and maybe sees a grain of sand and thinks, "hmmm, there's something smaller than this and smaller and smaller...maybe something like an atom.... right , I haven't a clue what to do about this but I'll write it down on my note pad and leave it in my safe so it gets passed down, because I'm sure this thought will come in handy one day when I'm just floating dust myself."
Years and years down the line, someone comes along and thinks, " I think i'll make a structure up of atoms that I have never seen...here we go, all done."
Years later, someone knocks up a nuclear reactor by smashing atoms and splitting them, blindly, creating a reaction of Nuclear proportions.
Years later, messing about with a microscope that he builds himself..Erwin, sees an atom, that he really didn't need to see , because people already knew how to split them and do all sorts with them with their eyes closed.
Right ladies and gentlemen, I want you all to close your eyes and split some atoms. First one to do so and create a chain reaction, gets a home made, direct from the cow, chocolate milk shake. ;D
Yes or no, do you doubt the existence of atoms?
That's a tricky question to be honest.
I doubt the existence of something that they call atoms that miraculously create energy with no input.
So, no?
They don't create energy from nothing.
Once you roll the ball down the endless steep hill, it rolls and rolls with the slightest of input.
Not sure what you mean here.
Let's take the nuclear reactor scenario.
You put in your rods...move the control rods slightly and somehow the atoms start attacking each other and creating heat for years and years continuously.
It's all based on fantasy.
Eventually the fuel runs out though. Why do you think the fuel should be spent quickly? There are probably trillions and trillions of atoms in the uranium fuel and nuclear fission is, by many times, the most efficient way to extract energy from fuel.
Why should atoms simply smack into each other and create heat or better still explode into a mammoth cloud. They either fission slowly or they blow the hell out of cities...which is it.
I don;t want to know about this added bit of plutonium that magically makes it act like a raging nutter and somehow makes it super fission with atoms all diving out splitting the hell out of each other in a nano second and entire cities are obliterated.
Can't people see how silly it all is.
When uranium is fissioned it is split in to atoms of two lighter elements. The weight of these two new atoms does not equal the original mass of the uranium atom split. What happened? Some of the matter was converted to energy. How much energy? Well you take the missing amount of mass(m) multiply it by the speed of light, swuared(c^2) and you get the amount of energy released. E=mc^2! It works every time!
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
So tell me. What part of Einstein's paper tipped you off that his science is bogus?
-
Apparently, this is how it went.
1.....400 B.C. Democritus’ atomic theory posited that all matter is made up small indestructible units he called atoms.
2...1903 Hantaro Nagaoka proposed an atomic model called the Saturnian Model to describe the structure of an atom.
3....In 1955 Professor of Physics, Erwin Mueller, became the 1st person to see an atom, using a field ion microscope of his own design.
.....................................................................................
1938 Lise Meitner, Hahn, Strassman discovered nuclear fission.
1942 Enrico Fermi created the first man-made nuclear reactor.
......................................................................................
Not quite, that's a fairly simplistic view of how it went.
1. First eastern concept of atomism dates back to Indian Jainism in ~6th century BC.
2. First western concept of atomism is 5th Century BC, by Leucippus (Democritus' teacher).
3. Democritus systematises Leucippus' views, and coined the phrase atom. (Well the greek word atomos IIRC)
4. Robert Boyle expands on corpuscularianism in the mid 17th century.
5. Newton then uses corpuscularianism in his theory on light in the 1670's.
6. The chemist Lavoisier defines elements as substances that can't be broken down further in mid/end 18th century.
7. John Dalton uses atomism in the early 19th century, to describe how elements always react in whole number ratios. Leading him to postulate a hypothesis that ultimately leads to atomic theory.
8. At around the same time Robert Brown is looking into Brownian motion.
9. Brownian motion is analysed by Einstein in early 20th century.
10. Einstein's work is then used by Jean Perrin to experimentally verify Daltons hypothesis.
11. Mendeleev publishes his first version of the periodic table of elements.
I think I could describe another 20-30 (still wouldn't be everyone) notable individuals who contributed to atomic theory. But I'll need to get to the rest of my science history/text books which involves getting a step-ladder. My wife's asleep and I'm not sure she'll appreciate the noise of bringing it in through the bedroom door to the garden.
Ta Ta
Don't forget: The nucleus is the very dense region consisting of protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton) and neutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) at the center of an atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom). It was discovered in 1911, as a result of Ernest Rutherford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford)'s interpretation of the famous 1909 Rutherford experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_experiment) performed by Hans Geiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geiger) and Ernest Marsden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Marsden), under the direction of Rutherford. The proton–neutron model of nucleus was proposed by Dmitry Ivanenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Ivanenko) in 1932.[1]
Also: History of Nuclear Physics (http://www.physics.ucla.edu/%7Emoszkows/histnucl.htm)
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
Do I need to explain it to you again?
-
no i don't know who it was and what do you mean by discover? 1st theorize about their existence or 1st to directly observe their existence or a consequence of their existance
Let's go the three ways.
1. Who first theorised the atom and the neutron.
2. Who actually discovered that they do indeed exist.
3. Who was the first person to see the atom by microscope and also the neutron.
1. Leukippos, followed by his disciple Demokrit (first atomic theory)
2. I would say Rutherford. His experiments with gold foils for the first time clearly demonstrated the atomic structure of matter. If you are really interested you should google that.
3. Don't know. Too lazy to find out.
-
Scepi is trying to discredit Albert Einstein............ ok.
-
http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html (http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html)
Somebody is going to a lot of trouble to digitise things that wern't written arn't they?
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
So tell me. What part of Einstein's paper tipped you off that his science is bogus?
None of it.
I don't believe Einstein actually put anything down on paper. It was all done for him, in my opinion of course.
Even if your claim, which has no basis in reality and is only backed up by your inadequate intuition, were true, which it clearly is not, it still does not make the science contained in the papers invalid. You should stop trying to bring great man down to your level. It is pathetic.
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
Do I need to explain it to you again?
You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.
You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.
-
http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html (http://www.alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html)
Somebody is going to a lot of trouble to digitise things that wern't written arn't they?
I'm not saying they weren't written. I'm saying it's very possible they weren't written by Einstein. I think he was just a puppet used to fabricate a myth.
Do you have anything other than an opinion to back this up? Anything at all? A cryptic passage from his biography? Something? Otherwise it would appear that your supposedly open mind is tightly shut.
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
Do I need to explain it to you again?
You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.
You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
Do I need to explain it to you again?
You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.
You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
Have you taken any course in anything you so vigorously refuse to understand or "believe"?
-
Rama:
In Pinocchio science, of course it works every time.
E=MC2 is an equation that was simply made up that has no actual meaning except to facilitate pinocchio science.
Do I need to explain it to you again?
You don't need to explain bogus science to me, I have no time for bogus science.
You seem to think that when someone goes to study physics at university that there's a class where all is revealed and physics students are told to not reveal their use of magic on pain of death.
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
Have you taken any course in anything you so vigorously refuse to understand or "believe"?
Yep.
I'm curious to know what.
-
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.
-
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.
Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. ;)
You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know your claims are not based on anything.
-
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.
Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. ;)
You don't get it?
It is funny because the first thing you did to show your disbelief of atoms was asking Pythagoras if he had ever seen one, and then you seem to base your entire argument in that it is completely ok not to believe in atoms because we can't see them.
And now you explain us exactly how universities teach nuclear physics. Have you taken a nuclear physics course? "No" lol
Can you at least be congruent with yourself?
-
I have absolutely no qualms with students studying a said topic, as they are studying what's been put in front of them and if their studies are backed up by experimentation, then at least that shows what they are studying is of sound value.
Nuclear physics students will be taught certain aspects of nuclear physics but the main stuff, as in Uranium fissioning and plutonium decay will be absorbed into their minds and they can do an exam on it and pass, then go and boast to their friends how clever they are, without actually doing any experiment on that particular stuff.
It's not the fault of the students, it's only what they are required to know and the rest is on a need to know basis as time goes on.
Have you taken a nuclear physics course?
No.
What a surprise, scepti is doing senseless claims again.
Oh, forgive me, I didn't know I was dealing with a collective set of Nuclear physicists. ;)
You don't get it?
It is funny because the first thing you did to show your disbelief of atoms was asking Pythagoras if he had ever seen one, and then you seem to base your entire argument in that it is completely ok not to believe in atoms because we can't see them.
And now you explain us exactly how universities teach nuclear physics. Have you taken a nuclear physics course? "No" lol
Can you at least be congruent with yourself?
My point is, that nobody has seen one , yet somehow , nuclear fission was created and then the atomic bomb based on the invisible atom and nucleus.
If you can't see how nonsensical that is, then that's fair enough.
I know what your point is. My point is: Have you ever been in a nuclear physics class? no, then your comment about it is senseless.
Luckily sight is not the only way to learn about things, you can't trust your vision as the only source of knowledge or experimentation. Instead of whining about how we can't see atoms, you could be asking (yourself, do a research, i won't answer if you ask me) how we know they exist, you know, pretend for a moment that the answer is not that someone made them up, try being open minded. I really don't trust in your intelligence to understand that, but the "you can't see it, its fantasy" argument is not valid, and its boring already.
-
Who is actually feeding us this dis-information, why and who pays what must be truly staggering costs of keeping "us" in the dark, for what appears to be no valid purpose what so ever?
-
No, Im not kidding you- Why does it affect theeverage person whether space travel works, the earth is a giant pyramid orwhatever?
The costs of intructing hundreds of thousands of people in false practices, nearly 70 years of imaginary nuclear power, paying for a space race that never happened.........
-
...My claim has no real basis in reality...
And we're done here.
-
Right
That almost makes sense ( In an"I can read it sort of way") so where does this money go to? Whose is the pocket it is lining?
Thats ignoring the fact that most Governments can raise as much taxation as they see fit regardless of what it is for?
Do you have any idea how much money the UK government spends per annum, and on what?
Or is the National Audit Office part of the conspiracy too?
-
I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...
Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims and im not interested in that.
-
The Defence budget of the UK (which I guess these things are part of) is about 9% oftotal government spending - Theyarnt doing very well at ripping us in the UK off are they?
-
There is no political content in what I posted, I simply gave you some facts (you know thoses things you dont believe much) about how much the government of the UK spends...........
ITs all available on line should you wishto break it down for yourself - Or are accountants part of the Conspiracy...Actually mine may well be :D
-
SO basically, you don't beleive anything at all unless it suits your agenda - Which appears to be to disbelieve everything...... Nicely Circular that one!
I hope the tinfoil hat is nice and comfy :D
-
I don't care if you find my answer boring. You are no nuclear physicist and you simply rely on the books you read or what you are told and that's it really, so you are no more qualified than me, yet I have the fact that the atomic bomb test footage is as faked as hell and the scare of nuclear fall out is just as fake, in terms of long lasting deadly radiation.
The problem today is, we are told that much mis-information, we don't know what is actually entirely legitimate, so it relies on doing a bit of detective work to see the flaws in the stuff they feed us with, which is mainly media spin and footage to match.
He was not challenging you on knowledge of nuclear physics per se, but rather the ostrich like attitude you take towards these things. As I have said before in this thread, there are many ways to detect something other than sight. Humans have four others at their disposal without even resorting to technology. Seeing an atom would tell you less about its nature than the other methods scientists have used. Look in to those methods, you know, educate yourself.
The Defence budget of the UK (which I guess these things are part of) is about 9% oftotal government spending - Theyarnt doing very well at ripping us in the UK off are they?
I know where you are going with this, but 37.5 billion Pounds yearly is nothing to sneeze at. But yes, sceptimatic hears what he wants to often.
-
The only one fooling you is yourself scepti.
-
I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...
Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims. And im not interested in that.
I don;t see much from you, that's why I'm not interested.
Crank it up instead of trying to use nah nah's and I might take you a bit more serious Berty.
I don't think you understood my post very well, i corrected it on the quote. I don't have much else to tell you because as I said, your main argument has no validity.
But you are just jumping from topic to topic whenever it suits you. First you are debating about nuclear power, paraphrasing everything you ever read on conspiracy sites about how its fake, when you don't know what else to say, you change to atoms not existing because we don't see them, and as that shitty argument didn't last long, arguments don't matter because we are not nuclear scientists. Now its all about the government, the lies, the people etc.
And everyone else is just following your game, jumping behind you.
BTW and off topic, I dont get the berty thing, is that how they call robertos in usa or something?
-
I don't care if you find my answer boring. ...
Ok, this is your answer to my post, you will stick to the "if you dont see it, its fantasy" because you dont know any better. The rest is just you trying to change the subject again and more sensless claims. And im not interested in that.
I don;t see much from you, that's why I'm not interested.
Crank it up instead of trying to use nah nah's and I might take you a bit more serious Berty.
I don't think you understood my post very well, i corrected it on the quote. I don't have much else to tell you because as I said, your main argument has no validity.
But you are just jumping from topic to topic whenever it suits you. First you are debating about nuclear power, paraphrasing everything you ever read on conspiracy sites about how its fake, when you don't know what else to say, you change to atoms not existing because we don't see them, and as that shitty argument didn't last long, arguments don't matter because we are not nuclear scientists. Now its all about the government, the lies, the people etc.
And everyone else is just following your game, jumping behind you.
BTW and off topic, I dont get the berty thing, is that how they call robertos in usa or something?
I think he said he's from the UK, which confuses me with his profound use of the imperial and complete lack of knowledge about the metric system (he once didn't know what m/s meant, but I'm sure he was trolling).
-
we get confused here bill because we mix both systems all the time.
-
Alright, getting back to the whole thing about nuclear power...there is an incredible amount of energy in the form of the bonds between the particles in an atomic nucleus — it's what prevents the positively charged protons from repelling one another. Breaking those bonds causes bits of the atom to fly off: alpha particles, which are He2+ nuclei; beta particles, which are leptons (e.g. electrons); and gamma particles, which are high-energy photons. These smash into more atoms, causing a chain reaction. In a fission reactor, all of these high-energy particles bump into water molecules, giving them kinetic energy and creating steam, which spins a turbine. I think you're on board with that last part. So what part of this don't you agree with?
Also if you disagree with relativity I would like you to come up with an alternative explanation for gravitational lensing, which we can readily observe.
-
do you believe in electricity Scepti?
you can t see that can you?
-
my point is that electricity works with electrons, you know them things that dont exist? So if they are not there how does electric work?
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
-
You may recall they are too small to see with the human eye. You have had photos from electron microscopes shown to you. If that does not satisfy, try and book time on an electron microscope and see for yourself.
-
You may recall they are too small to see with the human eye. You have had photos from electron microscopes shown to you. If that does not satisfy, try and book time on an electron microscope and see for yourself.
Will I get to see Uranium atoms and Plutonium atoms?
Not sure mate. Find out for yourself ;) getting excited?
-
my point is that electricity works with electrons, you know them things that dont exist? So if they are not there how does electric work?
I don't recall saying electrons don't exist.
Do you think they exist?
-
my point is that electricity works with electrons, you know them things that dont exist? So if they are not there how does electric work?
I don't recall saying electrons don't exist.
Do you think they exist?
I believe a lot of things exist I just don't believe fissioning atoms exist that give out super heat and deadly radiation and can obliterate entire cities or worse.
Ok. that is kind of an abiguous answer.
Do you believe in atoms? yes or no (forget about fission)
Do you believe in electrons? yes or no
Of course you can also say you havent made up your mind.
-
my point is that electricity works with electrons, you know them things that dont exist? So if they are not there how does electric work?
I don't recall saying electrons don't exist.
Do you think they exist?
I believe a lot of things exist I just don't believe fissioning atoms exist that give out super heat and deadly radiation and can obliterate entire cities or worse.
Ok. that is kind of an abiguous answer.
Do you believe in atoms? yes or no (forget about fission)
Do you believe in electrons? yes or no
Of course you can also say you havent made up your mind.
I don't believe atoms exist as they say they do, where nuclear fissioning is concerned.
I don't believe you exist.
-
If you dont believe atoms existe becaue they are too small to be seen. then i assume you dont believe in electrons either?
-
Scepti doesnt want to mention his ideas and "theroies" about a topic he doesnt know? well. i guess there is a first time for everything.
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
-
my point is that electricity works with electrons, you know them things that dont exist? So if they are not there how does electric work?
I don't recall saying electrons don't exist.
Do you think they exist?
I believe a lot of things exist I just don't believe fissioning atoms exist that give out super heat and deadly radiation and can obliterate entire cities or worse.
Hi Sceptimatic! Since I am a dumb alien tourist, can you explain me:
What is an electron?
What does nuclear stand for?
What is fission?
I do not ask if they exist. Just tell me the meaning of the words! I'm sure you're the one who knows that!
-
Very good. You have defined these terms now.
But I'm quite sure that your opponents' definitions are, partially at least, not the same than yours. So you use the same words but do not give them the same meaning. Could that be the source of all the misunderstandings?
If you would inform yourself now about the COMMON meaning of these terms, which are the ones your opponents imply, you would know what they speak about when they talk with you, and the resulting discussions would be more fruitful for both sides.
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
What bluff is going to be called?
North Korea threatened to nuke the US (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9260BR20130307?irpc=932) this week. They will be embrassed when a) Their rockets don't fly and b) they nukes don't go off.
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
What bluff is going to be called?
North Korea threatened to nuke the US (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9260BR20130307?irpc=932) this week. They will be embrassed when a) Their rockets don't fly and b) they nukes don't go off.
Did North Korea tell you this or did you watch the "news?"
Yeah, I am not the person who North Korea phones their threats to so yes I watched the news. The absolutely unsubstantiated global conspiracy is spreading the propaganda now? Very good. Carry on.
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
What bluff is going to be called?
North Korea threatened to nuke the US (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9260BR20130307?irpc=932) this week. They will be embrassed when a) Their rockets don't fly and b) they nukes don't go off.
Did North Korea tell you this or did you watch the "news?"
Yeah, I am not the person who North Korea phones their threats to so yes I watched the news. The absolutely unsubstantiated global conspiracy is spreading the propaganda now? Very good. Carry on.
I was just merely verifying that you got this from your news channels that's all.
Forgive me if my BS detector does not trust that your intentions were that innocent.
-
Very good. You have defined these terms now.
But I'm quite sure that your opponents' definitions are, partially at least, not the same than yours. So you use the same words but do not give them the same meaning. Could that be the source of all the misunderstandings?
If you would inform yourself now about the COMMON meaning of these terms, which are the ones your opponents imply, you would know what they speak about when they talk with you, and the resulting discussions would be more fruitful for both sides.
As long as stuff is invisible and cannot be detected by anybody, then it can be used for anything they want, because nobody is ever going to be able to challenge it.
Yes, that's right. In principle that opens the doors for any kinds of fraud.
But on the other hand there simply ARE things which cannot be detected or examined by anybody without years of learning or access to expensive equipment. Are they all fraud? Not necessarily. So without proper knowledge how can we judge?
Most people would use common sense here. We all do not believe everything the government says or are like "he has an academic grade so what he says must be true." But faking things on such a big scale like nuclear energy or space programs is clearly beyond the power any government has. Also, the principles of these technologies are clear and understandable. I know how rockets or nuclear reactors work, I understand it, although I do'nt know the details or could do the math. But I understand enough to say that there is no contradiction in it. You don't. You prove that all the time. Why? Why do you think your opinions are worth anything, when they are based on nothing? You think people discuss with you? They do not. Markjo and Pythagoras did take pains to explain you the most elementary concepts of science, and sometimes they even succeeded. you know now, for example, what the Doppler effect is. But against what a resistence! If you do not understand quick you cry "bogus" and "conspiracy". You must be fed with knowledge like a little bird: straightly into the crop, for if they put it in your mouth for chewing you spit it in their face. I admit, you are funny! for me too, your posts are quite entertaining, but I feel uncomfortable having fun on your costs. So please quit exposing yourself, I tell you that out of a sense of duty.
-
That's nonsense. You are inferring intentions about a conspiracy that cannot be proven to exist. The conspiracy of scientists and the illuminati that you purport is more complex than what we bold to be true. It requires greater levels of infallibility, more deception, more organization, plans upon plans and all this without ever leaving a substantial piece if evidence. Nothing that can reliably be traced back to anyone. And this is more logical to you. This is what your "common sense" tells you is most likely. You pick "they are out to get us" over "maybe I need to learn a little more". I know I can never sway you from your perspective, but perhaps consider this: human endeavors are often filled with organizational disarray. At work, one miscommunication can lead to a project being derailed. At home a badly chosen word can create interpersonal strife. Government bureaucracy is famous for its inability to get something done like changing a lightbulb in community housing. The inability of humans to get together to make anything happen efficiently is legendary. It took 400,000 people to pull off the moon landing. Any conspiracy of global proportions would take an extremely high level of organization and efficiency in decision making. Considering humans usually suck at this, why do you think in this case they have pulled it off flawlessly?
-
One word: Compartmentalisation.
Government is compartmentalised too. We mess it up all the time.
-
I'll come back to what you say about not seeing things and the fact we can't verify them physically, which can be used for a scam.
You say, you accept them because you know how this works and that works, yet it's only because you are told how they work. Can't you understand that?
It's blatantly obvious a clever scam cannot be put into motion until at least all of the potential mishaps can be ironed out, plus a contingency plan against those who actually can point out discrepancies, which is where you get your scruffy looking scientists coming into the equation, who come out with answers to the discrepancies that make no sense but are accepted because there's a chalk board full of equations that nobody can decipher.
The end result is...believe it because you can't do any other, as it's all there on a board, paper, disc or whatever as an equation.
You can accept that all people are gullible and the budding scientist is no exception to this. Scientists can baffle the hell out of most people with what's floating about in their heads, yet can be reciting from memory, all that was taught as fact which, all of that fact may not be 100% fact at all and could be a mixture of pseudo/hypothesis/theory and fact.
The problem is, it's not a simple concept, because it involves all kinds of elements and make up, so the average Joe can't just make one, yet having said all of that, they tease us all by inventing "atom boy" who knocks one up using supermarket items.
They don't just baffle us with the science , the tease us with the stuff when it suits and it's all about piecing a jigsaw together as to why they do this.
For the disinterested, there is no jigsaw...it's simply all true and people are nuts to think there's a conspiracy, yet "atom boy" is a psyche job to show us all how easy it is for terrorists to make a dirty bomb.
It keeps the timid on their feet, scared and on edge and it makes you happily give up your rights and hard earned cash to make sure this never happens, whilst also keeping up the nuclear deterrent that makes us all feel comfortable in our beds, supposedly.
The one who told me most about physics is Richard Feynman through his remarkable lectures which I read. I know he was not an imposter (like Rowbotham) or a crank or a member of any conspiracy. Why I know? Because he was a bongo player! You can tell me what you want: a scientist who starts learning percussion in his 50s is a man I trust. That's my common sense. So don't call Feynman a liar. If modern physics would be rubbish, he would have told us.
Yep, the Feynman lectures, I warmly recommend them to you.
-
I know how nuclear power is supposed to work and I could go and sit in a pub and explain it to friends and have them thinking I was some nuclear scientist
Do it! I pay the bill!
-
One word: Compartmentalisation.
Government is compartmentalised too. We mess it up all the time.
A schizophrenic is compartmentalised...but the point I'm making is... in any big business, employing and contracting outside aid, Peter doesn't know what Paul is doing and Jenny doesn't know what Jean is doing.
The need to know is a big part of any business.
The workers are paid to work.
The thinkers are paid to think.
The owners pay them all and decide who needs to know whatever they need to know. Anybody wanting to know more than is needed to know, is gone.
Thank you, I understand what was meant by compartmentalization. Al-Qaeda works in this way and can't keep it's secrets. The US military works this way and can't keep it's secrets. Big Business can't keep it's secrets. Nothing is 100% infallible... Except your global comspiracy. They remain undetected in any substantiated way. They perfectly conceal a myriad of things from the arcane (the truth about nuclear fission) to the common (I know it appears your map works but it does not). They do so with such verisimilitude that anyone that points out the obvious lie is considered a marginal member of fringe beliefs. This seems more logical than the idea that scientists are telling the truth in their published verified experimentation and perhaps I don't understand the world like I thought?
-
I know how nuclear power is supposed to work and I could go and sit in a pub and explain it to friends and have them thinking I was some nuclear scientist
Do it! I pay the bill!
Do what?
Go to the pub and convince your friends you are a nuclear scientist.
-
He believes what he's read and been tutored himself and with his own thoughts and the way he presents them, he believes he is passing on his knowledge to you, which is absolutely fine and no doubt interesting to you and your fellow students.
umm...ok..so at least he was an idiot. But, I mean, people like Feynman, you know, they don't "teach, what they are taught" like a mufti or a cult member. They actually do research. In fact Feynman is one of the originators of modern physics. One of the really big like Bohr, Dirac or Einstein. All these were people who dedicated their life to knowledge and truth, who loved freedom. Research is always checked and reviewed by persons like them. Even a big scientist may be a corrupted asshole, but most are not. Governments may want to take control over science, but when they do, science vanishes, as happened in Nazi Germany. One of the reasons why they lost the war. Even politicians are generally smart enough to know that they better let scientists do their business when they want to gain profit out of their findings.
You live in a creepy world, my brother!
-
What did Teszla find that was supressed and what do you mean by free energy?
-
You don't have to reply to anybody. This site is a creepy place as well. I'm sure there are many lonely girls on the web...
-
You don't have to reply to anybody. This site is a creepy place as well. I'm sure there are many lonely girls on the web...
What's that supposed to mean?
It means that you feel better when you get your balls back.
-
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
-
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
I also noticed the similarities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder#Indicators_of_a_delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder#Indicators_of_a_delusion) I think he said he has a wife and a daughther. I wonder if they are worried about him.
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"? That makes sense. ::)
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"? That makes sense. ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.
I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.
Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"? That makes sense. ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.
I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.
By observing your thoughts on the matter you seem to have a problem with the amount of energy released, claiming there is no outside energy coming in, right?
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"? That makes sense. ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.
I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.
Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
We would all like to know everything about everything in life but it's just not possible with our life span.
What is even more impossible is being able to sort out truth from fiction in everything, so we either go with truth and have an attitude of accepting it and believing it as long as it comes from official sources, or we can waste time questioning everything and believing nothing until it becomes a fact in our own eyes.
Unfortunately for me , I go with the latter, which I admit is a pain, because I'd like to believe everything we are told is true, yet we all know this is not the case...but it is easier to just accept things as they are and blank out what we "may" attempt to question.
I wish I could just block stuff out and go with the flow but I have this problem of, when I see something blatant and in your face, I feel the need to question it and question it and better question it, to the point that some people may think I'm nuts.
Not that anyone on here thinks that. (cough)
I'd prefer to walk up to the brains of this world and say, " hey! is this earth spinning in space and can atoms smash into each other and blow up the world in a massive Sun light flash" and it would be nice for them to stand there and say, " you know Scepti, we wish we knew the answer to that but, in truth, we haven't got a clue how any of that would work."
Ah well, maybe in the next life, if there is one eh?
Electromagnetism and nuclear fission (or fusion since you seem to like suns in your explosions) are all inevitable consequences of The Standard Model. You can't say you like electricity but not atom smashing because it all is derived from the same thing.
Also-You are selectively skeptical. You dent a round earth because the evidence is not compelling but you accept a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Where is your questioning on that front.
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron? Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"? That makes sense. ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.
I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.
Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
We would all like to know everything about everything in life but it's just not possible with our life span.
What is even more impossible is being able to sort out truth from fiction in everything, so we either go with truth and have an attitude of accepting it and believing it as long as it comes from official sources, or we can waste time questioning everything and believing nothing until it becomes a fact in our own eyes.
Unfortunately for me , I go with the latter, which I admit is a pain, because I'd like to believe everything we are told is true, yet we all know this is not the case...but it is easier to just accept things as they are and blank out what we "may" attempt to question.
I wish I could just block stuff out and go with the flow but I have this problem of, when I see something blatant and in your face, I feel the need to question it and question it and better question it, to the point that some people may think I'm nuts.
Not that anyone on here thinks that. (cough)
I'd prefer to walk up to the brains of this world and say, " hey! is this earth spinning in space and can atoms smash into each other and blow up the world in a massive Sun light flash" and it would be nice for them to stand there and say, " you know Scepti, we wish we knew the answer to that but, in truth, we haven't got a clue how any of that would work."
Ah well, maybe in the next life, if there is one eh?
Electromagnetism and nuclear fission (or fusion since you seem to like suns in your explosions) are all inevitable consequences of The Standard Model. You can't say you like electricity but not atom smashing because it all is derived from the same thing.
Also-You are selectively skeptical. You dent a round earth because the evidence is not compelling but you accept a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Where is your questioning on that front.
I take every single thing on how I perceive it. That's just the way I am.
You claim to question everything but you accept claims of a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Not a shred.
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
not according to any first-hand knowledge that you have.
-
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?
not according to any first-hand knowledge that you have.
I know right? But then I don't think first hand knowledge is as important as its made out to be in some cases.
-
it's a philosophical issue, rama, and it bears some consideration.
for example, are you religious? many religious claims are made by people whose evidence is this:
"intelligent people i respect tell me that such-and-such is true, and i believe them."
if i have a belief in god because someone tells me it is true, and it provides reasonable explanations for things that i cannot personally question, how is that different from someone who says the earth goes around the sun, assuming that theory also has reasonable explanations that i cannot personally question?
we accept things on faith and trust all through our lives, and saying "my faith is more trustworthy than your faith" is not a compelling argument.
-
it's a philosophical issue, rama, and it bears some consideration.
for example, are you religious? many religious claims are made by people whose evidence is this:
"intelligent people i respect tell me that such-and-such is true, and i believe them."
if i have a belief in god because someone tells me it is true, and it provides reasonable explanations for things that i cannot personally question, how is that different from someone who says the earth goes around the sun, assuming that theory also has reasonable explanations that i cannot personally question?
we accept things on faith and trust all through our lives, and saying "my faith is more trustworthy than your faith" is not a compelling argument.
I completely agree. My comment about North Korea was somewhat tongue in cheek, so the need for first hand knowledge is not important I think. But where is the line? If you hold first hand knowledge to be of primary importance you can no longer deem the study of history to be valuable, you cannot say that your parents are your biological parents with any certainty unless you learn how to perform a DNA test. How do I know Russia exists. I guess I don't, I have no first hand experience of it after all. Is this really how you want to evaluate the validity of a claim?
-
well, it's certainly easiest to believe whatever someone tells you than it is to go through life testing everything on your own. the risk in doing that is that you end up believing nonsense just because it's easy. you're right-- you have to draw a line.
i think the line is drawn using use common sense and judgment. for example, i personally believe that russia exists, because there is a vast body of circumstantial evidence that points to it as being true, things such as history, neighbors with russian accents, newspapers, textbooks, media transmissions and so on. so while i have no personal experience with russia, i would say that assuming i can trust other people is a good strategy.
but as for who my parents are? that's pretty iffy. lots of adopted people in this world discover that their parents really aren't biologically related to them at all. so i would say that who my parents are is less reliable than the existence of russia, based on common sense. if someone tells me, i know for a fact that the people claiming to be my parents really are my parents, because they say so, then i tend not to trust his conclusions.
this relates to the flat earth discussion, when someone substitutes faith for facts. too many times people think that just saying lots of people believe something is proof that it is true. if that's the case, then spontaneous generation was true for a long time, and so was the idea that the oceans were full of sea monsters.
i read lots of posts here where the arguments in favor of a round earth consist of nothing more than appeals to authority and appeals to common belief. that's not an argument that has any validity.
-
I agree to pretty much everything you said.
-
I agree to pretty much everything you said.
you are very wise.
8)
-
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.
-
you believe the bible is not the work of a few Levantine scholars in the late bronze age....why should i belive anythnig else you say?
-
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.
I agree with a lot if that except the careful part. He does not seem very careful from where I am. The wiser and stronger is just the other side of the coin from those who think he is mentally ill. An assessment based on very little experience, unless you know him personally of course, and all those you were thinking of when making the comparison.
I should say that debating on this forum ranks fairly low on the courage front. It is anonymous and impersonal, there is not much at stake. Really courageous would be sacrificing your personal stability financial, personal or otherwise to convince the world of the truth of FET. That is what I would be very impressed with. Maybe he is, I can't say.
I don't mean this in denigration of FES, I am grateful for all I have learned while participating in these forums.
-
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.
(http://files.sharenator.com/xzibit_meme_7219_Wtf_am_i_reading-s510x334-157605-580.jpg)
-
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.
(http://files.sharenator.com/xzibit_meme_7219_Wtf_am_i_reading-s510x334-157605-580.jpg)
-
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?
You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing. A real life atom.
Here's a picture of a molecule, taken with an atomic force microscope (textbook drawing on top, actual image on bottom):
(http://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ibm-microscope-sees-molecules.jpg)
This is a picture of an atom's electron clouds, taken with a field-emission electron microscope:
(http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/671260397.jpg)
-
This bugs me.
I went along in life being told about planets and stars and all things about space, as we all did and being a young age at the time, I had no reason to doubt it.
After all, why would a kid doubt a professor in a white overall or a teacher that has been taught to teach you the very same things he/she was taught.
I don't discount everything I've been taught but at the same time I'm becoming extremely sceptical each day from what I have been taught over time and one of them is stars and light years.
As we all know...stars are supposedly calculated in light years for distance as mileage would involve ridiculous maths.
So we are told that a star that is 600 light years away would take us 600 years travelling at the speed of light to reach it and also that we are looking at that star as it was 600 years ago as we see the 600 year old light.
I honestly cannot get my head around it and think it's absolute BS, yet my simple answer could be construed as kid like and discounted by scientists, coupled with ridicule, so here goes.
When we view a star, we are viewing that star as it is "now" not as it was X amount of years ago.
Why do I think this?
Think about going out on a night with a torch and a friend, then telling that friend to walk 100 yards, then turn on his torch to shine at you.
You are going to see the small light of that torch in his hand...not the beam from the torch to your face as the beam would be spread out the further it gets.
A torch spans out like a funnel and it would be like anyone looking into a funnel and seeing the light at the end because that's what takes your focus.
I could be way out in my thinking here and I don't profess to say it's 100% correct but it does seem more logical to me of us seeing stars as they are, not as they were, meaning stars are a hell of a lot closer than we are told.
What do you all think?
Yes, its foolish for atheists to say stars are 600 light years away and that they DONT EVEN EXIST. Did they arrive there and turned back?
Thanks. People like you help me understand what crazy things I used to believe without proof.
Dont pay attention to their teasing, theyre all a bunch of enducated slaves who think theyre so so wise. Masons laugh with them
-
An atomic force microscope. ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.
Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
-
that's not an answer its a cop out. try again. you asked for a photo, you got a photo. you said you could not see them he showed you one. so whats your problem?
-
An atomic force microscope. ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.
Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.
Okay so what's wrong with it?
-
why did you even ask for a photo when as soon as it was provided you would just dismiss it out of hand? should have done your research before asking for one because you obviously assumed that photos where not possible.
oh and il post what i like and coward? im not the one sitting behind a screen saying 3000 people did not in fact get murdered and all those grieving family's are liars.
-
An atomic force microscope. ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.
Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.
Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.
Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?
-
An atomic force microscope. ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.
Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.
Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.
Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?
Let's call it a hunch.
I can show you pictures of lots of things that look real that aren't.
You show me a blue blob then 2 blue blobs and this is what blows up cities and boils water into super steam.
I'd rather believe in unicorns.
If you know nothing about atoms why do you expect to know what they look like? I'm a chemist, and it looks perfectly reasonable to me.
-
An atomic force microscope. ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.
Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.
Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.
Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?
Let's call it a hunch.
I can show you pictures of lots of things that look real that aren't.
You show me a blue blob then 2 blue blobs and this is what blows up cities and boils water into super steam.
I'd rather believe in unicorns.
If you know nothing about atoms why do you expect to know what they look like? I'm a chemist, and it looks perfectly reasonable to me.
Have you personally seen an atom?
Nope, but I've personally seen electron microscopes, so I know the quality of pictures they can take. Atomic force microscopes are better. Why should I doubt these pictures? And you've never personally seen an atom either, so how can you say this is wrong?
-
it takes specilised equipment. how can you expect everyone to personally see one? that's what photos are for and peer reviewed scientific papers
-
Like I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.
Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.
So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.
I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.
-
Like I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.
Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.
So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.
I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.
I have no problem with you doing your chemist work and viewing things and working things out. Fair enough to you. I don't have any problem with that.
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
Have you ever seen a bacterium? How about a grain of pollen? Have you ever seen oxygen?
edit: You ignored my more important question, what is the likelihood that my field of science is the only one that isn't a hoax?
-
Like I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.
Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.
So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.
I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.
I have no problem with you doing your chemist work and viewing things and working things out. Fair enough to you. I don't have any problem with that.
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
Have you ever seen a bacterium? How about a grain of pollen? Have you ever seen oxygen?
edit: You ignored my more important question, what is the likelihood that my field of science is the only one that isn't a hoax?
You are going in the wrong direction. I don't discount everything. I accept quite a lot of things. I don't accept nuclear atoms, what more can I say?
Have you ever seen oxygen atoms or bacteria?
-
Nope, I haven't seen most things under a microscope that are tiny, just basic stuff.
so we can assume you dont believe in these then?
-
Nope, I haven't seen most things under a microscope that are tiny, just basic stuff.
So you don't believe in oxygen and bacteria, right?
-
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it.
-
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it.
You are saying that, not me.
Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in?
-
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it.
You are saying that, not me.
Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in?
Considering I have seen none of them under a microscope, I have to use my own common sense and logic and this is what it tells me.
I can breathe, so I generally accept that I'm breathing in air that consists of oxygen in whatever form it is. I can't prove that what they say about it's make up is true but I can accept it and the same goes with bacteria, as in we can see it growing on bread as mould, yet cannot see the bacteria , itself, except what's manifesting from it, so I can accept that.
I do not accept atoms that can magically fission for years on end without any energy source contributing to the amount of energy produced and as to why they heat up.
Also, chunks of metal blowing cities up is not only illogical to me, it's down right silly, even pathetic and to think, people do accept it, simply because it is an unknown,just like they accept all other things. The point is, it's up to the individual as to what they go with and I do not go with magical super heated, city destroying atoms coming from , basically chinks of led like metal that is more dense than lead, yet as hard as the hardest metals.
It's a fantasy, a scaremongering clever tactic and a classic moneymaker, as far as I'm concerned.
It's not magic, it's science.
Okay, so what you're saying is that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists in the world are in on the hoax?
-
I don't accept nuclear atoms, what more can I say?
If you don't accept nuclear atoms, then what kind of atoms do you accept?
-
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."
I'm not buying into it, one bit.
This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it.
You are saying that, not me.
Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in?
Considering I have seen none of them under a microscope, I have to use my own common sense and logic and this is what it tells me.
I can breathe, so I generally accept that I'm breathing in air that consists of oxygen in whatever form it is. I can't prove that what they say about it's make up is true but I can accept it and the same goes with bacteria, as in we can see it growing on bread as mould, yet cannot see the bacteria , itself, except what's manifesting from it, so I can accept that.
I do not accept atoms that can magically fission for years on end without any energy source contributing to the amount of energy produced and as to why they heat up.
Also, chunks of metal blowing cities up is not only illogical to me, it's down right silly, even pathetic and to think, people do accept it, simply because it is an unknown,just like they accept all other things. The point is, it's up to the individual as to what they go with and I do not go with magical super heated, city destroying atoms coming from , basically chinks of led like metal that is more dense than lead, yet as hard as the hardest metals.
It's a fantasy, a scaremongering clever tactic and a classic moneymaker, as far as I'm concerned.
It's not magic, it's science.
Okay, so what you're saying is that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists in the world are in on the hoax?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Okay I'm confused a bit. So you believe in atoms, but not radioactive atoms, is that accurate? If so, does that mean you don't believe in chemical radiation? (Chemical radiation meaning alpha/beta particles, neutrons, etc)
-
Okay, I think I get it. You believe in atoms, including radioactive atoms (which emit radiation) but you don't believe that said radioactive atoms can obliterate cities or provide power in the form of power plants. Is that accurate?
-
Do you think radiation has energy?
-
Do you think radiation has energy?
It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.
Does alpha radiation have energy?
Does beta radiation have energy?
Does gamma radiation have energy?
Does the thread in Science and Alternative Science that you had to leave because you were shown to be wrong have energy?
-
Do you think radiation has energy?
It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.
Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
-
Do you think radiation has energy?
It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.
Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
Do you understand what alpha radiation is? If so, please tell us what you think it is in your own words.
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
Yes. Everything decays, so yes.
Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
Yes. Everything decays, so yes.
Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?
I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.
Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two?
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
So you can't tell us what energy radiation uses to radiate?
Do you think radiation has energy?
It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.
Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
Do you understand what alpha radiation is? If so, please tell us what you think it is in your own words.
Is it a less harmful radiation that when ionised can be used in things like smoke detectors?
Americium is in smoke detectors and it emits alpha particles. Ionized atoms have noting to do with radiation.
-
Oh ok then.
Anyway, lumps of metal smacked together do not blow up cities.
Not anymore yes.
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
Yes. Everything decays, so yes.
Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?
I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.
Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two?
What would make it collide with something hard enough for it to split it in two?
Particles get shot out at very high speeds which means very high energy.
-
What makes the particles shoot out at high speed?
Spontaneous fission. The alpha particle will then tunnel out using quantum tunneling.
Not ever.
If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion.
-
Not ever.
If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion.
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
-
Not ever.
If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion.
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Hiroshima. Nagasaki.
-
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative.
It's also not reasonable for someone to make claims that they know that they can't prove.
-
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative.
It's also not reasonable for someone to make claims that they know that they can't prove.
Not always. In fact, there is an infinite amount of claims that I know I can't prove, but are not unreasonable to make due to their incredibly high likelihood to be true.
-
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Your logic does not work here. The situation already has happened. He needs to disprove events that have already accrued. He needs the disprove current events. He has not done this. He has not shown that fission does not exist like modern science says it does.
Good luck with believing all that
If you really think every alpha particle that is emitted comes from the surface of an atom then you are in for a surprise.
If only you could back up what you are saying.
I have provided many arguments backed up with evidence in the thread that you ran away from.
-
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Your logic does not work here. The situation already has happened. He needs to disprove events that have already accrued. He needs the disprove current events. He has not done this. He has not shown that fission does not exist like modern science says it does.
Good luck with believing all that
If you really think every alpha particle that is emitted comes from the surface of an atom then you are in for a surprise.
If only you could back up what you are saying.
I have provided many arguments backed up with evidence in the thread that you ran away from.
You have provided evidence of nothing, nothing at all.
Ignoring my arguments does not get you anywhere.
-
I don't need to get anywhere, I'm fairly certain nuclear weapons are a big lie and I have a major suspicion that nuclear power isn't what we think it is, either.
You carry on believing everything you're told, it's fine with me.
I am going to carry on actually performing science, yes.
-
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
What energy do they use?
Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
Yes. Everything decays, so yes.
Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?
I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.
Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two?
What would make it collide with something hard enough for it to split it in two?
Particles get shot out at very high speeds which means very high energy.
What makes the particles shoot out at high speed?
Unstable nuclei have very high energies. Some of this energy gets put into the mass of the radiation particle, which has very low mass, so in order for energy to be conserved it must shoot out at high speed.
-
Not ever.
If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion.
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Provide evidence of the positive? you mean of Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions? there is no lack of evidence for nuclear bombs.
Its not like sokarul is asking evidence that unicorns or invisible fairies dont exist. If scepti wants to say there is a hoax, and that what happened in those cities was not a nuclear explosion, he needs to back up those claims, and prove that his alternative version makes more sense than the official. Otherwise he would be just ignoring the evidence.
-
In order for the energy to be "conserved" it has to be shot out at high speed?
Ok, you lost me here.
And in one swoop you've taken on fission and the first law of thermodynamics, neither of which you understand...
-
I personally don't believe that the internet exists.
I mean, I've never seen it and neither has anyone else. I think you all live in the box on my desk and you can't prove otherwise. :D
-
You tell me how I can physically back it up?
No, you tell me.
I can't back it up anymore than you can back up your stance on it being real, except, "the videos" and "everyone knows they're real."
What?
That's not backing anything up, it's simply following general opinion and believing what's put in front of you without actually physically knowing if it can work.
Im not backing up anything, neither was I pretending I did. As you said I am following the general opinion, as I think there are no reasons to believe otherwise, you say that is not true, but you cant back up that claim, you are also a very irrational and uneducated person, so your word alone doesn't count.
-
You tell me how I can physically back it up?
I can't back it up anymore than you can back up your stance on it being real, except, "the videos" and "everyone knows they're real."
That's not backing anything up, it's simply following general opinion and believing what's put in front of you without actually physically knowing if it can work.
What about first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs? Do they count at all?
-
You tell me how I can physically back it up?
I can't back it up anymore than you can back up your stance on it being real, except, "the videos" and "everyone knows they're real."
That's not backing anything up, it's simply following general opinion and believing what's put in front of you without actually physically knowing if it can work.
What about first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs? Do they count at all?
obviously not lol because they would prove sceptic wrong and he cant go about having that can he.
-
You tell me how I can physically back it up?
I can't back it up anymore than you can back up your stance on it being real, except, "the videos" and "everyone knows they're real."
That's not backing anything up, it's simply following general opinion and believing what's put in front of you without actually physically knowing if it can work.
What about first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs? Do they count at all?
Nope: not one iota.
So there is evidence, you just dont want to accept it.
-
What kind of evidence is there?
...first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs...
-
all of nuclear physics
2 destroyed citys
2 nuclear reactor meltdowns.
every nuclear reactor in existence
medical nuclear isotopes
research nuclear isotopes
industrial nuclear isotopes
nuclear submarines staying under water for 6 months
radioactive fallout in the atmosphere
the list goes on
-
What kind of evidence is there?
...first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs...
So this is the evidence is it?
Not "the" evidence. Its evidence.
-
What kind of evidence is there?
...first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs...
So this is the evidence is it?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you?
-
and that isnt anything to do with nuclear physics so try again
-
whats the point in a nuclear reactor if it takes a external power source to create the illusion of a nuclear power station considering its supposed to generate electricity? kinda stupid huh?
-
What kind of evidence is there?
...first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs...
So this is the evidence is it?
Not "the" evidence. Its evidence.
I've seen pictures of the loch ness monster and people have told me that they have been to Scotland and seen strange things in the water and they think it's nessie.
Crews on boats with sonar have scoured the loch with some seeing strange shapes on sonar. That's evidence isn't it?
You have seen pictures of the loch ness monster? really? you mean this http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg) ? strange things in water that people think is nessie. Please scepty, try being a little more rational.
-
In order for the energy to be "conserved" it has to be shot out at high speed?
Ok, you lost me here.
I can understand decaying particles of something dispersing into the environment, I just don't understand why they have to become unstable and shoot into it at speed.
The radioactive elements themselves are unstable, which is why they release particles. The particles can be unstable or may not be, depending on the particle. The speed also depends on the particles: alpha particles, the biggest radioactive particles, are generally released at very low speeds and can be stopped with a piece of paper. This can be observed by using a Geiger counter, a piece of paper, and an alpha-emitting substance. Beta particles, on the other hand, are basically electrons, which are much smaller so they get ejected at much higher speeds. These would probably be stopped by a small, thick sheet of metal or plastic. Gamma rays, which are high-energy electromagnetic rays (think higher energy than, but similar to, X-rays), need a couple inches of lead to stop them.
Let's look at some logic.
The picture underneath is supposedly plutonium. Plutonium, it's said: that if just one pound of it was dispersed evenly over the earth, it would kill every person on it.
I'm not sure if this is true. If it is, it would have to be aerosolized for people to breathe in, the radiation dose alone from outside your body likely won't kill you.
Pay no attention to that man with the washing up gloves on, let's concentrate on this disc of plutonium that is highly poisonous.
Now remember, plutonium only exists as it is, because of nuclear fissioning inside reactors, which somehow spawn this ultra poisonous radiation emitting plutonium which is turned into a disc of "lead" like metal.
There are very small natural amounts of plutonium, but for the most part yes you're right.
This disc, gets machined so it is the right size for a nuclear bomb, aided by a bullet made of the same stuff and they both sit at each end of a nuclear weapon.
You're describing two different types of nuclear weapons at this point. There are two bombs that have been used in warfare, the Little Boy (Hiroshima) and the Fat Man (Nagasaki). The Little Boy contained uranium, and was the gun-type weapon that you describe. Plutonium, however, was observed to have a very high neutron emission rate and generated quite a lot of heat, so the risk of it going initiating early was very high. Keep in mind it wouldn't have detonated, but it would have made a lot of nuclear waste. So the Fat Man, the plutonium bomb, was designed differently.
This is a diagram of the plutonium bomb:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Implosion_Nuclear_weapon.svg)
It's quite safe for it to sit inside this nuclear bomb, even though the fuel from a nuclear reactor is ultra dangerous and has to be cooled in a pool for a few decades until the little pellets are cool enough to be put into containers and buried deep in the earth.
The fuel that is used in nuclear bombs or power plants is not the same thing as the waste that has to be disposed of. The waste is significantly more dangerous.
The plutonium that's extracted for the bombs appears to become safe and can be stored inside the bomb, in silos, submarines and what not, with no effects to the people watching over them or the environment, unless someone angers it.
Once they decide to detonate one, they simply insert some cordite, or similar kind of ordinary explosive, which propels the plutonium bullet, into a disc like this below, except maybe a bit better machined set off the explosives, causing the plutonium core and neutron source to be suddenly under tremendous pressure..
Let me explain. Normally, neutron emission in these bombs is happening at a slow, steady pace. Since atoms are mostly empty space, it's likely that these neutrons won't collide with other nuclei. Even if they do collide, it's not likely to be a head on collision, so the full energy won't be transferred from the neutron to the nucleus.
When the bomb is detonated, however, the explosives compress the plutonium and the neutron source in the middle. This packs the plutonium atoms and neutron source tighter, because they're under very high pressure at this point. Now, a far higher percentage of neutrons will actually slam into nuclei in a head-on collision, breaking them apart. This releases a LOT of energy, and it also releases more neutrons. More neutrons means more collisions, which means more energy and more neutrons. That's the chain reaction that we talk about, and it's why nuclear weapons work.
Once this happens...anyone not wearing factor 10 billion will not have a very nice day and neither will the city you're in.
It's ok if the bullet just drops onto the disc, as that's not a problem. Even throwing the bullet full force at the disc, probably won't detonate the disc.
What?
What?
I said, detonate the disc.
What do you mean, what do I mean?
I mean, the bullet slams into the lead like disc and somehow it super fissions in a nano second, surely you can see how a disc like this can do that.
What do you mean the cordite explosives would blow up the bomb casing before these lead like metals had a chance to slam into each other?
Of course that won't happen.
Why?
Well, because it just won't and as you can see on any real nuclear bomb test videos , it works, so there.
The casing around the core (conventional explosives, plutonium, and neutron source) was very, very thick metal. It could withstand a lot of pressure. Also, it would only need to withstand the explosion long enough for the plutonium to go critical, which wouldn't take long, probably a few microseconds.
So remember. If you ever see something that looks like lead on your jaunts out, be careful it's not plutonium, don't just think it's lead - put on some marigolds before you pick it up and do not be throwing other pieces of lead at it to see if it detonates, as this is irresponsible. ;)
Radioactive isotopes needs to be concentrated before they can be used in bombs or power plants.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any more questions.
-
No more questions as of yet.
Just looking at that just strengthens my mind to be honest and will probably make many others think about what they've been brought up to believe.
No, probably just you.
-
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you?
Watching a nuclear detonation and seeing what we see on video, then I'd be convinced.
In the 1940s and '50s, the US and USSR did quite a few above ground nuclear tests. Many of the US tests that were done in Nevada were witnessed by civilians in nearby towns. However, international treaty pretty much outlawed above ground nuclear testing. More recently, pretty much all nuclear bomb testing as been stopped by the major nuclear powers, so you would probably have to talk to North Korea to see if they would let you witness a test.
Seeing the uranium pellets put into the tubes and lowered into a reactor, whilst inspecting to make sure there were no external energy source to set them off heating up the water.
Well, as we've mentioned before, there are several universities that do have small scale nuclear reactors on campus. If you try, you might be able to get a guided tour of one and they could answer any questions that you might have. I have personally been to the reactor at Cornell University before it was decommissioned a few years back. Although I didn't measure the water temperature, I did see the unmistakable faint blue glow of Cherenkov radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) that tells you that fission is occurring.
-
What kind of evidence is there?
...first had witness accounts of the countless people who researched the physics of the bombs, built the bombs, dropped the bombs and survived the aftermath of the bombs...
So this is the evidence is it?
Not "the" evidence. Its evidence.
I've seen pictures of the loch ness monster and people have told me that they have been to Scotland and seen strange things in the water and they think it's nessie.
Crews on boats with sonar have scoured the loch with some seeing strange shapes on sonar. That's evidence isn't it?
You have seen pictures of the loch ness monster? really? you mean this http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg) ? strange things in water that people think is nessie. Please scepty, try being a little more rational.
I don't buy into it but they say it's evidence that something is there and the loch ness monster is firmly in everyones minds, it's just that nothing "official" has came out to say it's all true but if it did, then the loch ness monster becomes real especially if they can show some official pictures of it, in all it's glory.
You know, something like they do with atomic bomb footage.
Not with those pictures. If there were pictures of the ness monster in all its glory taken by different persons, then sure, that could be evidence. But there are not.
Having said that, this example you have given has no comparison with the atomic bombs event. One is a sighting of strange stuff from time to time, and people giving it a name and making a story. And the other is a well documented event that happened once, which had lots of consequences also well documented and studied.
-
Is there any Delusion you dont not fervantly subscribe to?
What did you do to pass the time before access to the internet allowed to read such undiluted rubbish , sorry I mena do your comprehensive evaluations using logic and a free (feeble?) mind..
What had Richard III and atomic energy got in common? Or is that jsut another red herring 'cos you dont know what you are talknig about?
-
I can think of many other differences.
(Is it because roberty? sounds kind of gay)
-
YOu always try t owiden the subject when you are lost - Stick to the nuclear physics and start another topic anout England's 15the Century warfare and "whatever happened to King Richard?"
You could try writing out what you think happened, and presenting it for consideration by other people - That may almost be a bit like academic activity for you :)
-
Is there any Delusion you dont not fervantly subscribe to?
What did you do to pass the time before access to the internet allowed to read such undiluted rubbish , sorry I mena do your comprehensive evaluations using logic and a free (feeble?) mind..
What had Richard III and atomic energy got in common? Or is that jsut another red herring 'cos you dont know what you are talknig about?
His username rings very true. Sceptimatic, a machine whose only job is to be skeptical about everything he hears, but not to actually consider evidence.
-
Scepti is not a sceptic, he his just a denialist. His scepticism will not allow him to accept this.
-
Scepti is not a sceptic, he his just a denialist. His scepticism will not allow him to accept this.
It's a shame he hasn't seen a psychiatrist :\ I bet there's something there.
-
Scepti is not a sceptic, he his just a denialist. His scepticism will not allow him to accept this.
It's a shame he hasn't seen a psychiatrist :\ I bet there's something there.
Who knows. I started reading through some of the diagnostic criteria in the DSM 4 some months ago, and assuming that he is not being disingenuous about what he is saying (disc. : I'm not a psychiatrist and this does not constitute medical advice) I think most of the criteria of 295.10 (disorganised type schizophrenia) seem to be met by his posts (here's a link: http://www.behavenet.com/node/21558 (http://www.behavenet.com/node/21558)). Something more benign like an attention disorder might also explain parts of his behaviour. If he is genuine I would be surprised if he does not have some mental problem that inhibits him from following a logical chain of thought for extended periods. There certainly does seem to be something there...
-
Marko:
Dielectric is the use of an electrical field. Basically it's like switching it on isn't it, so it's not a uranium fissioning.
??? Okay. What does that have to do with anything?
-
Scepti is not a sceptic, he his just a denialist. His scepticism will not allow him to accept this.
It's a shame he hasn't seen a psychiatrist :\ I bet there's something there.
Who knows. I started reading through some of the diagnostic criteria in the DSM 4 some months ago, and assuming that he is not being disingenuous about what he is saying (disc. : I'm not a psychiatrist and this does not constitute medical advice) I think most of the criteria of 295.10 (disorganised type schizophrenia) seem to be met by his posts (here's a link: http://www.behavenet.com/node/21558 (http://www.behavenet.com/node/21558)). Something more benign like an attention disorder might also explain parts of his behaviour. If he is genuine I would be surprised if he does not have some mental problem that inhibits him from following a logical chain of thought for extended periods. There certainly does seem to be something there...
Now that's an interesting point. I do remember reading a while ago about some research which seemed to indicate a correlation between unshakeable belief in conspiracies and some form of disorder (although I don't think it made it to the DSM). I will see if I can find it.
-
i no skeptic wont give a toss about these but i found some really cool videos of research reactors in operation in various universities for anyone that wants to see.
10,000th cycle of the Annular Core Research Reactor (http://#ws)
Coolest College Labs: Reed College Nuclear Reactor (http://#ws)
Penn State Nuclear Reactor (http://#)
Reed College TARGA I reactor SCRAM (new audio) (http://#)
UofA Nuclear Reactor Pulse (http://#)
what needs to be remembered is that these are built run maintained and improved by students. no secret conspirators involved.
-
That was cool.
-
Yes, that was cool, pull a switch, CLICK and a light comes on.
HA! You don't understand the physics of how a light comes on.
Anyway, there was also a clunking noise.
-
pull a switch? ??? lol. who pulls a switch
and yes sceptic just deny it its okay we expect no more from you.
-
Sometimes I wonder if Scepti ever doubts the existence of Scepti. I mean, who's proven it to him?
-
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...
I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this.
Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.
-
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...
I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this.
Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.
All 80 pages today?!
That's dedication!
-
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...
I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this.
Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.
All 80 pages today?!
That's dedication!
No, that's someone with far too much time on their hands.
-
It's called a really slow day on Help Desk lol...
-
This bugs me.
I went along in life being told about planets and stars and all things about space, as we all did and being a young age at the time, I had no reason to doubt it.
After all, why would a kid doubt a professor in a white overall or a teacher that has been taught to teach you the very same things he/she was taught.
I don't discount everything I've been taught but at the same time I'm becoming extremely sceptical each day from what I have been taught over time and one of them is stars and light years.
As we all know...stars are supposedly calculated in light years for distance as mileage would involve ridiculous maths.
So we are told that a star that is 600 light years away would take us 600 years travelling at the speed of light to reach it and also that we are looking at that star as it was 600 years ago as we see the 600 year old light.
I honestly cannot get my head around it and think it's absolute BS, yet my simple answer could be construed as kid like and discounted by scientists, coupled with ridicule, so here goes.
When we view a star, we are viewing that star as it is "now" not as it was X amount of years ago.
Why do I think this?
Think about going out on a night with a torch and a friend, then telling that friend to walk 100 yards, then turn on his torch to shine at you.
You are going to see the small light of that torch in his hand...not the beam from the torch to your face as the beam would be spread out the further it gets.
A torch spans out like a funnel and it would be like anyone looking into a funnel and seeing the light at the end because that's what takes your focus.
I could be way out in my thinking here and I don't profess to say it's 100% correct but it does seem more logical to me of us seeing stars as they are, not as they were, meaning stars are a hell of a lot closer than we are told.
What do you all think?
Imagine that all the light reflecting off your friend, coming out of the torch etc. at one instant in time is spreading out from him in all directions. It forms a bubble with his image on its surface that expands at the speed of light. When that bubble reaches you then you can see the image from the instant it left your friend. Because it took some time to reach you, you are seeing an image that originated in the past.
Same with the stars. Whether they are 6 miles or 6 trillion miles away, you see what they looked like when the light left them, not as they are now.
[Edit... wow I did not realize how old this thread was, I hope my reply still sheds some "light" on the OP]
-
It's called a really slow day on Help Desk lol...
Well, at least you know you won't need any sun block, now that you know that two discs of metal smashed together will only go "clang" and not "bang." ;D
But they do go bang :)
I've seen the videos and have no reason to believe they are mis-representative of what they are showing. If they were a hoax, their skills in faking video was 50 years before it's time and would have rivalled the cost of movie budgets today.
-
what tech did they have for cgi back then?
-
what tech did they have for cgi back then?
-
Thunderbird 6 Movie Trailer (http://#ws)
is this the CGI you are talking about sceptic? or did they have supper secret CGI we don't know about and you have no evidence of? this goes for all your hilarious Apollo faked stuff as well
-
I haven't followed all 80 pages of this subject, but just clicked on 80 to get here.
However, somewhere I got lost. I thought this had something to do with stars and light years, or am I wrong ? ???
This thread is 2 weeks old... why would you do this to us?!?
-
I haven't followed all 80 pages of this subject, but just clicked on 80 to get here.
However, somewhere I got lost. I thought this had something to do with stars and light years, or am I wrong ? ???
Read all 81 pages to know what is going on.
-
That's really cool, I'd never heard of "moon bounce" before :)
-
Sceptimatic likes to believe that our inability to feel a car or train moving when its at its cruising speed does not apply to the Earth. Apparently, while we don't feel the car or train move, that's just because they're moving so slowly! The Earth however moves at a whopping 1000mph so we should definitely be flying off our seats, right?
Oh, and something about an atmosphere within an atmosphere... If we have traffic on the road and one car decides to slow down, in turn slowing down the entire lane, then scepti would describe that as having traffic within traffic.
-
Sceptimatic likes to believe that our inability to feel a car or train moving when its at its cruising speed does not apply to the Earth. Apparently, while we don't feel the car or train move, that's just because they're moving so slowly! The Earth however moves at a whopping 1000mph so we should definitely be flying off our seats, right?
Oh, and something about an atmosphere within an atmosphere... If we have traffic on the road and one car decides to slow down, in turn slowing down the entire lane, then scepti would describe that as having traffic within traffic.
Traffic within traffic....brain....exploding.....ergplxsh
-
scepti
I don't know if this makes it any clearer. If the light years were converted into miles which is something in the quintillions of miles.
Or if you could travel at the speed of light it would take you 600 years to get you to a place 600 light years from the earth.
What we really need is a rocket ship that could travel 100 times the speed of light and we could get there in 6 years.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111205193158AA1oYVA (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111205193158AA1oYVA)
That's terribly wrong. A light year is approximately 6 trillion miles (6x1012) while a quintillion miles is 1018, but more importantly, you can't travel as fast or faster than the speed of light. Also, if you study up on Einstein's special relativity, you'll see that if we were to get close to travelling at the speed of light, the journey will be completed in a much shorter time than 600 years. You really need to study relativity to understand how this could possibly work though.