v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:a=0The Newton's second law tells us:F=m*aTherefore:F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:F1=-F2
0=-F2
F2=-0=0
So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:F=0
|
V
a=0
So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)
Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also.Incorrect. The reaction mass of jet airplanes is, for the most part, the air that passes through the engine.
As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…
No, I wanted to say that conspiracy theorists are intentionally misapplying laws of science (whether or not they themselves understand them correctly) in an effort to decieve people. I thought I made it quite obvious.As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…
So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."
Hokay.
Example?Where have you been all until now? A good example may be the movie "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon".
when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:
Please explain just what is wrong with the application of "Newton's second law" in:As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…
So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."
Hokay.
its speed is determined by the formula:Maybe, for the simple minded, here there should have been added:Code: [Select]v=sqrt(2.g.h)
if h = constant, then v = constanta = dv/dt, hence dv/dt = 0But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:Code: [Select]a=0The Newton's second law tells us:Code: [Select]F=m.aTherefore:Code: [Select]F=m.a=m.0=0
I thought the error there was quite obvious and actually funny. Either I have a very bad sense of humour, or it's that very few people on this forum understand the basic physics.
Please explain just what is wrong with the application of "Newton's second law" in:As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…
So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."
Hokay.its speed is determined by the formula:Maybe, for the simple minded, here there should have been added:Code: [Select]v=sqrt(2.g.h)Code: [Select]if h = constant, then v = constantCode: [Select]a = dv/dt, hence dv/dt = 0Quote from: FlatAssemblerBut there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:Code: [Select]a=0The Newton's second law tells us:Code: [Select]F=m.aTherefore:Code: [Select]F=m.a=m.0=0:P All that looks quite logical to me. :P8) Hint, look at what isn't there. 8)
Rab mathematical application aside when the liquid moves it has an acceleration. Would you like to debate this point?
Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also.
Rab mathematical application aside when the liquid moves it has an acceleration. Would you like to debate this point?
Hi. Not Rab, admittedly. Are you suggesting that for some reason, a collection of molecules in a certain phase can't move at a constant velocity?
He has conclusively proven that if the planes engines aren't turned on, the plane won't fly. Forgive me trolling him a little.
In a similar tone are you suggesting that a collection of molecules with a constant velocity being ejected from a plane won't create a force?
We're talking about planes. The planes use combustion to create force through acceleration of mass. A very large garden hose could create the same effect without combustion. That is creating a force by moving (accelerating) a mass.
I'm not folowing your argument at all.
The water doesn't just move through the garden hose because it feels like it.
SOMETHING has to provide that differential.
He has conclusively proven that if the planes engines aren't turned on, the plane won't fly.
I know you're not stupid. I thought perhaps you knew I wasn't stupid.
Acceleration is different than velocity. I concede it and would never argue that they are the same thing. Not sure what else I can say...
Sorry I guess.
I suggest you buy an airplane ticket and see for yourself.And, if you see something you can't explain, isn't it more likely that you are hallucinating than that it's real? Think of the dragons.
I suggest you buy an airplane ticket and see for yourself.And, if you see something you can't explain, isn't it more likely that you are hallucinating than that it's real? Think of the dragons.
Joking aside. Anyway, I think that the solution to the FlatAssembler's puzzle is that the Torricelli's law dictates the speed of the fluid right when it's left the container. Of course the fluid needs to accelerate in the container to reach that speed.
The arguments I've used may even be too smart for most of the conspiracy theorists to understand.I'm willing to bet that they may even be too smart for you to understand.
Sometimes I think people just like to argue because they enjoy it.
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.I know that jet airplanes are real, alls I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:Code: [Select]v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:Code: [Select]a=0The Newton's second law tells us:Code: [Select]F=m*aTherefore:Code: [Select]F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:Code: [Select]F1=-F2So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
0=-F2
F2=-0=0Code: [Select]F=0So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
|
V
a=0
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)
I know that jet airplanes are real, all I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.
I know that jet airplanes are real, all I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.
You must be a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
So the onus is on YOU to prove that when you look out your window on a daily basis and see real passenger jet airplanes:
Maybe all you're seeing is this sort of thing:
You could post your own video but, of course, if I cannot personally verify that, it's probably just a CGV and more fabricated evidence.
Just remember that us airplane deniers start with the knowledge that airplanes don't exist. All the evidence which we are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence, all the evidence to the contrary, much of which we are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.
Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The non-existence of airplanes is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes is therefore fabricated evidence
P4) If there are large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
and sea-tac is a north-south runway that moves out from under the airplane lol!Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
OK, I'm out and my up is up and my down is down and I'll leave you to your hanging around.
They just have to release the wheel-clamps and the plane drops into the air ???.and sea-tac is a north-south runway that moves out from under the airplane lol!Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
OK, I'm out and my up is up and my down is down and I'll leave you to your hanging around.
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.I hope you're not ridiculing the existence of dragons?
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.This only can be a parody. We have reported its being a parody three years ago, but management team have ignored our reports. I guess now they can be convinced its being a parody, because OP'er admits his crime.
I would love to ride a dragon once, actually. Airplanes are really lame... :-\
There is no "crime"! The video is "Stive Morgan - #Electronic Feelings by Byyassar and makes no claim's at all about "reality".I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.This only can be a parody. We have reported its being a parody three years ago, but management team have ignored our reports. I guess now they can be convinced its being a parody, because OP'er admits his crime.
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.Then what is the thing that flies over my house on a daily basis.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:Code: [Select]v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:Code: [Select]a=0The Newton's second law tells us:Code: [Select]F=m*aTherefore:Code: [Select]F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:Code: [Select]F1=-F2So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
0=-F2
F2=-0=0Code: [Select]F=0So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
|
V
a=0
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)