Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PsychedelicPill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Shouldn't the title read "Scientists, engineers, >99.99% of intelligent educated people, and >95% of unintelligent uneducated people claim rockets work in a vacuum?"

I'm guessing at the numbers, but I don't think they'll be far off.

(I've missed out the unintelligent educated people, and the intelligent uneducated people. Someone else can guess at those numbers).

2
I do enjoy winding up Papa.

@ Pill that was my drawing, read moar.

lol sorry about that! In my defence I couldn't sleep and got up early - brain not fully engaged.

Quote
It's spelt diagram. You are probably french so that's kewl.

In my defence, it's also an archaic English spelling :)

Quote
I never claimed the diagram to be totally accurate and correct, was just trying to show hoppy that if the vacuum was pulling with the same force as the car is pushing it would remain stationary, etc.

I stated I left out friction etc to simplify the picture in my original post.

Let's hope Hoppy understands ::) it.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Looking at the sun is good for you.
« on: December 11, 2016, 10:21:03 PM »
Staring at the sun, just at sunrise and sunset, before it rises to high above the horizon is healthy for every part of your body.

Staring at the Sun can never be good for you.

Getting sufficient sunshine to produce vitamin D is good for you.

Getting enough daylight in the winter months is also important.

Watching a sunrise or a sunset can be good for you in terms of creating an emotional high, in the same way that climbing a hill and enjoying the view can. (Please note: it is possible to experience sunrise/sunset without "staring at the Sun"). Is this what the OP meant? If so, I concur.

If, however, the OP really did mean "Staring at the Sun is good for every part of your body" quite literally, that is wrong and potentially harmful.

4
This is how I understand the vacuum cleaner experiment, similar to how a plane can still fly with a strong headwind.



For the sake of simplicity I left out variables like the mass of the car, friction in the wheel bearings and surface etc.

If the vacuum cleaner was removed and the pressure was all at an equal 0 psi the acceleration of mass would still create force, no matter what atmospheric pressure it was in.

Hoppy

Well done for trying to simplify this with a diagramme which can often be helpful.

In your diagramme, F2 should be pointing right not left. The air blows out to the left, but the force on the car is moving it to the right.

Otherwise, this simplified version (without looking at friction) seems spot on.I'm not 100% clear what you meant in your last statement, but basically if you take the vacuum cleaner out of the equation, you remove "Force 1", regardless of what the air pressure is.

To make this situation the same as the Joule experiment, you'd need to have the air blowing out of the straw into some kind of evacuated container, and not have a balloon filled with air, but some other container (the balloon is clearly doing work on the air as it is forcing it out of the nozzle: there is nothing doing work on the air in the Joule experiment, hence it's referred to as "free expansion").

5
I don't need you to explain anything. Did you watch the video? You can see there is no headwind created by the vacuum. As if there was a fan blowing in front of the car. The vacuum is just creating a low pressure area at the nozzle of the balloon. When the balloon empties into an area of equal pressure there is an area of high pressure at the balloon nozzle, thus pushing the car. When the balloon empties into area of low pressure, there is no build up of high pressure and the car is still. Thus, this demonstrates the principle that legba has been trying to enlighten you about.

Hey, you can believe what you like, including Poppie's BS. But let's be clear about one thing: he isn't trying to enlighten anybody. He just enjoys a good old wind-up.

6
<mad disinfo-shit snipped>
Please stop using my quotes against me! Can't you see I'm crying on the inside here?

The Minus-Oneth Law of Thermodynamics, according to Poppa-Fhysics!!TM.

"an unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure"

Is this a lie?

7
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...

The Minus-Oneth Law of Thermodynamics, according to Poppa-Fhysics!!TM.

"an unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure"

Is this a lie?

8
Why are you both so mental?

^^ Thinks rockets can't work in vacuum ^^

9
^science & citation-free garbage snipped>

Why are you so mental?

Oh, I agree it's science-free, but it's not citation-free, you said it! Maybe you were having a 'herbal' moment...  :D

10
<mad bullshit snipped>

Why are you so mental?

Geoffrey!

You started it when you said "an unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure"!

11
Firstly, a vacuum cleaner does not "produce a vacuum". It reduces air pressure inside the device, which causes higher pressure air outside the device to flow in. All he's doing is creating a flow of air into the nozzle from the surrounding atmosphere.

Yes; & thus the air flowing from the balloon does less work, as external pressure is reduced...

Work = external Pressure x change in Volume, remember?

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work

LOL!!!

Watching shills shoot emselves in the foot never gets old...

Hi Geoff!

Have you submitted your paper one the Minus Oneth Law of Thermodynamics yet? You know, the one where an unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.

ROFLMAO!!  :D

12
Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
 That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.

Hoppy

I'm assuming this is the video you're referring to? He start doing his experiments about 7:00.



When he sticks the vacuum nozzle near the end of the straw, the car initially moves 4 out of 5 times (there was no movement the 4th time). He says he'll do another 3 experiments to get accurate data, but only does it once more.

So, 6 experiments in total, car moved in 4, didn't move in 2.

His conclusion? "Proof that rockets must push off an atmosphere." Even at the most rudimentary level of scientific understanding, how can he possibly make that claim, given that the actual data doesn't even support it (without even considering any other factors in why his demo is a bogus)?

Do the maths. Car moves 2/3 of the time, doesn't move 1/3 of the time.

Other problems with his experiment.

Firstly, a vacuum cleaner does not "produce a vacuum". It reduces air pressure inside the device, which causes higher pressure air outside the device to flow in.

So there is no vacuum created immediately in front of the nozzle - there is still air there! All he's doing is creating a flow of air into the nozzle from the surrounding atmosphere. It's possible that as the air is "sucked in" (I'm reluctant to use this term because their isn't really such a thing as a "suction force" in physics - when you suck through a straw, you reduce pressure in your mouth, and atmospheric pressure pushing down on the surface of the liquid forces it up through the straw), this flow of air over the car increases the force required to get the car moving, which may partly explain why the car didn't move twice.

Think of it this way. The only (horizontal) forces acting on the car are thrust, drag and friction. In order for the car to move, thrust must be greater than friction and drag. When he switches on the hoover, he's effectively increasing drag. The margin required to achieve movement is narrowed, so the car didn't move twice in 6 attempts.

He also increased the amount of friction (possibly unknowingly), by adding weights into the car for some reason. Increased weight means bigger load on the bearings, axle, wheels, requiring a larger force to get the car moving at all. It's possible that had he removed the weights, the car would have moved 6 out of 6 instead of only 4 out of 6.

As well as this video, check out the many videos of rockets working in a vacuum.

13
<Mad tl;dr science & citation-free disinfo-rant snipped>

No idea wtf you are blatheringing about; it has nothing to do with a single thing I said.

Option 2, I was right: woo-hoo!

Quote
You seem to believe that the laws of thermodynamics are a thing called 'Poppa-Fhyics' though, so it's pretty clear you are mental.

Fantastic! You're now claiming that this mess:-

Quote
The First Law of  Poppa-Fhysics!!TM: An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.

... is actually a Law of Thermodynamics!!!

Would that the law that states that a system's internal energy changes as energy is added or removed? Nope.

Or the one where entropy increases over time? Nope.

Or with one where temperature approaching zero K means entropy approaching zero? Probably not.

What about the Zeroth Law (always makes me laugh that they went from the 3rd Law to the Zeroth Law instead of the 4th Law), the one with three systems all happily co-existing in a state of thermal equilibrium together? Not on your nelly.

What you've actually invented here, Poppy, is this:-

The "Minus-1th Law of Thermodynamics" according to Poppa-Fhysics!!TM: An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.

I'nt Poppa-Fhysics brilliant! Coz, if you don't like real physics, you can just make sh!t up and hope people don't realise, then pwetend it's real physics by dropping in a link to some real physics that doesn't actually support Poppa-Fhysics! Brilliant!  :D

14
Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity?

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work

Slow learner aintcha Geoff?

Oh dear, this didn't start well for you, isn't going well, and it ain't gonna end well!

Your link goes to the page on Thermodynamics and Work, using the equation work=−PΔV.

But Poppy, pressure, volume and work or all scalar! Which is sad for Poppa-Fhysics!!TM, but does add some extra heat into the roasted nuts.

So, for the gazillionth time (I know, I'm exaggerating), please do explain, how 2 scalar quantities combine to produce a vector quantity, specifically how external pressure (scalar) and internal pressure (scalar) combine to produce an "unbalanced force" (shall we call that, errr, thrust - a vector quantity)?

Now, I know you won't (can't), and you know you won't (can't), and everyone else reading this thread knows you won't (can't), but holding your feet to the fire just adds to the fun Poppy!

Just so we know where we're at, according to Poppa-Fhysics!!TM:-

The First Law of  Poppa-Fhysics!!TM: An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.

Let's chew on that one for a while... an internal pressure 'meets' an external pressure, and creates an 'unbalanced force'.

Presumably, according to  Poppa-Fhysics!!TM, if the internal pressure is the same as the external pressure, then there is no unbalanced force, so the rocket doesn't move? By the same rationale, can we make the assumption that as we increase the pressure inside the rocket engine, the unbalanced force increases in direct proportion to the difference between the internal and external pressures? Sounds reasonable.

Thought experiment. What happens if we increase the pressure inside the rocket engine, by burning fuel and oxidiser? Pressure inside combustion chamber is very high, pressure outside is 1 Atmosphere. By the First Law, this creates an unbalanced force, and the rocket lifts off. Sounds reasonable.

So, our rocket reaches the heady heights of 1000 feet above sea level. The pressure in the rocket is pretty much constant (we're burning fuel and oxidiser at the same rate), but atmospheric pressure has dropped slightly. By the First Law of  Poppa-Fhysics!!TM, this increases the unbalanced force, providing greater thrust on the rocket.

This process continues, with our imaginary rocket getting higher and higher, the atmospheric pressure getting lower and lower, and the unbalanced force gradually getting higher in proportion to the pressure difference, until... at some notional height, to be explained by Poppa, the number of atmospheric molecules per cubic metre goes from 5, to 4, 3, 2, 1... OK, still an atmosphere, so now our highest level of thrust yet... aaaand, zero molecules per cubic metre, perfect vacuum, aaaaaand, the balanced force magically disappears, the level of thrust instantly drops to zero, and our plucky little rocket plummets back to earth.

Now, I predict Poppy's counter argument will go one of two ways:

Firstly, he might claim that the unbalanced force actually gets SMALLER as the pressure difference increases (which is counter to the First Law of  Poppa-Fhysics!!TMm since if the pressures are the same, there is no unbalanced force.

Secondly, he will just post some psychobabble and ignore the post!

I vote for option 2. After all,

Quote from: Papa Legba
Total silence from Poppy in the face of even the slightest opposition = An action typical of cowards & bullies btw.

Strudels!

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: December 09, 2016, 04:49:44 AM »
Atmospheric pressure under a dome is waved away in favour of a spinning frigging ball in a nothingness but also a warped space time mattress dent and blah blah blah.

It's so silly.

Well, we can observe other spinning balls in the nothingness, so it's not unreasonable to assume the Earth may be the same. Assuming a dome when there's no evidence for it, and we cant observe it elsewhere, is more of a stretch.'

There's also evidence of warped space (gravitational lensing).

16
The difference between Gov technology and common user technology is gettin thinner every day.

Don't you think that Private Camera Drones will be able to fly in space  in the next times?

People have been sending home-made drones (cameras attached to helium weather balloons) and launching them into the heavens for some years now.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/uk/news/articles/lifestyle/watch-lost-gopros-out-of-this-world-footage/57098/

Here's one of the images they captured from 98,000 feet.


17
CONCLUSION:
Legba 1
Shills  0

Interpretation: I haven't got a clue what happened here, have no idea how 2 scalar quantities combine to produce a vector, but I'd better lend some moral support to my 'troof-buddy' cos I don't like to see him get roasted.

Loyalty is a great personality trait: so well done, you! I award you a "Faithful Puppy Certificate Tier 1". You may use it as your avatar.


18
Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity?

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work

Slow learner aintcha Geoff?

Oh dear, this didn't start well for you, isn't going well, and it ain't gonna end well!

Your link goes to the page on Thermodynamics and Work, using the equation work=−PΔV.

But Poppy, pressure, volume and work or all scalar! Which is sad for Poppa-Fhysics!!TM, but does add some extra heat into the roasted nuts.

So, for the gazillionth time (I know, I'm exaggerating), please do explain, how 2 scalar quantities combine to produce a vector quantity, specifically how external pressure (scalar) and internal pressure (scalar) combine to produce an "unbalanced force" (shall we call that, errr, thrust - a vector quantity)?

Now, I know you won't (can't), and you know you won't (can't), and everyone else reading this thread knows you won't (can't), but holding your feet to the fire just adds to the fun Poppy!

19

Hoping people won't spot my attempts at deflection away from the questions I can't answer!


Again

Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity (thrust!)

Thought not. Running out of roasted nuts now.

Strudels!

20

More psychobabble


^^ Stuck in a loop again, evidence of poor shill-bot programming ^^

Meanwhile...

Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity (thrust!)

21
<demented disinfo-rant snipped>

Why are you so mental?

^^ Admitting that he screwed up big-stylee. ^^


22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS (real) and Gravity (fake)
« on: December 08, 2016, 06:19:25 AM »
Possible. Actually i'm thinking that about 40.000 feet the planes near to be zero weight. So they are flying on that altitude. After that we can accept it as zero.
Private planes often fly higher than that. Someone would notice the absence of gravity.

Concorde had a cruise altitude of 60,000 feet. I don't recall people saying they floated around the cabin.

23
Quote
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway

If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).

^^ Poppa claiming that rockets don't work in an atmosphere ^^

(Whistles in a 'Saviours-from-The-Walking-Dead' manner)

I never wrote that.

Just click on my name & see where it takes you.

Nice try though.

More proof the title of this thread is correct.

P.s. why are you all so mental?

As noted by others on this thread, the link does indeed take you through to that exact quote!

Your claim: Pressure is scalar hence, there can not be an unbalanced force in the chamber!

You the came out with some anti-science mumbo jumbo Poppa-Fhyics!!TM about the internal pressure meeting an external pressure to create an unbalanced force.

(Let's humour it for a while and how good its programming is).

Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity (thrust!)

I'm bored of pop-corn now, I'm looking forward to some good old-fashioned roasted nuts instead.

That's the problem with lying for a living: eventually you catch yourself out!

Strudels!

24
Quote
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway

If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).

^^ Poppa claiming that rockets don't work in an atmosphere ^^

(Whistles in a 'Saviours-from-The-Walking-Dead' manner)



25
Flat Earth General / Re: Look what I found!
« on: December 07, 2016, 09:33:41 AM »
My word, it really is stuck in a boot loop.

26
The combustion chamber is put under immense heat and pressure.

It has not even been shown that combustion is possible in a vacuum for a start.

Well, when you're on the ropes, swinging wildly is an option of last resort.

Quote
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway

This is already already answered (see below), but there is a better answer, just for you. If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).

Velocity is a vector quantity. Rocket thrust in a vacuum is given by:-

F = mVe + peAe

Hence, the thrust produced is also a vector. But you have proven something! Despite your inability to comprehend how vector and scalar quantities combine, you claim to be the only person on the planet capable of interpreting the Joule experiment to mean that all of rocket science is wrong! Good job, you! Well done sir!

(This roast is getting a little dry as it's going on too long - will need gravy shortly).

Quote
An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.

In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.

I'll re-plate your dinner and send it out again.

The pressure is created in the combustion chamber, which has a narrow opening (called the throat) at one end. That creates an imbalance of forces.

Quote
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.

This is all perfectly understandable if you simply get your head round free expansion btw.

Wrongety wrong. The gas isn't freely expanding, as it is being constantly created in the combustion chamber. Pressure, ooh, several hundred Pa for the duration of the burn.

Quote
Or understand that you cannot push on nothing.

Kerrect! You can, of course, push on a rocket.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE VS GE moon landing
« on: December 07, 2016, 08:34:20 AM »
What's a "genuine" flat earth "theorist"?
Someone that is honestly believing/theorising it over a silly globe indoctrinated model, for starters.
[/quote]

Silly globe indoctrinated model? I've yet to see any observable phenomena or data that isn't compatible with GET. Most of the FET arguments seem to be along the lines of "This alternative model explains all observable phenomena (untrue, but that's the claim), so prove my theory wrong if you can."

Can you name a single set of data or observed phenomena that doesn't fit with GET, but does with RET?

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?
« on: December 06, 2016, 05:12:04 PM »
He asked for "proof" - here it is. Just how many of them is he?
He is:
Papa Lgbt
Cikljamas
Totallackey
PsychoPill
Empirical
Definitely Ashill
Forum Penis
.... am I missing any?

Unless he's suffering from a delusion that doesn't even have a name, he definitely isn't me! Yet he's convinced I'm Geoff... Maybe there is only one person on this board and we/I'm so completely fucked up that all the members are just shining facets of our/my totally screwed up personality syndrome.

Nurse? Meds!

29
no science no citations as usual

Meh...

No science no citations again

Meh...

Why do you lot keep mistaking just saying shit for science?

Back to this:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work

In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...

The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.

As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.

And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html


Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false

Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".

Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.

To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.

And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...

Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!

Toodle-pip, LOSERS!

^^ The shill-bot has exceeded its design limitation and is stuck in a loop ^^

30
Please read:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work

In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...

The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.

As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.

^^ Being deliberately stupid ^^

Already been told that the gas does work against the combustion chamber, not against the vacuum. This is a deficiency in the programming of the shill-bot, can the operator please fix and post a better answer.

Quote
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".

^^ Being deliberately stupid ^^

Already been told that the gas does work against the combustion chamber, not against the vacuum. This is a deficiency in the programming of the shill-bot, can the operator please fix and post a better answer.

Quote
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.

Pretty conclusive: Proppa D-K cannot possibly be a functioning human being.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7