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 - Mainframes

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70
1
Flat Earth General / Re: 'Two Moons' Confirm Domes
« on: January 29, 2020, 04:57:11 AM »
All I can see is the moon, the out of focus foreground street light, and the lens flare fromsaid street light...

Try harder next time.

2
A gas effectively consists of multitudes of small particles bouncing around.

When those particles are in a sealed container, the action of all these particles bouncing around exerts pressure on the walls of the container.

This pressure is equal on all sides and therefore an equal force acts on walls of the container.

Now make a hole in one wall of the container.

Gas particles pass through the hole without exerting pressure on container and this force on that wall is lower.

Therefore there is a higher force on the wall opposite the hole.

If there is more force one one side of the container than the other then it will accelerate.

3



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.

In reality this is not observed in any way.

4
Once again Sceptimatic shows that he doesnít understand the difference between compression and tensile stress on a cylinder.

A cylinder is at least an order of magnitude stronger in tensile vs compression.

5
Quote
Normally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank)

As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.

Does that makes sense to you? :)

EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?

As you can see already: pressure in storage tanks (area before the pumps) is between 1 and 4 bar.
From that pressure the pumps are transporting it to the chamber where the pressure is 70 bar.
So, ofcourse they are under pressure. It is not vacuum in those tanks.
But that pressure is much lower than the pressure they generate while burning in combustion chamber.
Without the pumps some gas would return from the chamber to the tanks.
It would prevent the intake of more fuel and oxidizer.

And indeed this is why one of the most complex engineering challenges of any rocket engine (along with stopping it melting) is designing the turbo pumps to feed the combustion chamber.

6
Mass of rocket + fuel after ignition but before ejection remains constant.

Once fuel is ejected then mass of rocket and fuel decreases BUT the mass of rocket + fuel + ejected fuel still remains constant. Conservation momentum over the rocket + fuel + ejected fuel demands that the rocket therefore accelerates in the opposite direction to ejected fuel.

No air required.

7
An obvious experiment, take a Beach ball, and throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
Take your medicine ball, of the same size, throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
As the balls have the same displacement of air should they not move your skateboard the same amount?
What are the results?
And why?
Good example.

There is decidedly air reacting to the surface area of the beachball.

That serves to provide some resistance against the force of you pushing it.

A medicine ball of the same size?

More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.

It is not the matter of ejection of the medicine ball from your grasp that is causing you to go in the opposite direction.

It is the force of your arms pushing against the medicine ball, serving as a temporary wall that is causing you to go the other way.

So a bit like when a rocket pushes against its own exhaust gases then.......

8
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

What I understand is what gumwars already mentioned:

A small claims court in Barrow County, Georgia, found for the defendant regarding a contest put forth that (From Zen Garcia's FB page):
"Offering $5000 to any individual anywhere in the world, the payout was contingent on somebody submitting two scientifically repeatable experiments, which could verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination, should the earth be a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference."

1) There was a dispute over the "verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination". Insofar that the defendant's accepted formula, 8 inches per mile squared, is not actually correct.
2) The Plaintiff submitted 2 YT videos for his submission as evidence to win the contest
3) The defendant rejected them
4) The Plaintiff then sued for $15k, why, I don't know
5) The contest was unwinnable to begin with, see #1
6) The judge determined there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiff to win the contest and collect, I guess, damages on top.

I agree, I would have ruled against the Plaintiff as well.

This is akin to suing because you didn't win the giant stuffed panda bear at the 4H county fair after losing ten rounds of 'ring toss on the Coke bottle'.

If you FEr's want to cite this case as anything more than that, have at it. It's laughable and kinda sad at the same time.

You lost because you can't prove curvature.

A small court case lost because the plaintiff provided very limited and very poor evidence.

9
Dutch

Please just show us one ďstudioĒ attribute in an Apollo photo that will stand up to any scrutiny. It would need a detailed explanation with backing science as to why it is a studio photo and not actually taken on the moon.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Dinosaurs: Made In China
« on: September 20, 2019, 10:52:52 AM »
Indeed rvlvr. The last few weeks have had a host of new dragons, including... we'll... an actual dragon. They aren't even trying to hide it now:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/meet-canada-s-newly-identified-pterosaur-the-frozen-dragon-of-the-north-wind-1.4586954

Oh they previously mistook it for a known species? What a science it is when they can't even identify their own mythological cryptozoological beasts.

It was as large as a plane and only in Northern America? It's laughable to believe this nonsense.

Condors are enormous and only inhabit South America......
I've never seen a plane sized condor. Such a beast would be against everything we know about

Against everything we know....? Such as?

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Dinosaurs: Made In China
« on: September 19, 2019, 09:26:33 AM »
Indeed rvlvr. The last few weeks have had a host of new dragons, including... we'll... an actual dragon. They aren't even trying to hide it now:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/meet-canada-s-newly-identified-pterosaur-the-frozen-dragon-of-the-north-wind-1.4586954

Oh they previously mistook it for a known species? What a science it is when they can't even identify their own mythological cryptozoological beasts.

It was as large as a plane and only in Northern America? It's laughable to believe this nonsense.

Condors are enormous and only inhabit South America......

12
Cikljamas - a vacuum does not suck out gas from a vessel.

The gas molecules all have their own velocity which causes them to eventually exit the vessel.

A vacuum just means there is nothing to prevent the gas molecules escaping.

Perhaps if you actually understood basic physics you might understand how rocket engines worked.

13
A few simple questions:
1) Do exhaust gasses have mass?
2) Are the exhaust gasses accelerated?
3) Does mass x acceleration still equal a force?
4) Does the force accelerating the exhaust gasses cause an equal and opposite force acting on the rocket engine?

Yes except 4. Just like when you drop a ball from a height. No opposite force acting on your hand

Yes, gravity is doing all the hard work. There is no opposite force acting on your hand because your hand didn't do anything to propel the ball.

Rocket science is actually really really easy.

Sorry but no. Exhaust gases are leaving the rocket at a far greater velocity than achievable by acceleration due to gravity alone.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water and spinning ball
« on: June 23, 2019, 06:38:36 AM »

It's not a "perfect vacuum" and the solar wind is rather sparse!At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density of about 6 ions/cm3. This is not very dense at all!
What tool was used to measure this solar wind?
When I was a very young child I believed all kinds of fairy stories but I grew out of it when I was old enough to realise why they were designed.

Your ignorance of a subject doesnít make it any less true.

Go and read about the Ulysses probe (amongst others).

15
Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.

Pushing from the outside will test the tubes compressive strength and stiffness. Pushing from the inside will test the tubes tensile strength. The difference between the two can be orders of magnitude.

Try it for yourself. Take a tube of pretty much any material, toilet roll, thin plastic, metal etc. Try to crush the tube will your fist and you should manage fairly easily. Now try and break the tube from the inside. It is far more difficult to break the tube from the inside.

And there is the difference between your steel rail car crushed by atmospheric pressure and the ISS containing atmospheric pressure.

This is the most basic fundamentals of materials science and mechanical engineering. .

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water and spinning ball
« on: June 23, 2019, 05:28:25 AM »
Place your water coated ball in an evacuation chamber and evacuate as much atmosphere as the pressure inside allows in expansion...

This is exactly why there's no liquid water on the surface of Moon or Mars.
There's no atmospheric pressure to keep the molecules in the liquid.
If some liquid water by any means emerges there, it won't last for long.
Some will evaporate instantaneously, taking the most of the energy with, and leaving the rest to freeze.
Evaporate to where?
Explain how this would happen on your moon and then explain how the atmosphere doesn't evaporate into your space from your Earth ball.

1) Earth has a larger gravitational pull than the moon and Mars.  This increases the energy required by a gas to escape into space.

2) the Earth has an active magnetic field that stops solar wind from stripping the atmosphere. Imagine a pressure washer blasting the planet, and that is solar wind. Mars and the moon have no magnetic field to deflect solar wind and get the full blast.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water and spinning ball
« on: June 20, 2019, 12:11:23 PM »
I have seen the claim several times that if the earth were spinning 1000mph, then the oceans/water would just spin off the earth.  A video of a wet ball spinning very fast is shown and water is flying off the ball in all directions.
Here is something to consider, try the experiment with a different but equal scale.
The earth spins 1000 mph, yes.   But in the case of the earth, it completes a full rotation every 24 hours. 
So with that in mind, wet a ball and instead of spinning it very fast with an absolute speed, i.e. 'spinning 1000 mph', spin the ball with the equivalent speed that would equate to a rotation speed of one rotation per 24 hours
as a reference, for a basketball that is about 30 inches in diameter, it would spin about 1.25 inches per hour, which equates to a speed of .0000197 miles per hour
Does the water 'fly off in all directions' if you spin a basketball at this speed
The experiment is pointless. It's a scam.
The operative words are spinning at over 1000 mph.
It doesn't matter about it taking a supposed 24 hours for one supposed rotation. The reality would be, if this was a fact....it would be seeing water and everything else flying off of the supposed ball.

You can't argue centripetal force holding a supposed satellite or space station at super speed and then try and narrow it down to a basketball spinning so slowly to argue a point.

The water still falls off a ball whether it's spinning or not, except for the ridiculousness of a global one.
There's a valid reason for the water not falling off this Earth and the valid reason certainly is NOT due to Earth being a rotating globe or even a stationary globe.

The argument for a globe used to be very convincing when very few people bothered to counter it.
It's about as convincing as a salesperson trying to sell chocolate fire guards in the winter months and giving you a 10 year guarantee on it's rigidity and safety whilst the fire is blazing behind it..

Still donít understand vector mechanics I see....

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 09, 2019, 11:30:45 PM »
So Sceptimatic tells us to be free thinkers but he is incapable of visualising a very large pump pushing large volumes of liquid through a large pipe.....?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 08, 2019, 01:05:44 AM »
If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.
Here's a fun fact for you.  I doubt that you ever paid that much attention, but most launches are to the east.  This means that you get to use that nearly 1000 mph spin of the earth to get a head start on the 17,500 mph speed that you need to reach orbit.
I thought the rocket gets dragged along. This is what keeps being said, so what's all this about turn?
Also, why most launches?

It seems this Earth spin is used when it suits but not used when it also suits. Weird that, eh?

So, basically you still donít understand basic scientific concepts and therefore itís all wrong and/or fake.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: weight
« on: February 27, 2019, 10:44:18 PM »
There are places on which the same object with the same mass has (slightly) different weights on those places.

That's because the earth 'breathes'. It moves up and down gradually everyday with different rates by time.

This 'breathing earth' phenomenon not only gives the same object different weights (which is affected by the force magnitude), but also gives the answers about why there are tides (non gravitional one) as well as sea waves etc.
So how does the earth "breathing" cause any change of weight? You have things a bit backwards.

When the earth surface moves up, the weight gets higher. Vice versa.

Why does the earth never breath both ways? Weight is always constant in a particular spot.

21
So youíre basically saying youíll ignore all evidence that you donít agree with and push your own agenda without a shred of your own evidence to back it up.

And you have the audacity to criticise us.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 20, 2019, 07:16:29 AM »
If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.
Well here's something for you to ponder.
When you exhaust something you get rid of spent fuel.
This is the nonsense with the rocket.
The trouble is everyone can plainly see that the fuel is absolutely not spent as it exist the rocket, it's actually doing a job right at that nozzle and so far out into the atmosphere.
What is it doing?
It's expanding that atmosphere by rushing the atmosphere away from it's burn, which compresses the atmosphere massively against the massive expansion of the fuel burn.

It's a mutual action and equal and opposite reaction as the end product of the first action and reaction of the fuel being expelled to be mixed for that burn.

Two things going on as far as fuel is concerned.

Does anyone have a Gibberish to English translator...?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 19, 2019, 06:14:41 AM »
If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 17, 2019, 01:04:04 PM »
It's funny because people actually overlooked a massive massive error in an experiment  to prove rockets work in so called space or a so called near vacuum.

The one they couldn't get to ignite but then managed to do it in the big long so called vacuum chamber.
Anyone remember this?

Eventually they showed that a rocket could work in space by using a scale measuring inside the chamber.
Anyone any wiser?

The rocket, once ignited after a few goes exerted pressure onto the scale.

Anyone remember now?

Can any genuine person see where the massive error was made in trying to fool us into believing rockets work in space?

I'll let people ponder on this. Come of alternative thinkers to the mainstream ideals, don't let the globalists have their own way to try and get out of this one because it's a beauty.

I'll be back in a short while to see if anyone has sussed the major error.

You only think there is an error because you donít understand basic physics and chemistry.

25
All of Newtonís laws are based upon first principles.

You then apply these principles to real life situations in order to reduce complex situations into a series of simple ones.

Hence use of first law to apply a series of forces on an object at work out what would actually happen.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 16, 2019, 07:23:54 AM »
Motion through electromagnetic repulsion or attraction is an easy example. The two objects arenít in physical contact and yet will create a force upon each other.
Me and you running at each other will not create a physical contact but will feel a compression force upon us until we overcome it to crash into each other.
It all depends on friction by expansion and contraction of atmospheric molecules by the energy applied to create that.

What compression force? Please provide experimental evidence.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 16, 2019, 05:54:37 AM »
Motion through electromagnetic repulsion or attraction is an easy example. The two objects arenít in physical contact and yet will create a force upon each other.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 16, 2019, 05:36:13 AM »
IE donít suggest something that is known to exist but destroys your denspressure.

29
Matter attracts other matter. Pretty simple.
Nahhh it's not pretty simple at all. In fact you cannot even understand why it happens. I try to tell you but you rely on a fictional force that you absolutely have no idea of.

Not pretty simple to you, is it?
What is pretty simply for you, is to hang onto what you're told and accept it without any proof and to use as an argument (in this instance) that mass attracts mass and believe that's some kind of legitimate answer.

Weak minded.

Quote from: Mainframes
Objects remain at same velocity unless acted on by a force. Also pretty simple.
This is not difficult to understand.
It's only pretty simple if you can have no force. Where do you know that can offer absolutely no force?

Do you deny that electrical charges of opposite charge are attracted to each other?
We donít know why that happens either but we know it happens and can measure it to extremely high levels of accuracy and predict its effects.

Attraction of matter to other matter is exactly the same. We donít know why but we do know how. And we can measure very accurately and repeatably.

These are fundamental universal forces.

I never said there was somewhere with absolutely no force but the law of motion still holds.
Letís say you roll a bill down a smooth slope. Are there any sideways forces on the ball? No. Thatís why it rolls in straight line. First law in action.

No stop being deliberately obtuse.


30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 16, 2019, 02:32:30 AM »
<irrelevant BS on Cavendish>
This topic isn't to discuss gravity. If you wish to do that, feel free to run along and make a new thread.

This thread is to discuss rockets/ICBMs.

Now again, you have accepted the first law of motion.
You have basically accepted the second law of motion, but assert that it requires air.
So I ask again, WHY DOES THE SECOND LAW REQUIRE AIR???

Again, you are yet to address this. So far all you have done is indicate that we can move air.
I have addressed it and addressed it very simply.

You cannot get a force upon mass without having friction. You can't have friction without attached matter with no free space.

On that note f=ma is fine in that process.
Take away the friction and your f=ma is a nothing.
Just remember you will never get a resistance/friction force in so called space with supposed stray particles just flitting about and think something can be pushed in it. It's not only illogical, it's a disgrace to think that people have been deliberately duped by this nonsense.

Why would friction be required to develop force on an object?

Iím not saying there is no friction mind. Moving objects are generally in a gas or on a surface and friction is generated as a result of motion.

Please note generated as a result of motion not required to generate motion.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70