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.
Please keep low-content posts out of the upper fora.Is this possible? How do you think this would work? Could it fit to the NASA "photos"?
No.
This isn't "low content" Obviously, something can't be at once spherical and flat without re-writing the dictionary. Words have definitions, the two are (very, very obviously) mutually exclusive. If someone says "Is a glass of water also a pretzel?" the answer would simply be "no"; no further explanation was warranted. I stand by my (absolutely correct) post.
It is low-content and adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe try including an explanation, or try to gather further information from the OP, as he may not be explaining things clearly.
That video did not prove gravity exists in a vacuum. He turned the tube which "pushes" the feather and coins to move.
I'm not being funny here but your post doesn't make sense, can you elaborate here?They all work with the same principle, as in, they act against the atmosphere, whether it's a fire cracker or a hose or a rocket or anything else for that matter.If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.
I know how a hose works, and you've done a good job of ignoring the firecracker too.
Think of each molecule of gas being released from the fire cracker - When it's ejected, it's free to move on its own. How is its free movement helping the body accelerate? It isn't. We know this because the cracker will take off even if sitting on the ground (the gas doesn't keep moving away from the cracker even after release).
I'm sure you agree with this, right?
They all work with the same principle, as in, they act against the atmosphere, whether it's a fire cracker or a hose or a rocket or anything else for that matter.If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.
I know how a hose works, and you've done a good job of ignoring the firecracker too.
If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.
And it does not push against the atmosphere right? Is this what you think?The exhaust gases move in one direction the rocket moves in the opposite direction. What am I missing?So where exactly is the rocket pushed from to make it take flight?
The momentum of the rocket in one direction and the momentum of the gases in the other direction 'cancel out' each other so the total momentum of the system remains unchanged. That's what it means to conserve the momentum. As the rocket has momentum it has speed and therefore movement.
I'd love to do the same but I cannot answer the question, except to say, it cannot happen. How can I say otherwise if I believe it cannot happen?The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.
Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.
Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.
Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.
Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
When I argue a point with people like you, I have to use what you accept as true to make my points, which is why I try and destroy your little magical things from how you people think.No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?
Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.
The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.
And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
How is his post irrelevant? You only have a problem with a perfect vacuum, and no one has ever claimed that there are absolutely no gases where satellites orbit. In fact, you even made a thread a while back about satellites needing to be reboosted.
No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?
Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.
The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.
And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
I think we can safely put conservation of momentum in the bin for this one, as you appear not to want to answer it.
Rockets can not go out of the breathable atmosphere and they do not work without breathable atmosphere.
I don't need it explaining to be honest, I just like the way it gets squirmed out of to explain rockets.
All ways are tried to discount atmosphere working with rockets and they are scraping the barrel, plus reliant of scientific bull crap.
Simply explain it on this topic, please. Use the rockets vertical ascent and briefly explain what this conservation of momentum does and how it works with a rocket.I just want you to explain it, as you seem to go on about it all the time, so explain it as your reason for rocket propulsion and how it works in getting that rocket up and into so called space.what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.
Do you understand conservation of momentum even at all or just can't/won't apply it to rockets?
Yes, I do go on about it sometimes and have explained the principle on numerous occasions, yet you still don't know what it means... But since you're too lazy to look it up for yourself, and I'm too lazy to repeat myself again only to have you spit on it with contempt,
Here you go.
I just want you to explain it, as you seem to go on about it all the time, so explain it as your reason for rocket propulsion and how it works in getting that rocket up and into so called space.what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.
Do you understand conservation of momentum even at all or just can't/won't apply it to rockets?
what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.
You are going to have to explain a lot better than that. Tell me about this conservation of momentum for the rockets vertical lift off and how this all works.The gases are accelerated out the rear of the rocket, and the conservation of momentum states...?What do you mean, the conservation of momentum? Just clarify what you mean when applying this to a rocket.supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.
Then let me just make a few modifications to my previous post:Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely and that you need an atmosphere for propulsion. But unfortunately,
1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical
4) It ignores the conservation of momentum
So I guess you don't understand air pressure and propulsion either.
The gases are accelerated out the rear of the rocket, and the conservation of momentum states...?What do you mean, the conservation of momentum? Just clarify what you mean when applying this to a rocket.supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.
Then let me just make a few modifications to my previous post:Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely and that you need an atmosphere for propulsion. But unfortunately,
1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical
4) It ignores the conservation of momentum
So I guess you don't understand air pressure and propulsion either.
supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.
Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely and that you need an atmosphere for propulsion. But unfortunately,
1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical
4) It ignores the conservation of momentum
So I guess you don't understand air pressure and propulsion either.
You need to learn to stop twisting things.
I'll try again.
Air on the ground pumped into a container at 28 psi will stay in that container because the container is designed to hold it from exploding and equalising with the air pressure outside of it.
If you were to take that same container with 14 psi in it into the sky, it will at some point, explode due to the pressure inside, managing to exert it's force due to expansion, against lesser and lesser force acting against that container.
On the ground, you still had 14psi pushing down on it and around it. Not so as you get higher.
Well, if you understood air pressure, you would not be arguing about space rockets, you would realise they can not get into space, yet you believe they can, so obviously you cannot understand air pressure and expansion, can you, seriously.
Did I actually say that?But let us try a different approach, shall we? Our 28 psi air tank on Earth. What is stopping the air from expanding outward to equalize pressure with the surrounding air and rupturing the tank?The tank itself due to it's strength.
So the tank itself produces a 14 psi pressure inward?
Did I imply that?
Have I mentioned that?
You need to know how air pressure works before I can explain it to you. Many think they know but none, so far appear to know it fully.
What I'm saying is, the cylinder can hold the pressure against breaching it, because it won't expand anymore.
In a vacuum it will expand and expand until it gets into that vacuum.
Think of a helium balloon. The higher it gets, the more it expands, until it goes pop and that's helium which is naturally in the upper atmosphere, so now imagine air pressure.
It shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Complete expansion in a vacuum, if it were possible. What does this mean?
On earth, your tank holds compressed air at 28 psi, against 14psi so it's attempt at expansion is held back by a thick cylinder, against an opposing force.
In a vacuum like space, the tank at 14 psi has nothing to hold it back, at all, so it expands to it's fullest, meaning the cylinder is breached.
Any problems with this?
Call it what you want, it has no bearing on my thoughts.A vacuum, or should I say, "an absolute vacuum" means nothing travels through it, no matter how much you want to believe it will.I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that they hope things can travel through a vacuum. Wishful thinking isn't on our agenda.We can't even get to grips with our own earth and yet people just want to believe in all this fantasy about our sun only being a little star among billions of much bigger stars that are hundreds/thousands, etc, light years away. Come on for gods sake, have a bleeding think about it all....But this sure sounds like nothing other than wishful thinking.
Just sit for a few hours outside in the sun and have a look at it, shining brightly in "our atmosphere" and you can see it's no huge supposed 1 million km diameter glowing ball of nuclear fusion.
A vacuum, or should I say, "an absolute vacuum" means nothing travels through it, no matter how much you want to believe it will.I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that they hope things can travel through a vacuum. Wishful thinking isn't on our agenda.
We can't even get to grips with our own earth and yet people just want to believe in all this fantasy about our sun only being a little star among billions of much bigger stars that are hundreds/thousands, etc, light years away. Come on for gods sake, have a bleeding think about it all....But this sure sounds like nothing other than wishful thinking.
Just sit for a few hours outside in the sun and have a look at it, shining brightly in "our atmosphere" and you can see it's no huge supposed 1 million km diameter glowing ball of nuclear fusion.
You need to stop getting mixed up with bell jars and what not, on earth.One theory pops up and off we go, until someone comes along and picks it apart, so now the added parts are fitted into it and so on and so on, right up until this very day and beyond, as things get picked apart.
Yep, sounds about right, and is quite a necessary consequence of the "proof by contradiction"-like philosophy of science.
Is this a problem?It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't travel through a vacuum.
So Bell jars, which are used all the time down here on Earth in demonstrations and can easily be seen through, should appear black?
I suppose I came up with a way out of this, which is blaming it on the conspiracy, using strong magnets to keep the jar in place, though without anything metallic in the jar ...
No vacuum can be made on earth. Can't you get your head around this?
Nothing travels through a true vacuum, not sound, not light, nothing.
I inform you that I have given this book to physicists and they were frustrated after reading some chapters. They couldnt believe that some basic things had gone unnoticed by them. Believe it or not, instead of laughing they began questioning heliocentrism.
The speed of light needs calibrating severely.
And why do you think this distinct line happens?I just want you to be clear on what an horizon is, I'm not playing games.
The distinct line where the land and sky meet.
Do you also want me to explain how this works in both RET and FET for you?
