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.
So you're saying somewhere below 100km altitude, Newton's 3rd Law breaks down completely then?
No I am not.
What altitude does the rocket fail?
Well below the Karman Line at 100km.
Not even momentum will get it beyond that...
The propellant is burned in the combustion chamber. The exhaust wants to expand equally in all directions, but it can only escape in one direction. Keep in mind, this is a rather explosive combustion. The rocket needs to move in the opposite direction with equal force to the escaping exhaust to be in agreement with Newton's 3rd Law. Anything different would be a violation of the law. How is this hard to grasp?
Tell your CSIRO scientist buddy to stop making up stories, IMO!
I didnt move the goal posts. Originally I said can you get a reptile scale to a bird feather or at least intended that. So I'll clarify. You can't get a reptile scale into a bird feather. They have different gene sequence. Plus I'd addressed you claim to begin with.
I guess with your latest post, i guess it's a meme/shitpost. I'll bite. Ladies and gentlemen, introducing DONUT EARTH!
This theory proposes that the sun and moon go THROUGH the hole in the world, so day and night can work!! That's the first "troll" post i've made so far. If you want to continue with the ring earth theory, you're already part of the intellictual elite
combustion is false too. why doesn't a match shoot forwards whenever you light it? checkmateHow can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
Combustion, for one.
How can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
thrust is a propaganda construct of NASA, no proof there, try again.
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
Rocket fire goes down:
MAGIC!
It's well described with math... would that be getting a little too in-depth for you? Here's the equation with a pretty picture (ignore that evil NASA word on it. You won't.):
Tell me... what's the mass flow rate coming out of the lighter? And the velocity and area? Do you think those numbers are going to be small by comparison to a rocket??
why doesnt the fire go up in NASA's image? that's right, because it is FAKE
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
Rocket fire goes down:
MAGIC!
How do you explain then why in "orbit" around the "round" earth you don't continue flying outwards forever if you burn fuel westwards? you're locked in the planet's orbit? contradictions? proves why flat eart is real
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
What they did with the chicken was expressed a gen already in place. Chicken scales are different than reptile scales.
EXTRACTS FROM HISTORY OF LIFE, 3rd edition (2000)
From Chapter 13:
The Origin of Feathers
The proteins that make feathers in living birds are completely unlike the proteins that make reptilian scales today. Feathers originate in a skin layer deep under the outer layer that forms scales. It is very unlikely that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, even though that thought is deeply embedded in the minds of too many paleontologists. Feathers probably arose as new structures under and between reptile scales, not as modified scales. Many birds have scales on their lower legs and feet where feathers are not developed, and penguins have such short feathers on parts of their wings that the skin there is scaly for all practical purposes. So there is no real anatomical problem in imagining the evolution of feathers on a scaly reptilian skin. But feathers evolved in theropods as completely new structures, and any reasonable explanation of their origin has to take this into account.
The DNA of feathers doesn't exist in reptile scales so where did the information came from?
DNA sequences have been obtained for embryonic chick feather and scale keratin genes. Strong homologies exist between the protein coding regions of the two gene types and between the deduced amino acid sequences of the keratin proteins. Scale keratins are larger than feather keratins and the size difference is mainly attributable to four 13-amino acid repeats between residues 77 and 128 which compose a peptide sequence rich in glycine and tyrosine. The strong similarities between the two peptide structures for feather and scale in the homologous regions suggests a similar conformation within the protein filaments. A likely consequence is that the additional repeat region of the scale protein is located externally to the core filament. Tissue-specific features of filament aggregation may be attributable to this one striking sequence difference between the constituent proteins. It is believed that the genes share a common ancestry and that feather-like keratin genes may have evolved from a scale keratin gene by a single deletion event.
Based on fossil evidence, we know that the first non-avian theropods with simple, single-filament feathers lived about 190 million years ago, and that non-avian theropods with feathers having a complex branching structure like those of present-day birds (pennaceous feathers) existed about 135 million years ago. This fossil evidence raises two important questions. First, if not derived from scales, how did feathers evolve and, second, how did simple, single-filament feathers evolve to become much more complex pennaceous feathers? Of course, a related question is, given that non-avian theropods did not fly, what function or functions did these feathers serve?
Both fossil and developmental evidence suggests that feathers evolved through a series of transitional stages, each the result of a developmental evolutionary novelty or, in other words, a new mechanism of growth (Prum 1999, Prum and Brush 2002, 2003). The first feathers, like those of Beipiaosaurus , were unbranched, hollow cylinders that developed from the tubular elongation (the feather germ) of a placode (Figure 9 below). The advantage of a tubular feather germ is that growth of a structure (in this case, a feather) can occur without an increase in the size of the skin itself (in contrast to, for example, scales; Prum 2005). An important step in the evolution of the first feathers was a change in characteristics of the placode. Both scales and feathers begin development from placodes, but feather development, in contrast to scale development, requires generation of suprabasal cell populations (dermal condensations) to form the follicle (see Figure 8 above). The development of placodes where dermal condensations occur, an evolutionary novelty, required changes in gene expression and timing. However, such changes are known to be an important mechanism in the origin of morphological innovations in many other organisms (True and Carroll 2002, Prum 2005).
Uh, noooooo....... I was just stating a fact: That General Relativity did not jive with the theories that the scientists postulate about our universe, so Einstein had to invent a "special theory" for them- which does not prove a flat earth- but does pretty much prove that what the "scientists" speculate about our universe and preach as though it were fact, is false; or conversely, General Relativity is false- but obviously something being false, does not prove one of many alternatives true- but does make the likelihood of an alternative being true more apt.
[Other stuff not relevant to my response]
