Moon conspiracy

Ok, as we have been told; a rocket is no different to a kids balloon as in, fill it with air, nip the end and let it go and it flies through the air until the air is expelled.
Obviously rockets use fuel to burn but the concept is similar.

So here's the experiment.

What you need.
I really large balloon and one really small one.
A tube that fits the neck of the balloons.

Lay the large balloon flat on the table....we will call this balloon, the vacuum of space as it has no air inside it.

Attach the tube to this balloon.
Now blow up the small balloon....(This is your rocket) and nip neck at the base, then attach it to the tube, so now you have one tube in both necks of the balloons.

Release your grip on the smaller balloon and what you will see is, the small balloon, (rocket) will expel it's air into the other larger balloon , (space) but it will not want to shoot away because the larger balloon has took away all it's air as fast as it could expel it.

The reason why the small balloon refuses to shoot off, is because the air it's expelling is encountering no resistance and is just being swallowed up by the larger balloon.

Try it.

I made a drawing

The balloon A is blowing air to the left, so it should be moving to the right (as the arrows show), the reason it doesn't, is because it it attached to another balloon, the balloon B is using exactly the same air balloon A is expelling to move to the left. The same expelled air that should make ballon A move to left is making balloon B move to right, as they are attached by a tube, none of them moves.

Roberto:
You have the large balloon ' A' (top) with air inside it.
The large balloon is mimicking space so it has no air inside it from the start...only the small balloon (B) has air inside it.

Oh i thought they were the same balloon, in that case the small ballon doesn't move because it is attached by a tube to a heavy object and the air force is not enough to move it.

For instance, when you throw the medicine ball away from you at a slow pace, you will be lucky to move an inch, but if you throw it as hard as you can, you will move backwards, yet people believe it's the mass and nothing to do with the atmosphere , yet it's the weight of that ball against the atmosphere , plus the downward force of gravity that plays a part.
Firstly, if you throw it at speed, you are creating more friction against the air whilst the downward force acts upon you as you throw the ball. Both of these actions cause you to move in the opposite direction.

You are not understanding the logic of the ball and chair experiment.
In first place, the same friction against the air you mention as stopping the ball is also stopping you too from moving to the opposite direction, so you are not only pushing the ball against the air because there is also air behind you (all arround) that you need to be pushed against before moving, the same friction is stopping the ball is stopping you also. The reason you move is force, not friction (a force strong enough to overcome that friction), for every action there is a reaction, in vaccum too, so i made another drawing. This rocket throws a ball as propulsion.



As the rocket pushes the ball in one direction, it is being pushed by the same force, caused by the spring, in the opposite direction.

The force in this case is the spring, in the chair and ball experiment, the force is your arms, the faster the spring stretches (stronger force), just the same as the fastest you push the ball with your arms (stronger force) will make the reaction also stronger, the reaction of the ball and rocket or chair moving faster (with more strength) in opposite directions.

Tape the tube to the smaller balloon neck and insert the other end into the large balloon, just enough so that it creates a mild seal. The larger balloon (airless) will take the air from the smaller balloon before it has a chance to shoot off.


As for the chair experiment, yes I understand about the mass, plus you have air behind you, I understand that on Earth, the heavier the object thrown forwards, the more you will be propelled backwards, whilst sat in that chair with feet off the ground.

The point is, you are throwing that mass away from you, so regardless of air being equal behind you as well as in front before you throw the medicine ball, the the weight of the ball being thrown against the air in front, plus the immediate gravitational pull on your arms as you are about to release the ball, will propel you backwards.

In space, there is no mass and there is no air, so Newtons law is rendered useless.

The ball "being thrown against air" force is nullified by the air behind you, that you are being pushed against, so take that out If you pushed against a wall you would move, if you pushed against a wall but there was a wall behind you you wouldnt move. I don't understand what you mean by gravitation pull of your arms, because is the push that moves you both.

I will try to explain why it would be possible to move in space in some other way, lets say you take a ball to space and you push it in front of you, lets talk about the ball, it will start moving because you pushed it, after your arms stop pushing it, it will still be moving forever in the same direction, because there is nothing to stop it, no air to slow it down. And because of you pushing the ball you will also be moving in the opposite direction, if the ball mass was bigger than yours you will be moving faster than the ball and vice verse.

Actually there is mass in space and vacuum, the earth is in vacuum and it has mass.

There is no mass in space (vacuum).

You weigh nothing and anything in space with you weighs nothing.

You could push that medicine ball away because of the spring in your arms, yet that's all you would be doing as you would move nowhere.

As frustrating as my answer will seem to you. Your answer is the same to me. I don't mean that in a nasty way of course, I'm saying that what you understand to be the truth , makes no sense to me.

Mass and weight is not the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

"You could push that medicine ball away because of the spring in your arms, yet that's all you would be doing as you would move nowhere."

Would the ball move?

Yes the ball would move but only because you are physically pushing that ball away from you by the movement of your arms.

Yes, the ball will move because of the force of my arms, but it doesn't matter if they are my arms or if the ball had arms, Im also pushing myself away from the ball. We both move.

The same would apply if you had hold of a full sized rocket. The rocket and you would weigh nothing, so therefore if that rocket had a small handle that you could get hold of, you could use the spring of your arms to fling that into space.

If I was in space and pushed really hard against a rocked (is that what you mean) I would be pushing myself away from the rocket, but also the rocket away from me, because of the rocket having more mass than I do, I will move much faster than the rocket (which will barely move, or its movement will be imperceptible), but that is because my arms dont make much force as fueled propulsion would.

I repeat, there is mass in space http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042326536 mass is a property of the matter, as long as you are made of matter you have mass.

Robereto:

If we take the vacuum of space as the nothingness we are told it is then mass or weight is nullified. It does not exist.

Mass is a property of matter, there is no reason for it to disappear. Vacuum doesn't nullify anything, weight is just something you can measure because of earth gravity acting on objects, in space gravity still exists between objects. Being in vacuum doesn't mean that you are vacuum, you are still the same matter with the same property, but you can't measure weight because weight is based on gravity, mass is not. Mass is a property of matter.
"we were never told" vacuum nullifies the matter, all matter has mass. I think someone at some point explained that wrong to you, it is not how you think it is, nor is anyone implying that in vacuum there is no matter.
There is no reason to believe that because we are surrounded by vacuum we also become vacuum.
Im just trying to explain you that, but now I think you are just trying to debate based on a false assumption (that in vacuum everything is vacuum, even us) that I don't know why you made.

(corrected some words)

Ok, so space has gravity, right?

So which way is this gravity pulling?

Gravity is the force that attract objects to each other, on earth, the earth is the center of gravity because of its huge mass, so everything on it (we) is being pulled to earth. On space, out of earth gravitational force gravitation is still the force that attracts objects to each other, if we have a big object and a small object they will be attracted to each other, but depending on the difference of their mass, the small object will move faster towards the big object while the big will move slower towards the small object.

Another concept related to gravity is the orbit, if a small object is moving really fast near a big object, the gravity pulls the small object but if the speed of the small object is enough to escape gravity in certain degree, it will start moving in circles around the big object without ever completely "falling" on it, if the small object slows down, it will eventually fall, if it speeds up it will eventually escape the orbit. That is the explanation of planets rotating the sun and not being directly attracted to it. Also the moon to the earth.

And if I am an astronaut near a rocket i will be pulled to the rocket and the rocket to me, but in a really almost imperceptible pull, not comparable with the one a planet creates.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 14, 2012, 12:49:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2012, 12:24:41 PM

Ok, so space has gravity, right?

So which way is this gravity pulling?

Gravity is the force that attract objects to each other, on earth, the earth is the center of gravity because of its huge mass, so everything on it (we) is being pulled to earth. On space, out of earth gravitational force gravitation is still the force that attracts objects to each other, if we have a big object and a small object they will be attracted to each other, but depending on the difference of their mass, the small object will move faster towards the big object while the big will move slower towards the small object.

Another concept related to gravity is the orbit, if a small object is moving really fast near a big object, the gravity pulls the small object but if the speed of the small object is enough to escape gravity in certain degree, it will start moving in circles around the big object without ever completely "falling" on it, if the small object slows down, it will eventually fall, if it speeds up it will eventually escape the orbit. That is the explanation of planets rotating the sun and not being directly attracted to it. Also the moon to the earth.

And if I am an astronaut near a rocket i will be pulled to the rocket and the rocket to me, but in a really almost imperceptible pull, not comparable with the one a planet creates.

This is basically a theory though.

This seemed to me like a good answer, I will just quote it

Theory is the highest level of certainty in Science. There is no higher standard to attempt. Some hypothesis have been given the name of laws for historic reasons, but every real scientist knows that they are not higher than a theory. For example, Newton's Laws are really theories, which have been tested through the centuries to a high level of certainty and work great for any circumstance where relativistic effects are negligible.

The treatment of gravity is painfully wrong in this thread. Again, it is not just a theory, it is a theory.

Naturally a scientist can make the average Joe look really silly when the average Joe questions anything and the same applies to newtons law.

This is what is at the very center of each of your rants. You do not want Science to come up with answers, you want Science to be condescending with Average Joe to make him look less ignorant.

The truth is, with a little bit of work you can make your two-balloon-and-a-pipe experiment work, and it will work nicely if you make it right. But, of course, you are not taking into account that your big balloon is so big and heavy that no amount of air from the small balloon will get it to move. The experiment is designed to fail.

You can, of course, get a vacuum pump and make the experiment right, with a balloon in vacuum and a pin that makes it burst. Or you can make a very simple experiment with a wheel chair or skates. You can throw a large but not so heavy massage ball, and then throw a heavier but smaller bowling ball, at the same speed. You will be propelled more by the bowling ball even though the air resistance is almost nil, and less with the massage ball, even though the air resistance is a lot more. You see, you don't even need to create a vacuum to learn about Newton's Laws.

First of all, you need to read the experiment properly. It wasn't about making the larger balloon move, it was to show that the smaller  air filled balloon, (the rocket) expelling it's air into the larger flat balloon(the vacuum of space)  and showing that the smaller balloon wouldn't want to pull away because it's air is swallowed up by the flat lager balloon.


I do want scientists to come up with answers but genuine answers that can be proved without using clearly doctored images and video of space.

Oh and throwing the larger lighter ball would indeed propel you less than the smaller heavier one because  of the lighter weight meaning you don't have to exert as much force with your arms against gravity.

It's the friction of the atmosphere , plus gravity that propels you backwards when you throw the ball and the heavier it is the more downward force is places on it meaning you have to expend a lot more energy to throw it.

He said the small balloon will in fact move, but is attached to a larger balloon that could potentially stop it from moving (if it is a rigid tube, for example).

I would if i had some sort of light (light enough as to not stop the small balloon movement) flexible hose, otherwise the small balloon wont move because of being attached to a rigid tube attached to a heavier object (the bigger balloon).

"The smaller balloon will expel all it's air into the larger balloon, which has no air inside it and the larger balloon will swallow it, leaving the smaller balloon in exactly the same place it was when it was full of air."

Because they are both attached, if the big one doesn't move neither will the small one

Oh and throwing the larger lighter ball would indeed propel you less than the smaller heavier one because  of the lighter weight meaning you don't have to exert as much force with your arms against gravity.

It's the friction of the atmosphere , plus gravity that propels you backwards when you throw the ball and the heavier it is the more downward force is places on it meaning you have to expend a lot more energy to throw it.

I do not want to laugh at the expense of others, but this really is hilarious. In this experiment the force of gravity is perpendicular to the movement! You are talking about gravity because you don't even know what to rant about. There are no downward forces actually producing or expending work in this experiment!.

In fact, this experiment would have the exact same result on Earth, with "g" equal to 9.86 m/s/s or on the moon, with a sixth of that gravitational pull (or choose the planet or moon you like, the result will be the same). It would have different results if done inside a very viscous fluid, but your claim refers to the Earth's atmosphere. Here the friction with the atmosphere is negligible for this whole experiment.

Who is doing the shoehorning now?

which has the greatest resistance?

a - person sat on a chair touching the floor

b -  exercise ball

air resistance and friction. fuck man why do these guys have to spell everything out for you?

because you are so stupid i will answer.

a,

does calling me silly make you smarter? i think you are the person building the reputation here for being a complete tool.

O.M.G this guy says stuff we all disagree with. call the conspiracy he is onto something here.

im bored not frustrated. the tone that i respond in does not reflect my feelings. you are not powerful enough to break my emotional barrier.

I AM INTERNET PROOF!


ok on topic. have you calculated the speed needed for the ball to generate enough air resistance to move the person on the chair? or are you guessing?

did you make the calculations i asked for? and are you aware of mass? im sure it was discussed earlier in this thread.

did you make the calculations i asked for?

air resistance and friction play a big part if the experiment in done in an atmosphere,

you should make the calculations to see if the ball has more resistance then the chair. this is an important part of the experiment.

i dont think you understand. again. im not bored now, bye.

Ok sceptimatic, imagine A and C are two random objects, B is a bomb with all the elements inside needed to cause an explosion. They are in vacuum.

If B explodes what do you think will happen to A and C? Assuming they are objects resistant enough as to not be destroyed by the explosion.

You are under the impression that you throw the ball and friction plus gravity has no play in it which is wrong IMO.

You are, as usual, using your opinions as replacement for actual experiments or actual application of Newton's Laws.

Nobody cares about your opinions. The result of the experiment will certainly not be affected by your opinions. If you are going to rant against Physics and you are not going to do the actual scientific work, your opinion is worthless.

You decry the lack of simplistic Physics that an Average Joe can understand, but you declare, as if you were some kind of expert, that gravity does have an effect in this experiment. And you also come up with your opinion that friction affects this experiment, without saying which friction you are talking about, and expect to be taken seriously. Come on, are you the amazing expert who does not have to do the experiments because you know the result before doing them, or are you the Average Joe who need simplistic Physics?

So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you  have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 06:23:10 AM

So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you  have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.

All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.

I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.

Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.

Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.

Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.

Ok sceptimatic, imagine A and C are two random objects, B is a bomb with all the elements inside needed to cause an explosion. They are in vacuum.

If B explodes what do you think will happen to A and C? Assuming they are objects resistant enough as to not be destroyed by the explosion.

A and C will disintegrate the gravity will pull them into one sphere, then it will start orbiting the sun.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 07:10:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 06:47:14 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 06:23:10 AM

So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you  have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.

All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.

I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.

Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.

Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.

Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.

A contracted spring is a different matter. That would send both balls opposite ways.

A bomb explosion would mean release of gasses with that energy, gas is matter.

Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.

And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.

Quote from: RealScientist on November 18, 2012, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:31:52 AM

Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.

And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.

Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?

I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.

Quote from: RealScientist on November 18, 2012, 07:52:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:41:55 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on November 18, 2012, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:31:52 AM

Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.

And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.

Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?

I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.

Have you really?
What kind of bomb caused this?

I would guess that he's referring to a rocket engine, which is often described as a controlled explosion.

This can't be right as he describes a super fast combustion and then an explosion.
A rockets fuel simply ignites and then burns , in Earth's atmosphere of course.

Are you saying that rocket combustion isn't super-fast?