.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269763 Views
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #150 on: November 21, 2012, 10:46:11 AM »
i am eagerly waiting for your "proofs"
The proof is extremely simple but it will be discounted.
The experiment is in the thread, it involves balloons.
Just look it up and try the experiment.

The proof is not simple. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A balloon is not a vacuum. A deflated balloon is not a vacuum. A balloon is porous, how the hell do you think the air leaks out when it's inflated? To prove it, you need to build a vacuum chamber and suck all of the air out until the pressure drops to near zero. Then try and fire your rocket. Don't forget to research how they built and fueled the rockets that launched spacecraft. Burning things requires oxygen. As there is no oxygen in space, they had to carry it with them. So you'll need an oxidizer. Good luck.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #151 on: November 21, 2012, 11:23:39 AM »
Hey all - got a bit addicted to lurking this forum, so thought I'd join up.  Mainly trying to work out who is pretending for the sake of argument (though in this day and age, it's not like the internet doesn't have a plethora of arguments ready to go!), and who is actually a bit mental.

anyway...

@sceptimatic

You do realise that you are using the logical fallacy, Argument from incredulity?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

If your horrible lack of science knowledge says nothing about whether a theory is true or not. 

Science is, at one level, a collection of theories.  The theories we currently use, and therefore haven't discarded, are the ones that work.  Modern physics theories not only explain how the Earth rotates, and how rockets are propelled, but also how a computer works, or how a bridge stays up.  They are the same theories, the same maths.

If you want to discard the physics behind rocket propulsion and a rotating planet, then you will have to come up with something to replace them that works even better at doing stuff like building bridges and making computers work.

If you think you can come up with better theories than Newton, Einstein, Maxwell etc, then good luck.  I'm not holding my breath.  ::)

For the rocket propulsion stuff, I can't work out if you are trolling.  Newton's third law is very easy to test for yourself:

Quote
The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space

I bet you don't try it though, as you aren't interested in actual learning or experimentation - just trolling internet boards.
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #152 on: November 21, 2012, 11:33:20 AM »
They can stick as much oxidiser into the fuel as they want.
Space will accept it into it's vastness like a mini snack, gobbled down in record time.

As fast as that fuel came out, it would be swallowed up by space , rendering the rocket useless.

Ohhh I see, you think they just pump the fuel into space. Ok, I understand where you're going wrong now. Liquid fueled rockets burn the fuel before it comes close the the vacuum. If you wanted a type of rocket that dumps fuel into space to move, you should look into ion engine, Hall Effect thrusters, VASIMR, and magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters, or Nuclear Thermal Rockets.

Oh and the balloon doesn't have to be a full on vacuum.
As long as it's got no air inside it and the smaller inflated balloon expels it's air into that balloon, the smaller balloon will not fly  anywhere.

That balloon experiment bears no resemblance to a rocket in space. Balloons don't fly anyway. They float.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #153 on: November 21, 2012, 11:48:04 AM »
FatherLukeDuke:

Now that you have came on here and put me right about everything and found out I troll internet boards, I will now accept everything that the media tell me and believe everything that I have questioned.

On the other hand....no I won't...I'll stick to what I say.  :)

You aren't telling me anything new.

Can you do an experiment to prove a rocket works in a vacuum?


Also, I agree, science is about theories and many theories become science fact, just not all...and a rotating Earth is one such theory and so it relativity and special relativity, theories that carry no real proof.

Anything can be made up to fit a theory though just like it has been as regards space and a 10mph moon and all of the rest of it.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Some people simply accept things that they don't understand. You would be the first asshole to run and shoot at aliens landing on earth.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #154 on: November 21, 2012, 11:54:30 AM »
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.

So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.

Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #155 on: November 21, 2012, 12:16:34 PM »
They can stick as much oxidiser into the fuel as they want.
Space will accept it into it's vastness like a mini snack, gobbled down in record time.

As fast as that fuel came out, it would be swallowed up by space , rendering the rocket useless.

Ohhh I see, you think they just pump the fuel into space. Ok, I understand where you're going wrong now. Liquid fueled rockets burn the fuel before it comes close the the vacuum. If you wanted a type of rocket that dumps fuel into space to move, you should look into ion engine, Hall Effect thrusters, VASIMR, and magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters, or Nuclear Thermal Rockets.
Quote
The minute the nozzle is opened for a fuel burn in space, the vacuum would immediately swallow it up, right into the tank and swallow that fuel in an instant due to the size of space.

Oh and the balloon doesn't have to be a full on vacuum.
As long as it's got no air inside it and the smaller inflated balloon expels it's air into that balloon, the smaller balloon will not fly  anywhere.

That balloon experiment bears no resemblance to a rocket in space. Balloons don't fly anyway. They float.
They only float if the end is tied.
If you blew up a balloon and nipped the end, then let it go on Earth, it would fly away/shoot away from you because it's expelling it's air against the atmosphere pushing it in the opposite direction.


Assuming you could do the same experiment in space...the second you release the balloon, the vacuum of space would swallow the air up instantly leaving the balloon flat and going nowhere.

You are dense. The balloon moves forward only because it's expelling gas out of the back. It doesn't have to push against anything, the gas expelling out the back is what is pushing it. In fact, the atmosphere is resisting it, making it go slower. Take the office chair and medicine ball example that was given earlier. Try it. You'll like it. If they put a balloon out in space... it would just pop because the wall of the balloon isn't strong enough to hold the gasses back from expanding to reach equilibrium.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #156 on: November 21, 2012, 12:27:10 PM »
FatherLukeDuke:

Now that you have came on here and put me right about everything and found out I troll internet boards, I will now accept everything that the media tell me and believe everything that I have questioned.
The media?  What have they got to do with it?  We are talking about Newtonian physics.

Quote
On the other hand....no I won't...I'll stick to what I say.  :)

You aren't telling me anything new.
I know, Newton produced Principia Mathematica in 1684.

Sticking to what you say, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is an idealogical position - it is dogma, and has no place in science.  You might as well stick to religion.

Quote
Can you do an experiment to prove a rocket works in a vacuum?
I gave you an experiment to try out - have you tried it yet?  Or do you prefer ignorance?

Quote
Also, I agree, science is about theories and many theories become science fact, just not all...and a rotating Earth is one such theory and so it relativity and special relativity, theories that carry no real proof.
Proof only exists in mathematics, scientific theories are accepted on the weight of evidence.
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #157 on: November 21, 2012, 12:31:58 PM »
That diagram is pretty lolworthy.

Anyway, quick question:

When someone fires a gun and it "kicks" back at them - what do you think causes the recoil?
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #158 on: November 21, 2012, 12:34:24 PM »
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.

So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.

Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!
My position is only ignorant to those who oppose it whilst accepting what is told to them as gospel from anything official.
We are not talking positions. We are talking about people telling lies about others.

Are you going to find the quote, or are you going to accept that you are telling lies about others?

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #159 on: November 21, 2012, 12:40:43 PM »
Thinkingman:

That's why I said "assuming" about the balloon in space.

If you think that the atmosphere plays no part in the balloons movement, then do the experiment I gave you.
I've done it and it is exactly how I thought....
The balloon goes nowhere.

I think I'll have to do a drawing for people to try this experiment.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Try that experiment and tell me what happens.

I'll tell you what happens rather than trying it. As I'm sure you've tried this, being so smart and questioning everything you're told. The balloon with air in it will fill the other balloon to the point that the two have equal amounts of air. Now, this wont provide thrust to either balloon. First of all, there is the weight of the tube to consider. Now, the weight of each balloon I will presume is equal, as I presume you pulled these balloons out of the same bag. Now, they are connected together, so we can treat them as the same body. To cause a body to move, you need to create thrust. To create thrust, it must force something in the opposite direction from the desired direction of motion. To move the body to any noticeable effect, the force of the thrust must be greater than the mass of the body to be moved. This is especially true here on earth because we have atmospheric drag and more gravity to push against. So what you did was transfer gas from one bag to another. What you should have done was leave the balloon open ended, so that you create a thrusting force, thereby pushing the balloon forward.

I had no idea that we were moving gas from one balloon to another, or I would not have entertained you.

Now, tell me where I said that the atmosphere has no effect on the balloon? I don't recall saying that.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #160 on: November 21, 2012, 12:52:01 PM »
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.

Actually, you're typical pistol has very little gun powder in the casing. Certainly not enough to push a man backwards. It's actually the force of the bullet flying out of the gun at such velocities that causes the backward push. 20 grains of gun powder isn't gonna do much to a man.

A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.

No, that's completely different. Their weight is thrown backwards already, along with the force of their legs pushing against the ground. The gun is creating a thrusting force, whereas your rope example, each man has a lot of potential energy, and the rope snapping allows that potential to turn into kinetic energy.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #161 on: November 21, 2012, 12:54:38 PM »
Does that "large" flat , "airless" balloon, look the same size as that "small" air filled balloon?

No it doesn't does it...and there's a very god reason for it because I'm depicting a small rocket in the large vacuum of space.

The large balloon being space.

The two do not equate. I'm telling you, the thrusting force you are creating is essentially traveling through the same body. This would be like pushing all of the gasoline from the back of your car to the front. It doesn't do anything. The force of the gasses expelling out the back of the rocket is what is causing it to move, not it pushing against anything. What you're doing is like putting a rocket nozzle in a tube with a mass iron ball behind it, and expecting it to go somewhere.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #162 on: November 21, 2012, 01:00:55 PM »
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.

Actually, you're typical pistol has very little gun powder in the casing. Certainly not enough to push a man backwards. It's actually the force of the bullet flying out of the gun at such velocities that causes the backward push. 20 grains of gun powder isn't gonna do much to a man.

A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.

No, that's completely different. Their weight is thrown backwards already, along with the force of their legs pushing against the ground. The gun is creating a thrusting force, whereas your rope example, each man has a lot of potential energy, and the rope snapping allows that potential to turn into kinetic energy.
All I was trying to explain was action and reaction.

I'm not sure which part of that you're referring to, but if you don't understand and deny the laws of physics, how can you explain action and reaction? You don't even understand what it means. I'm trying to explain it to you. Thrust is the action, the reaction is the body moving in the opposite direction to the thrusting force. I've explained what thrust is. Does this not make sense to you?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #163 on: November 21, 2012, 01:15:48 PM »
That diagram is pretty lolworthy.

Anyway, quick question:

When someone fires a gun and it "kicks" back at them - what do you think causes the recoil?
The force of the powder charge inside the casing pushing against the bullet and back against the gun.
Not true:

Quote
In technical terms, the recoil caused by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gasses (ejecta), according to Newton's third law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

Lets be clear here: are you rejecting Newton's Laws of Motion?

Quote
A bit like two men pulling on a rope in a tug of war and it snaps. sending them in opposite directions.
Eh? No it's not.
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #164 on: November 21, 2012, 01:59:40 PM »
It's you and others that are saying rockets push against themselves.

So you can find a quote easily to support this, of course. If I said it, you can find the quote with the search function and show all of us how I am lying through my teeth. And even if you do not find a quote by me, you are saying others said the same.

Otherwise, you are the one who lies, lies, lies just to keep your totally embarrassing and ignorant position alive for a couple more hours!!
My position is only ignorant to those who oppose it whilst accepting what is told to them as gospel from anything official.
We are not talking positions. We are talking about people telling lies about others.

Are you going to find the quote, or are you going to accept that you are telling lies about others?
That's how I interpreted what you and others were saying. If I'm wrong on that, I apologise, it's just how your explanations came across, as if the rocket was pushing against itself.
Thank you for apologizing. Now, are you going to take back all of what you have been saying about Newton's third Law of Motion, which you had based totally on your misunderstanding?

 

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #165 on: November 22, 2012, 05:15:03 AM »
Not at all.

I stand by rockets not working in the vacuum of space.
This is hilarious. You accept that you do not understand Newton's Third Law of Motion, which is the very basis of how rockets can move at all, in vacuum or air or a liquid, and you still declare that you know something magical about the vacuum of space will make the rockets not work there, even though they work in the simple, normal vacuum on Earth.

I can understand now why even a good Science teacher might have just given up on you when you were at school, and have spoon fed you anything at all instead of trying to teach you something of substance.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #166 on: November 22, 2012, 06:18:19 AM »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

spoon

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 1363
  • +0/-0
  • ho ho ho
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #167 on: November 22, 2012, 06:34:11 AM »
Hey Markjo, your "Green's law of debate" is being applied very nicely here by sceptimatic.
I work nights are get the feeling of impennding doom for things most people take for granted.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #168 on: November 22, 2012, 07:53:26 AM »
Show me a rocket working in a vacuum please.

Not that you'll believe it, but here:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17)
Not only does that video look pathetically faked , it is...

The strange thing is, this video showing the Apollo 17 , it does not resemble the pictures taken of it. Hmmmm.

Nice new avatar. But I think it more likely you woke up without your brains.

You state absolute fact because you don't understand the alternative.

You dismiss peer reviewed research and overwhelming evidence because you think you know better.

You tell us we are spoon fed by teachers and scientists yet you are clearly sponged by crackpot conspiracy websites.

But you do make me laugh...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #169 on: November 22, 2012, 08:42:08 AM »
Show me a rocket working in a vacuum please.

Not that you'll believe it, but here:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17)
Not only does that video look pathetically faked , it is...

The strange thing is, this video showing the Apollo 17 , it does not resemble the pictures taken of it. Hmmmm.

Am I psychic or what?  ;D
OK, I'll bite.  How does that video not resemble the pictures of the back side of the Apollo 17 lunar module?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #170 on: November 22, 2012, 09:19:23 AM »
Are you trolling or just very stupid or too lazy to do any research?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #171 on: November 22, 2012, 10:16:06 AM »
And still, after a long attempt to put a stink on the video of Apollo 17's Lunar Module, the fact remains: sceptimatic does not understand Newton's Third Law of Motion, and because he does not understand it he somehow believes himself an expert in rockets in Outer Space. And even though he has been the butt of the joke for weeks now, his argument still is that somehow being the Average Joe who is unfairly treated by Big Bad Science has made his opinions magically acceptable.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #172 on: November 22, 2012, 10:35:42 AM »
he is the leading body in rocket science and nuclear physics.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #173 on: November 22, 2012, 12:16:11 PM »
In space, tell me why rocket fuel has to burn to make the rocket move.
In space it wouldn't actually have to burn the fuel - you could just squirt it out the back.  It would just accelerate much more slowly than burning it, but it would still work.  It is all about Newton's third law:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

You can read about the Third Law here in simple terms:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

Check out the questions section...

And this is a demonstration, including....ballons:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Demonstration Of Newton's Third Law Of Motion

I also linked this earlier, which shows how you can conduct a third law experiment yourself, and

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space

I suspect you didn't read it earlier, but if you are serious about learning, then please do.

So burning the fuel accelerates it out of the rocket much more quickly than squirting it, as the above article says:

Quote
Of course, rockets work on more sophisticated principles than just tossing fuel out the back. First, the fuel is burned and its hot exhaust gases are expelled at very high velocity (if you toss the medicine ball faster, your body experiences greater backward force). And the rocket's exhaust nozzle has a narrowing so as to squirt the exhaust gasses out even faster, like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. Exhaust from chemical propulsion (i.e., fuel-burning propulsion) is typically expelled at 2 km/s (= 4500 mph), and your average rocket mass at launch is 80-85% propellant (fuel + oxidizer), most of which eventually gets squirted out.


Rockets in space work exactly the same as they do in space - apart from they have to overcome stuff like gravity and friction.
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #174 on: November 22, 2012, 05:06:03 PM »
you do realise this website is for the flat earth society and not the conspiracy society. im questioning why none of these threads have been moved as they are nothing to do with flat earth theory. this is alternate science if it needs a label. or RM.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #175 on: November 22, 2012, 06:21:35 PM »
you do realise this website is for the flat earth society and not the conspiracy society. im questioning why none of these threads have been moved as they are nothing to do with flat earth theory. this is alternate science if it needs a label. or RM.


The board-specific rules:


Here you can freely discuss about the Flat Earth Society or the Flat Earth movement in general. For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss Flat Earth Theory itself, you should go to Flat Earth Q&A or Flat Earth Debate. Keep in mind that although somewhat relaxed, this forum is still subject to the Forum Rules.


[emphasis added]


From the Forum Rules:


Flat Earth General
- For the discussion of any FE topics unrelated to Flat Earth Theory, e.g. "Hey, I just saw an article about FES on the BBC website! Are you guys for real???". Conspiracy topics also belong here.


[emphasis added]
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #176 on: November 22, 2012, 07:46:37 PM »
nice one master for clearing that up

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #177 on: November 22, 2012, 07:50:22 PM »
You see that big exhaust looking think perched on the top of the supposed LM in that video.

Go and find it on the other LM pictures.
I'm going to look that piece up to find out what it actually is, I'll see if I can find a diagram of it to see of they show it as it's not on the pictures I've seen.

I did notice that you said the backside of the LM. It's almost as if you are trying to cover something up. ;D

What would I try to cover up?  You do realize that things that have a front side also have a back side, don't you?  The lunar rover that was taking the video was parked behind the lunar module.  Nothing to hide or cover up.  The only mystery is why I keep trying to explain these things to you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #178 on: November 23, 2012, 04:19:26 AM »
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.

You see that balloon with the tube inside it on the car, well try that experiment yourself but this time put a large flat balloon on the other end of the tube and see if the car moves.
You will find that it doesn't.
Why does't it move?

I would not move because it is attached to a heavier balloon that stops it from moving.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #179 on: November 23, 2012, 05:47:06 AM »
That balloon experiment is simply expelling air against the atmosphere behind it, forcing the balloon forward, same with the balloon being on the car.

So that means a more robust substance behind the balloon should allow the balloon to move faster then, right? Let's put it in water then. Or even better, let's encase it in concrete and see how far it goes.

You see that balloon with the tube inside it on the car, well try that experiment yourself but this time put a large flat balloon on the other end of the tube and see if the car moves.
You will find that it doesn't.
Why does't it move?
Because the air being expelled from the balloon on top of the car is swallowed up by the larger balloon that has no air inside it.

EXACTLY. That's what I've been trying to tell you. You're not causing anything thrust. You're moving a gas from one part of the "craft" (the two balloons teathered together with the tube) into another.

Try the same experiment with 2 balloons of equal size and fill both with air, yet fill one of them with a little less air and what you will see is....the one with more air inside, will expel some of it into the other balloon until equal air pressure is attained, in both balloons.

Yes, you're right. Congratulations. See above. A vacuum is an open space with no air or any mass in it. A deflated balloon is not an open space.

What you will then notice is that the elasticity of both balloons is forcing the air they both have against each other but they are equal, so, if the tube is not in so tight into the necks of those balloons, they will repel each other...and equal and opposite reaction.

That is not equal and opposite reaction. Please actually read Newton's third law of motion. Guess what? It came to be understood by one man, Isaac Newton, before "official sources" were "spoon feeding" it to anyone. In fact, no one was spoon feeding anything like it to anyone. It was going against the grain.

The reason why some people don't get the equal and opposite reaction in a vacuum, is because they hang onto things being repelled against each other as in the person on a wheeled chair against the mass of a medicine ball, yet the equal and opposite reaction works in space, only in a negative form.

You just simply don't understand. The reason the wheelchair can move is because mass/energy was forced in the opposite direction of it's desired motion. It has nothing to do with pushing against the air. If that was so, you could use the medicine ball as a sail on a boat and it would be quite effective. Hell, you could use air as a sail on a boat and it would be quite effective.

For instance:

In space, the rocket applies the force , expelling it's fuel (if it were possible, which it wouldn't be) into space, which is one action, and the vacuum of space swallows it up as fast as it comes out, creating an equal and opposite reaction, which means that the rocket could sit there all day long and expel fuel but space would swallow it up exactly as fast as it was coming out.

No, the action is the expelling of the mass/energy, and the reaction is the rocket moving in the opposite direction of the force.

Try and picture it like this.

Go on a treadmill and imagine yourself as the rocket, meaning your legs are the propulsion.
Space is the floor of that treadmill.

Ok, start running and what happens?
What you will observe is, no matter how fast you run, your legs will be equally pushing that floor away from you, basically, you are using all your energy up until you collapse...but you have gone "nowhere" just like a rocket in space would go "nowhere"

How does that even equate? A vacuum isn't a solid object moving under your feet in the opposite way that you are trying to go.

The only way you would propel forward, was if the floor roller seized up, which would propel you forward. Now if N.A.S.A can somehow get the vacuum of space to seize, up, then off you go, whizzing along.

Let's not hold our breath for that though....or should we?

A vacuum isn't moving, so it can't seize up. There's nothing in a vacuum to move. So it can't seize up, nor can it "move under your feet."

What you don't seem to understand is rocket propulsion isn't like swimming. When you're swimming, you're fuel is the water around you, your thrust is pushing the water back. It's difficult and extremely inefficient. When a rocket goes, it's fuel is in the tank. It burns this fuel to create a more energetic thrust. By burning it, the mass/energy moves faster out of the nozzles than it would have just being pumped out. So the rocket goes in the opposite direction of the force.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.