.....

He doesn't understand most of the theory you explain to him, and if he does, he won't accept it anyway. He is convinced his experiment has validity for his argument, so I just went to buy some balloons and proved his conclusions based on the experiment were wrong, I hope he tires it the way I told him..

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2012, 01:51:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 11:18:23 AM

The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.

*sigh*  This nonsense has gone on long enough.

No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum. 

A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure.  A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.

An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air.  Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).

I'm smiling.

Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 27, 2012, 01:07:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 01:02:53 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 27, 2012, 01:07:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 01:02:53 PM

Well go and tape your small balloon to the outside of the flat balloon and watch it fly off the table.

I did, it didn't move.

BS.

I'm telling the truth, you can simply not believe me, or you could try it yourself. I don't have reasons to lie to you.

"I invite anyone on this forum to do the exact same experiments and it will prove what I'm saying is true."

I already did, and proved to myself I was right about it being the weight and the friction the factors stopping the movement. I invite you to do the experiment as I said.

Your experiment is a fail and you know it.

It actually is a fail, but it was your experiment.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 27, 2012, 02:02:21 PM

He doesn't understand most of the theory you explain to him, and if he does, he won't accept it anyway. He is convinced his experiment has validity for his argument, so I just went to buy some balloons and proved his conclusions based on the experiment were wrong, I hope he tires it the way I told him..

I hate liars.

Have you tried it?
Do you want a video?

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2012, 03:46:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2012, 01:51:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 11:18:23 AM

The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.

*sigh*  This nonsense has gone on long enough.

No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum. 

A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure.  A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.

An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air.  Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).

I'm smiling.

Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?

No. It means I'm dealing with a pack of brainwashed people.

No, it means you are dealing with a pack of brainwashed balloons. Those damn balloons know the Laws of Motion, and know the Laws are wrong, but have decided to make you look bad, just because they have been brainwashed. Try balloons from China, maybe they are not so brainwashed out there.

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2012, 03:46:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2012, 01:51:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2012, 11:18:23 AM

The flat balloon is mimicking a vacuum, it has no air inside it.

*sigh*  This nonsense has gone on long enough.

No, a flat balloon does not mimic a vacuum. 

A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure.  A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.

An inflated balloon has a higher air pressure inside of it than the outside air.  Because of this difference in air pressure, the air outside the balloon can be considered a vacuum (remember that vacuum is not an absolute term).

I'm smiling.

Does this mean that you finally understand why you've been wrong all along?

No. It means I'm dealing with a pack of brainwashed people.

Then please tell me what part of my post do you disagree with and why.

This bit.

A vacuum is not so much a lack of air as it is a lack of air pressure.  A flat balloon may lack air, but since it isn't a rigid object, it's still subject to the air pressure outside of it.

What is wrong with that bit?  Do you understand how a vacuum cleaner works?  Can a flat balloon be used to suck dirt from a carpet?

Yes, do me a video of it.

You called me a liar already, why would you believe I would not cheat on the video?
I'm only telling you why the small balloon didn't move, but you probably used a different "balloon" than the one I used, so you can still try it for yourself. markjo already said why a flat balloon doesn't simulate vacuum on space, as it doesn't counteract air pressure. We explained how rocket moves because of the gasses expanding and pushing against it, you also know that is possible to get out of your car, push it, and watch it move while not saying the car pushed against itself.
Maybe it's time for you to rethink your ideas.

You need to understand that a vacuum on Earth works the opposite way to the vacuum in space, as it's air pressure on Earth against the vacuum but in space, it's the vacuum against the air in anything in space that has air inside it, namely a fake rocket.

How does that make any difference?

Let's put it simply again.
A rocket does not need air to push against right?

Let's just go on that and forget the vacuum for a minute.

So if the rocket doesn't need air to push against, then the flat balloon has no air inside it, so the inflated balloon attached neck to neck with it, should fly away from it.
But what you notice is, the air filled balloon doesn't do that, it just deflates into the other balloon, simply filling an airless space, with air.

I already told you why that can happen, the force of the small balloon is not enough to move the big one, the air going inside the big balloon adds weight and a force in the opposite direction.


"I'm calling you a liar because I really did do the experiment and it the air filled balloon dragged the flat balloon off the table"
What kind of balloons did you use, show  pictures. I used something way lighter than a big balloon to attach to the tube and it didn't move (a big plastic bag).

You really think vacuum is the thing stopping the small balloon from moving in your experiment? Think about this, after the small balloon starts releasing air into the big one, there is no longer vacuum, its just a small balloon pushing against air into a big balloon and it is still not moving. Not convinced? repeat the experiment the same way when the ballon didn't move and you assumed it was vacuum, but add a bit of air into the big one, it won't move, even though it is pushing against air from the beginning.

You are killing off your very own argument man.

Explain

No, I'm showing to you that in your experiment, the "vacuum" is not the factor stopping the balloon from moving, because there is air inside the big balloon from the moment the small one starts releasing it, and you are just ignoring that.

roberto, leave it be man - he's having fun with this gibberish, no need to play along with him

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 28, 2012, 11:18:21 AM

No, I'm showing to you that in your experiment, the "vacuum" is not the factor stopping the balloon from moving, because there is air inside the big balloon from the moment the small one starts releasing it, and you are just ignoring that.

It doesn't  matter that air goes into the other balloon, it doesn't create enough pressure against the smaller balloons release of air into it for the smaller balloon to have propulsion.

Now answer the question I gave you.

If I blow up a balloon and let it go, it flies away from me.
It that balloons air pushing against the atmosphere or is it doing something else to propel it forward and if so, what is it doing?

I know I will probably regret this... but I am gonna jump in on this one. Have watched it and it seems like pages and pages of going round in circles with you Sceptimatic.

Will try and explain it in very simple terms.

When you release a single balloon, the air (lets also call it energy) inside it it is expelled out at a greater force than the atmosphere is pushing against the balloon. This propels the balloon. When the air inside is depleted, the atmosphere & gravity then exert more pressure on the ballon and it falls to the ground.

Now a rocket is much like the balloon in this case. It has the energy stored within it. The rocket releases the energy, outside it, which pushes along the rocket. The only differences between the rocket and the balloon are the energy types. Balloon  = pressurised air, rocket = hot gasses. Regardless of the type of energy that is expelled from either, the only difference a vacuum makes is that in the vacuum the rocket, balloon, whatever has even less to push against. A balloon expelling energy on earth must fight the atmospheric pressure. A rocket expelling energy in a vacuum has no pressure to fight, therefore the expelled energy is more effective in a vacuum.

What you describe in your mad head is a vacuum that is so full of stuff that it can stop a rocket moving regardless of how much energy it expels.

Or a balloon...

Or MY OWN F***ING BRAIN IF I HAVE TO TRY AND DESCRIBE THIS AS SIMPLY AGAIN!!

So now I am going to ask you... what is it about a vacuum that is so powerful that it can resist this energy and prevent any form of movement from expelling stored energy.

To you vacuum is like a big brick wall. Of which I am now going to go and bang my head off.

 

How does a gas behave in a vacuum?

You still just don't get it do you.

Imagine me and you face  to face, on Earth, with our hands clamped to to each others hands.
You have to try and push me backwards, now if we were equal size and equal strength and I pushed back, we would go nowhere right.

We are both using all our energy up trying to move one another, yet we are going nowhere and eventually we would both run out of energy and give up.

Now think of that as us being in space trying to push each other away from each other, it would be the same thing, we would counteract each other.

No, it would not be the same thing, if you did that on earth, the only reason none of you would move is because you would be trying to make as most friction as possible with your feet, leaning to the front and down. If you stand straight up and both push into each other, both will fall to the other side (because of gravity and friction still present). If you did this on a pool, besides looking gay, you would both go into opposite directions, that is what would happen on space, on space you would move even more because there is no density as in a pool or the atmosphere.

Now imagine us on Earth doing the very same thing and you say, " I want to be the rocket" and I say, "stop being silly, people are watching, stop acting like a daft kid"....well ok forget the daft kid bit 

Anyway, Imagine us on Earth in the same position and you say, " I want to be the fuel of the rocket", so I say, " I will be the vacuum of space"

Then, you start to "push" against me... but as you do...I exert the same force but "pulling" you.

You would start running forward down the street the same pace as I would be running backwards because I'm not opposing you, I'm actually aiding you and as fast as you run, the faster I run backwards, keeping the same pace.

Eventually, all your energy will be used up without actually exerting any upper body force onto me because I am immediately accepting that force.

You can't be the vacuum of space because it is nothing, it is illogical to have someone represent the lack of anything, it cannot exert force, it cannot react to force, it is nothing, is the concept of nothing too hard to understand?

How does a gas behave in a vacuum?

It tends towards equilibrium. Since there is no pressure, the gas will simply spread out. If it is in a pressurized container, and a nozzle is made (or a puncture), then the gas will accelerate out of the hole into the lack of pressure, creating a force in the opposite direction in which the gas is accelerating. This is the principle of physics that rockets work on, but the create the acceleration of gasses but burning them under pressure and having one end of the pressure container open, thereby creating the acceleration we know as "thrust." This works better in space because for one, there is no atmosphere and less gravity to resist the rocket's movement, and two, since there is no pressure outside of the rocket nozzle, the gas will accelerate faster out of the rocket, thereby causing the rocket to move forward easier, increasing efficiency.

Sceptimatic does have an interesting theory here that is new to me. That something cannot push it self, for instance you are sitting on a chair and use your arm to push yourself off by pushing on your leg, it's not going to happen. Sceptimatic is saying burning fuel and the rocket are considered one item. The burning fuel is considered part of the rocket, rocket pushing on rocket won't move it.

Is this what you are claiming sceptimatic?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 29, 2012, 08:43:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 07:56:58 AM

You still just don't get it do you.

Imagine me and you face  to face, on Earth, with our hands clamped to to each others hands.
You have to try and push me backwards, now if we were equal size and equal strength and I pushed back, we would go nowhere right.

We are both using all our energy up trying to move one another, yet we are going nowhere and eventually we would both run out of energy and give up.

Now think of that as us being in space trying to push each other away from each other, it would be the same thing, we would counteract each other.

No, it would not be the same thing, if you did that on earth, the only reason none of you would move is because you would be trying to make as most friction as possible with your feet, leaning to the front and down. If you stand straight up and both push into each other, both will fall to the other side (because of gravity and friction still present). If you did this on a pool, besides looking gay, you would both go into opposite directions, that is what would happen on space, on space you would move even more because there is no density as in a pool or the atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 07:56:58 AM

Now imagine us on Earth doing the very same thing and you say, " I want to be the rocket" and I say, "stop being silly, people are watching, stop acting like a daft kid"....well ok forget the daft kid bit 

Anyway, Imagine us on Earth in the same position and you say, " I want to be the fuel of the rocket", so I say, " I will be the vacuum of space"

Then, you start to "push" against me... but as you do...I exert the same force but "pulling" you.

You would start running forward down the street the same pace as I would be running backwards because I'm not opposing you, I'm actually aiding you and as fast as you run, the faster I run backwards, keeping the same pace.

Eventually, all your energy will be used up without actually exerting any upper body force onto me because I am immediately accepting that force.

You can't be the vacuum of space because it is nothing, it is illogical to have someone represent the lack of anything, it cannot exert force, it cannot react to force, it is nothing, is the concept of nothing too hard to understand?

It's only nothing until something is inside of it like a rocket and like a hungry gas eating lion, it would swallow up anything inside that rocket that held any gas.

And you say that based on what? Vacuum is nothing and does nothing no matter what happens around it. here on earth is hard to have a vacuum space because of air pressure always trying to fill it, but that doesn't happen on space.

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 08:22:25 AM

How does a gas behave in a vacuum?

Well let's put it this way.

If a rocket was in the vacuum of space, the vacuum of space would pull at that rocket until it got the air from it and any gas within it.

If you were to put a tied  balloon with a small amount of air inside it, in the vacuum of space , the vacuum of space will want that air, so it would pull on that balloon until it stretched until it burst open to release that air to the vacuum, just like what would happen to a rocket.

Do you not know the answer to this question?  This is basic physics and is an excellent starting point for you to hash this problem out.

In a fashion yes, because this is basically what these people are trying to put forward because it's the only way they can explain space travel.

They twist is slightly but in effect they are saying that the rocket pushes against itself, yet when I explain how silly this is, they use the fuel somehow managing to go in all directions against the rocket, which is just as silly.

Then they use expanding gases from burning fuel and think this will work fine but the vacuum of space welcomes all of this like a big hungry gaping mouth that can absorb it all as a mere snack.

No

No

I'm thinkingman, and I approve this message.

I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.

Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?

You do realize that space isn't a "perfect" vacuum, don't you?  Traces of the earth's atmosphere reach several hundred miles high.  That means that it can be truly said that rockets in space are still operating within the atmosphere.

I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.

Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?

You are the only one saying that vacuum is a hungry lion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 10:18:37 AM

I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.

Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?

You do realize that space isn't a "perfect" vacuum, don't you?  Traces of the earth's atmosphere reach several hundred miles high.  That means that it can be truly said that rockets in space are still operating within the atmosphere.

Now "the vacuum of space isn't a vacuum". It never stops with round earth apologists.

I don't need to hash any problem out. I know that rockets do not work in space if it's the vacuum we are told it is.

Now if rockets do work, then space has an atmosphere, so which is it?

Apparently you do.

Most of my life has been spent working the soil so my formal education is lacking, but i've managed to educate myself concerning rocket combustion chamber design.

Here is an experiment for you to try:

Hold a piece of paper about 12 inches in front of your face.

Now breathe in and inflate your lungs and exhale with all the force your lungs can muster holding your mouth open and watch the behavior of the paper you're breathing against - it should flutter slightly.

Now breathe in and inflate your lungs again and exhale with all the force your lungs can muster - this time pursing your lips as if to whistle - and watch the behavior of the paper you're breathing against - the force of your breath against it should cause it to flutter much more forcefully.

Now ask yourself what is causing that dramatic increase in force - is it the atmosphere sucking the air from your lungs at an increased rate?

Rockets propel themselves forward not by pushing against the atmosphere but by harnessing the power of ignited expanding gasses via specially designed nozzles similar to your pursed lips - the reaction itself pushing the rocket forward, not any external resistance.

If you are still unclear on the matter here is a website I found helpful:

http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm

Now "the vacuum of space isn't a vacuum". It never stops with round earth apologists.

This just in, vacuum cleaners don't create a vacuum.

This explanation of yours proves that what you are saying about rocket propulsion is wrong.

If I breath at the paper with my mouth wide open, I'm expelling my air in a wider area and if I purse my lips and blow, I'm merely concentrating the air onto a certain spot on that paper.
The vacuum of space won;t be choosy, it can take that air as fast or as slow as it's getting expelled, whether it's a million foot wide nozzle or a 1 millimetre wide nozzle.

Either way it's going to be took as fast as the opening allows.

The vacuum of space will simply take any air/gas/fuel from that rocket as fast as the size of the hole allows it.

Either way, the rocket is rendered useless and rooted to the spot.

In the bolded area above - how do you explain the difference in energy - are your lungs contracting at different rates?

In the alleged near-vacuum of space what would happen to the energy released by the combustion reaction produced by the rocket engine?

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 11:16:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 11:03:58 AM

This explanation of yours proves that what you are saying about rocket propulsion is wrong.

If I breath at the paper with my mouth wide open, I'm expelling my air in a wider area and if I purse my lips and blow, I'm merely concentrating the air onto a certain spot on that paper.
The vacuum of space won;t be choosy, it can take that air as fast or as slow as it's getting expelled, whether it's a million foot wide nozzle or a 1 millimetre wide nozzle.

Either way it's going to be took as fast as the opening allows.

The vacuum of space will simply take any air/gas/fuel from that rocket as fast as the size of the hole allows it.

Either way, the rocket is rendered useless and rooted to the spot.

In the bolded area above - how do you explain the difference in energy - are your lungs contracting at different rates?

In the alleged near-vacuum of space what would happen to the energy released by the combustion reaction produced by the rocket engine?

The vacuum of space doesn't recognise combustion, it will simply swallow it up whether it's combustion of simply  gas.

You want me to explain the differences in energy.

Ok.

If I'm blowing with the same pressure from my mouth at a feather on the table and I fill up my lungs and expel my air from my wide open mouth, I'm directing a wide volume of air over a wide area "at" and around the feather, meaning that my air is expended in quick time.

If I fill my lungs up and purse my lips and blow at the feather, I can keep blowing it for a decent length of time because the pressure I'm expelling from my lungs can only escape through a small hole between my lips yet it's more concentrated on one spot, for example, I will be directly blowing against the feather and not all around it.

The vacuum of space doesn't recognise combustion, it will simply swallow it up whether it's combustion of simply  gas.

You want me to explain the differences in energy.

Ok.

If I'm blowing with the same pressure from my mouth at a feather on the table and I fill up my lungs and expel my air from my wide open mouth, I'm directing a wide volume of air over a wide area "at" and around the feather, meaning that my air is expended in quick time.

If I fill my lungs up and purse my lips and blow at the feather, I can keep blowing it for a decent length of time because the pressure I'm expelling from my lungs can only escape through a small hole between my lips yet it's more concentrated on one spot, for example, I will be directly blowing against the feather and not all around it.

Its the same volume of air in your lungs - the increase in force is due the expansion of the gas as the force from your lungs compress it through the narrow opening of your pursed lips. 

Following the same concept - the vacuum of space would only add energy to the combustion reaction as gas expands outward in all directions and pushes against the nozzle as it rushes to fill the void  - not subtract from it.

In that link I sent you there is a diagram of different nozzle designs for different elevations and air pressures.  Why do you think nozzle shape is so key in efficient rocket design?

What happens to the energy resulting from the expansion of gas against the nozzle?

To even say that the expanded burning fuel actually pushes back up the nozzle is madness.

In space, that fuel has nothing to expand into to give it lift or movement as space just simply takes what's thrown at it and gives nothing back, rendering the rocket absolutely 100% unmoveable space junk, unless hit by a meteorite or something wandering space.

I am interested to see what data you have to back up the bolded claim.

What is your theory on what propels meteorites through the heavens?