.....

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 30, 2012, 07:23:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2012, 07:15:42 PM

Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.

The rocket doesn't stay empty.  It uses the fuel to make constant pressure, which pushes on the inside surface in every direction except for the opening.

If you only sat back and realised what you were saying, honestly, you will kick yourself.

Well, you did say before you needed it explained as simply as possible.  So what part will I kick myself over?  The rocket combustion chamber not staying empty (until the fuel runs out)?  The fuel burn process?  The pressure from combustion pushing in every direction?

Speaking of which... Perhaps you could clarify a few questions on the shoebox demonstration.

get a shoe box and cut the right end away from it, then place both hands inside it, then shove your right hand towards the open end, but in doing so, follow it out with your left hand.

Does the box move ?..No?

So you're saying there's no pressure inside the box or rocket combustion chamber/nozzle pushing against the inside walls?  1. Yes or no.
 
1. If no, then there will be a hand/pressure pushing forward inside forcing movement.

1. If yes, and movement of the box relies only on my hands exiting the opening against the atmosphere, then if I move my hand fast enough against the resistance of the air, the box will move correct?  2. Yes or no.

2. If yes, by all means give it a try.  We await the results of this experiment.

2. If no, then I guess it needs some pressure pushing forward from inside. (Hence, the hand creating pressure against the inside, or rocket fuel combustion creating pressure against the inside regardless of air pressure or lack there of, outside)
[/quote]

I believe the moon landings are bogus, filmed on earth movies. Speaking of vacuums, I have never understood how "they" say the atmosphere extends up to space, then there is the  "vacuum" of space out there. It seems that vacuum of space would remove the atmosphere from off of the earth.... Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say). It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.

I believe the moon landings are bogus, filmed on earth movies. Speaking of vacuums, I have never understood how "they" say the atmosphere extends up to space, then there is the  "vacuum" of space out there.

The air just gets thinner the higher one goes.  There is no 'plenty of air and suddenly no air'.

It seems that vacuum of space would remove the atmosphere from off of the earth.... Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say).

Now you're getting it.

It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.

Well air rushing into a tube to fill the vacuum created by the air pump tends to take little things with it.  The more air pressure there is, the better that vacuum cleaner will suck it, and at the upper limits of the atmosphere where the air is barely noticeable, but you're still not in the real empty 'vacuum' of space, there's still gravity.

The action and reaction in space renders the rocket useless.

No, the action and reaction is what makes rockets work in space.

Your main problem is hanging on to this combustion chamber and yet I've tried to explain that the vacuum of space does not recognise heat or reaction to expansion as it is simply a void , it just welcomes it with open arms.

And your main problem is not realizing that the combustion does not happen in the vacuum of space.  The combustion happens in a chamber where fuel and oxygen are burned at a high rate and the resulting exhaust gasses are expelled under very high pressure through a relatively small hole that leads to an exhaust nozzle.  The gasses expand and dissipate quickly, but not instantly.  It takes time for the vacuum of space to absorb these gasses and during that time, the expanding gasses push against the exhaust nozzle pushing the rocket forward.

Your major problem is believing that the inside of the rocket expansion can push the rocket and that is absolute madness, it really is.

No.  It's not madness, it's physics.

The expelled exhaust "must" play a part, it has to...why can't you see that.

Why can't you see that the exhaust plays a bigger role than you give it credit for?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 30, 2012, 08:00:33 PM

So you're saying there's no pressure inside the box or rocket combustion chamber/nozzle pushing against the inside walls?  1. Yes or no.

Not the way you implied it with the shoe box experiment.

No offence but it's not a clear reference to what you want to prove.

I was just demonstrating that an object with equal pressure inside on both ends doesn't move, but once there's an opening, the pressure is no longer equal, and the pressure on one end moves the object.

You said to only push out through the opening with both hands, implying there is no pressure pushing equally in all directions.

Is there pressure pushing equally in all directions or not?

Ok , now let's deal with the exhaust or rocket nozzle .

what part does this nozzle play apart from obviously just getting rid of exhaust gases that supposedly play no part.

If you look at Roberto's drawing, he has it as of being no importance at all.

Explain.

As for the nozzle, as the combustion/exhaust exits and continues expanding, it also pushes against the inside of the nozzle.  Being a cone/funnel shape, this pushes the nozzle forward, thus pushing the rocket.

If you have a typical household funnel, put your fingers or both hands inside if it's big enough, now spread your fingers or hands against the inside.  This will push the funnel forward.   

Ok , now let's deal with the exhaust or rocket nozzle .

what part does this nozzle play apart from obviously just getting rid of exhaust gases that supposedly play no part.

If you look at Roberto's drawing, he has it as of being no importance at all.

Explain.

Roberto's drawing was an oversimplification.  The purpose of the exhaust nozzle is to optimize the expansion of the exhaust gasses as they leave the combustion chamber and escape into the vacuum of space.  Remember that the gasses don't simply "go away" or get "consumed" by space.  Because a vacuum is a region of very low pressure, the exhaust gasses expand as they exit the combustion chamber through the opening (called the throat).  As the gasses expand, they push against the walls of the nozzle and help push the rocket forwards.

On his throw, he is throwing the heavy ball which has mass

Is that the same mass that magically disappears when an object is in space? Even though you couldn't refute the mass equation.   
 

and if you notice, it's not until he has released that ball that he move backwards, so it's mass and gravity, plus a small hint of atmosphere against his mass and energy.

Whenever there is force applied, there is an opposite force.  Starting an object can actually require more force than keeping the object moving. 

Now imagine just before he released that ball, I grabbed it from him with the same force as he was about to release it and flung it behind me......he would be rooted to the spot and that is what space would do to him.

Incorrect physics.  He already applied a force, the force has o be cancelled out, and the opposite force that moves him back does this.  It may be less than if he threw it, but it is still there. As people pointed out, he moves before the ball is let go.
You are already arguing your point incorrectly.  You should have claimed that the spring of air pushes him back and that the mass of the ball does not matter.  But you changed your argument to include mass. Are you going to show how objects in space have no mass yet?   

Oh, but gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth(they say). It doesn't seem possible as the power of a vacuum is very strong. More powerful than gravity, you use a vacuum cleaner to pick up crumbs off of the floor.. A poor vacuum(vacuum cleaner) overcomes gravity right there.

A tiny magnet can pick up a nail, thus overcoming the gravity of the entire planet.  The weak muscles in a toddlers legs overcome gravity every time they stand up.  The electromagnetic force is 10^36 times stronger than the gravitational force.

Honestly guys, you would be better off debating quantum thermodynamics with my cat.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step away from the thread.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 07:26:28 PM

The movement started before he released the ball.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2012, 07:15:42 PM

It depends which way you want to look at it.

On Earth, you suck out the air from a container and make a vacuum, now the air wants to get back into that vacuum and is all around that container just waiting for the breach so it can flow right back in and equalize right?

Now picture this scenario from the opposite way round.

In space you have the rocket that, (for instance in this case) is air filled against the expanse of space which contains no matter.

Instead of the air just being in that rocket, it now wants to get out and feed the vacuum and because there is no air pressure from outside acting on it, it starts to expand inside the rocket because it wants out and will keep expanding until the rocket casing splits or a nozzle is opened to release it.

Once it is released, it very quickly dissipates into the vastness of space, rendering the rocket, empty and rooted to the spot.


I do not expect you to accept or understand this because I think it's way beyond your acceptance. But there it is.

Doesn't matter, the metal rocket keeps the pressure. It won't expand. There is a higher pressure inside the rocket than outside, true. Rocket pressure is constantly increasing? no.

Go and look at what a balloon does inside a vacuum.

The balloon expands and expands because the gases expand until they fill that vacuum.
Your rocket would do the same, not to mention that any liquid fuel inside it would turn to vapour and expand like crazy, and popping open your rocket from the inside.

I don;t expect you to accept it as it kills off your life long love of rocketry and space travel and all that stuff, so, hang onto what you believe, I'm ok with it, I just don't follow it at all.

A balloon is elastic, a rocket is not. If you open the water tap and put a balloon there, the higher pressure in the pipe system will make the water start going out, start filling it until it explodes. If you close the tap, the pressure wont increase until the tap explodes, why is that?

My life long love of rocketry and space travel and all that stuff? you don't know me.

Now you are not paying attention to the movement happening before he released the ball?

I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.

If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.

Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.

In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.

In physics which is the acting force and which is the reacting force is irrelevant, both happen at the same time with the same force, we might as well say the ball is pushing him away from it. Or both move or none move.

The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.

We could also say his elbows are propelling him away from the ball. If you say only one, is a half true, both happen.

The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.

Mass is not visual, the movement resulting of a force, and the force an object can apply relies on its mass. Weight is nothing but the way we measure the effect gravity has on our mass. We could still measure weight on space  because there is still gravity and mass. Get two objects with enough mass, they will be attracted to each other by gravity, put a bascule between them, and you can measure "weight".

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 01, 2012, 07:26:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 07:06:51 AM

In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.

In physics which is the acting force and which is the reacting force is irrelevant, both happen at the same time with the same force, we might as well say the ball is pushing him away from it. Or both move or none move.

Quote

No... On Earth, the medicine ball has mass but the person has more mass than the ball, for instance. (and we know mass isn't weight but weight is still the issue).....In space, the man would weight "nothing" and the ball weighs "nothing"...., now they both have mass but only in the context that they exist in space as something, that's it....If that medicine ball , in space, were touching the mans finger tip  from his outstretched arm, the man could not push that ball away, the ball and him would be suspended in space, looking at each other and not being able to do anything about it, except the man could flap his arms and wriggle his legs and punch into the nothingness but as soon as he went to touch the ball, it would be right next to his finger tip, like before...... If he had that ball to his chest, his arms could push that ball away from him because his arms have spring, As long as he released the ball from his grip as he sprung his arms, it would propel into space, yet there would be no force acting against him and he would stay put. I know this is hard for you to grasp but I know it's right. Assuming we can magically have a man alive in space. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 07:06:51 AM

The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.

We could also say his elbows are propelling him away from the ball. If you say only one, is a half true, both happen.

Quote

As above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 07:06:51 AM

The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.

Mass is not visual, the movement resulting of a force, and the force an object can apply relies on its mass. Weight is nothing but the way we measure the effect gravity has on our mass. We could still measure weight on space  because there is still gravity and mass. Get two objects with enough mass, they will be attracted to each other by gravity, put a bascule between them, and you can measure "weight".

Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.

Space doesn't nullify anything. It is only an environment with lack of pressure. Atmospheric pressure is not what causes weight, mass or gravity. So they still exist in space.

Not incorrect physics at all, this is were the duping comes in.....The man can apply as much force as he wants but until he lets go, which means, the minute his grip is fractionally released which you will not see in the picture, it is only then that the effects of the mass of the ball comes into play,

Incorrect.  F=ma, so a=F/m If he applies a force to a mass it will accelerate.  The mass of the ball instantly is taken into account.   
 

If he went to throw the ball yet stopped at the point of release and grabbed it, he would move slightly back and then forward back to the exact same position.Try it if you don't believe me. This experiment is designed to simply baffle people and it works, just not with me.

No, this is correct.  He applies a force to the ball and he "would move slightly back" and then counter acts that force with an opposite force and move "forward back to the exact same position". So if he applies a force to the ball, and then you take the ball, he is unable to counter act the force and only moves backwards. Glad you agree that your first assumption of what would happen is wrong. 

The problem with physics is, it will not recognise weight and mass.

Physics uses mass all the time.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Weight is even used sometimes. Usually it is called the force due to gravity.  I can't even comprehend how you think physics doesn't recognize them.
 

Yes they are different in respect of size to weight ratios but no matter which way you look at it, mass has weight.

No, mass is mass and weight is weight.  An object on earth has the same mass as it would on the moon.  An object on earth has a different weight than it would on the moon.  This is not up for debate.  Mass still equals volume times density.  Weight still equals mass times gravitational acceleration.  SO ass you can see, an object in space will have zero weight but still have the same mass.   

the supposed weightless environment of space as we are told it is, simply wouldn't recognise the mass as I explained before, with the cannon ball and the equal sized plastic lookalike cannon ball.....
 If you were in space, both those balls would weight nothing and neither would you.

Correct.
 

You could hold both in your hands and feel no weight because there is no weight coming from the mass.

Correct.

You can push both balls away and because there is nothing acting upon them at all, you could be pushing away two plastic balls or two cannon balls and you would not have a clue which was which, assuming they looked identical.

And here is where you fail again.  Force still equals mass times acceleration. If you push them equally, one will float away at different velocity as they accelerated differently.  He have not disproved this. IF what you say was true, you could float over to the wall of the space ship and just push it along from inside. But luckily for physics, the spaceship has a much greater mass than you, so if you tried to push a wall of the spaceship, you would simple be pushed away from the wall, the wall wouldn't be pushed away from you.
Disprove this if you think it is wrong.       

The problem with debating space, is, it comes down to the chicken and the egg argument, or the round stationary Earth versus the rotating Earth argument. It could (up to now) be only solved by going into space and viewing the Earth from a still point in space.   

I don't know who said this because you miss quoted, but scientists don't just sit around and eat cake all day.  They actually work. 

Well this is a new one. Enlighten me.

Is weight caused by atmospheric pressure? no, its caused by gravity acting over the mass (your mass, if you measure your weight), is gravity or mass caused by atmospheric pressure? no, mass is an intrinsic value of the matter that does not depend on the environment, and gravity is how we call what makes objects attract each other with a force proportional to their masses.
None of this is earth or atmospheric dependent, astronomers can watch asteroids, planets, stars etc (with telescopes, of course) and accurately predict their path based on the forces of near bodies acting over them (gravity).
Of course, you can say you are weightless on space, but not because gravity does not act over you, or mass has no value. But because you are not being pressed against earth or any other massive object like another planet.

Now, if you answer to this (as you obviously will), please save us both time by not mentioning how you think Ive been spooned this, brainwashed or anything else. Respond to what I said instead.

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 01, 2012, 06:52:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 06:44:03 AM

I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.

If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.

Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.

In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.

Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.


if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?


Mass

In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)"), more specifically inertial mass, is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. (source: Wikipedia)

Weight

In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity (source: Wikipedia)

The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.


For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that  the sponge ball would be massive is size.


On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.

In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.

The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "

It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.

No, space is not devoid of gravitation, the earth is on space and its gravity keeps us and its atmosphere from floating away.
Gravity is what keeps the whole earth together like a sphere, it is part of how planets are formed.
Mass is an intrinsic value of matter, it don't change, weather it is no water, air or vacuum, it has the same value, it is what gravity acts over, weight is just how we measure the pressure resulting of that gravity between an object and the earth.

You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.

Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:41:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 07:06:51 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 01, 2012, 06:52:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 06:44:03 AM

I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.

If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.

Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.

In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.

Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.


if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?

I said they have mass wherever they are if you care to look.
It's just that the mass is not recognised floating in space in terms of weight, no matter what is said.

A medicine ball in space might as well be polystyrene the same as you because you equally have no weight and no gain.

It appears impossible because we cannot get away from what we feel on Earth and it takes some thinking about for many.

No, a medicine as well not be polystirnene; they have different masses, you fool. In space a thing's mass still acts the same way, as in, it still has a resistence to acceleration; polystiene has less, medicine balls have more. so it is harder to push a medicine ball, than a polystyrene one. if your body has equal mass to a medicine ball then you will go back just as much as the ball goes forward from the coincident (origing) of you pushing the ball. now let me ask you , if this is not the case what is stopping you form moving backwards when you push the ball? if you don't go backwards much, you must have more mass, not less. and if you don't go backwards at all, you have infinite mass.

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 08:37:47 AM

You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.

Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.

I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.

And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 01, 2012, 09:47:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:32:43 AM

The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.


For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that  the sponge ball would be massive is size.


On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.

In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.

The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "

It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.

No, space is not devoid of gravitation, the earth is on space and its gravity keeps us and its atmosphere from floating away.
Gravity is what keeps the whole earth together like a sphere, it is part of how planets are formed.
Mass is an intrinsic value of matter, it don't change, weather it is no water, air or vacuum, it has the same value, it is what gravity acts over, weight is just how we measure the pressure resulting of that gravity between an object and the earth.

That is just a simple guess.

If you are honest, you are literally just going by what you have been told. You have no clue what keeps Earth as it is and you have no clue what Earth actually is in space, or what space is.

Is not a guess, gravity so is the most accurate answer to that (why are objects attracted to earth, why it has a spherical shape, why other planets also do, what causes the shapes of the galaxies, moons rotating around planets etc). Could our idea of gravity be wrong? I'm not as ignorant as you to think i can be 100% sure about something like that. So far it is the best explanation.

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:47:45 AM

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:41:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 07:06:51 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 01, 2012, 06:52:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 06:44:03 AM

I am paying attention and it's no more than a slight rock from him until he releases that ball.

If he didn't release it, he would go back to the exact same spot, assuming the floor is perfectly level.

Movement is movement, is a little, but is also a little what he has moved the ball so far.

In space, he weighs nothing, his skate board weighs nothing and the ball weighs nothing.
If his arms throw the ball away from him, the ball moves, he and the skateboard stay put as there is nothing acting on them.
The only thing acting, is his bent elbows propelling the ball away from him.
The ball might have mass on Earth but in space it is just a round object that only has mass in that you can see it exists as an object, yet you could not feel the weight of that mass against you as it is rendered a nothing.

Things have mass no matter where they are; It is weight they do not have in space. These concepts are quite distinct.


if you push say a medicine ball in space, what is stopping you from going backwards?

I said they have mass wherever they are if you care to look.
It's just that the mass is not recognised floating in space in terms of weight, no matter what is said.

A medicine ball in space might as well be polystyrene the same as you because you equally have no weight and no gain.

It appears impossible because we cannot get away from what we feel on Earth and it takes some thinking about for many.

No, a medicine as well not be polystirnene; they have different masses, you fool. in space a things mass still acts the same way as in it still has a resistence to acceleration, polystiene has less, medicine balls have more. so it is harder to push a medicine ball, they a polystyrene. if your body has equal mass to a medicine ball then you will go back just as much as the ball goes forward from the coincident (origing) of you pushing the ball. now let me ask you , if this is not the case what is stopping you form moving backwards when you push the ball, if you don't go backwards, you must have more mass, not less.

Instead of jumping straight in...read what I said.

I read what you said and I addrssed every point rationally: if you don't understand the implications that is not my problem.

Space has nothing, so it's useless.

Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.

So space does and, at the same time, does not do things?

The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.


For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that  the sponge ball would be massive is size.


On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.

In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.

The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "

It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.

From this, it's clear that you don't understand the difference between mass & weight.

Mass is the amount of 'stuff' an object has.  Weight is the force that the gravitational pull of the planet exerts on a mass, but even in a weightless environment, it still has inertia - which is the 'resistance' it puts up to being accellerated.

For example - my mass is 85kg.  My weight here in southern England is 833.9 Newtons, but at the pole it would be 835.6 Newtons and at the equator 831.3 Newtons, due to a combination of the different distance from the centre of the earth that the equator & poles are, and the circular movement of the rotating planet which has the effect of 'cancelling out' a small amount of the gravitational force.

It's even possible to measure the tiny reduction in your weight when you travel upwards - indeed we did this experiment when I was at University, taking a standard mass & an extremely accurate scale up the Telecom Tower.  The reduction in weight is precisely what it is predicted to be using the inverse square law - 0.0032% per 100 metres

Incidentally, if we were on a flat earth that is constantly being accellerated at 9.81 m/s, there would be no measurable difference in weight with either latitude or altitude.  The fact that weight varies with position in exactly that way that Newton's equation predicts is how we know with mathematical certainty that the force keeping us stuck to the ground is gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:32:43 AM

The actual point is, mass is weight, it's just a matter (pardon the pun) of matter occupying that mass.
Mass gets turned into magic where space is concerned but the reality is, we can feel mass on Earth by simply weighing two objects to find which one has more mass.


For instance, A cannon ball has a lot of mass compared to the same size sponge ball, yet if you made that sponge ball gigantic to weigh the same as the cannon ball, they would have equal mass, it would be simply that  the sponge ball would be massive is size.


On earth we can weigh both balls and verify that the mass is equal.
In space we cannot, yet both the balls have mass in space simply because they have matter in them, inside of space, yet they are both weightless.

In space... devoid of any matter at all, or gravitation, or anything, those balls weigh nothing and are just suspended pieces of mass that cannot be measured no matter which one you push, hold, weigh.

The mass only becomes noticeable when it's got gravity pulling it down, yet in space, "magic acts on the balls "

It's extremely clever side stepping science but that's all it is, a simple dodge of the real effects.

From this, it's clear that you don't understand the difference between mass & weight.

Mass is the amount of 'stuff' an object has.  Weight is the force that the gravitational pull of the planet exerts on a mass, but even in a weightless environment, it still has inertia - which is the 'resistance' it puts up to being accellerated.

For example - my mass is 85kg.  My weight here in southern England is 833.9 Newtons, but at the pole it would be 835.6 Newtons and at the equator 831.3 Newtons, due to a combination of the different distance from the centre of the earth that the equator & poles are, and the circular movement of the rotating planet which has the effect of 'cancelling out' a small amount of the gravitational force.

It's even possible to measure the tiny reduction in your weight when you travel upwards - indeed we did this experiment when I was at University, taking a standard mass & an extremely accurate scale up the Telecom Tower.  The reduction in weight is precisely what it is predicted to be using the inverse square law - 0.0032% per 100 metres

Incidentally, if we were on a flat earth that is constantly being accellerated at 9.81 m/s, there would be no measurable difference in weight with either latitude or altitude.  The fact that weight varies with position in exactly that way that Newton's equation predicts is how we know with mathematical certainty that the force keeping us stuck to the ground is gravity.

Major Twang, I understand that we are of the same view that scepticmatic is misguided. But what you have called inertia is mass and what you have called mass is volume. Please look it up before responding.

Edit:
I retract my volume comment.

Edit:

Ignore me.

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:51:01 AM

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 08:37:47 AM

You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.

Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.

I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.

And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?

What I do, is take a massive step back before I go diving in, to believe what comes out of the media as regards space.

I've swallowed enough of the hype and BS and now I scrutinise it, where-as before, I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to even contest it, I just went with it like a fool.

You don't scrutinise, you presume it is all suspect and then try to prove it is all lies.

You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.

That is all you have to say? You aren't going to refute my claim that you yourself admitted to being wrong?
I showed how you are wrong and you are still preaching your ignorant ways.  You lost, give it up. 

Oh and btw, I did eat cake at work on Friday.  It was good.  But I didn't make up lies, we wouldn't stay in business if the company did that. 

Trying to claim things and attempting to complicate things is fruitless as it proves absolutely nothing.

Your opinion doesn't count as a counter argument.  We have all this science and you have nothing. 

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 11:16:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:57:56 AM

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 09:51:01 AM

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2012, 08:37:47 AM

You're right Sokarul, scientists don't sit around all day eating cake but those that come up with ideas to dupe people do sit around all day making lies up.

Oh, Dear. I didn't realize you could be so cynical you become naive.

I used to be naive. I used to believe all the BS that was spoon fed to me by the media.

And now you believe the absolutte converse (both of which are irrational), manichean thinking much?

What I do, is take a massive step back before I go diving in, to believe what comes out of the media as regards space.

I've swallowed enough of the hype and BS and now I scrutinise it, where-as before, I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to even contest it, I just went with it like a fool.

You don't scrutinise, you presume it is all suspect and then try to prove it is all lies.

Ok.
Whichever way you want to put it.

My comment was not equivalent to yours, but a rebuttal.

Quote from: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 10:07:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2012, 10:24:00 AM

Space has nothing, so it's useless.

When did I type this? Have you twisted something here?

 click on the date-link, you will see I have not done anything to it.

Yes I'm aware of all of that but I'm trying to explain how space nullifies Earthly mass and weight.

So space does and, at the same time, does not do things?

no response? I guessed as much.