.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269769 Views
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #510 on: December 02, 2012, 07:25:45 PM »
Roberto those conspiracy debunkers are experts at making you think you are nuts, and not thinking like every other rational person. You said yourself that it was clear that landings didn't happen afterlooking into hoax claims. If they get caught in a few lies, you will know that they are liars. The moon landings never happened.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #511 on: December 02, 2012, 07:57:26 PM »
I'm taking about looking at both sides in the same way before making up your mind about something. If conspiracy debunkers make you feel nuts or not thinking rational, it means you already made up your mind, but that also depends where you are looking at. The site I linked shows the information in a very objective, not derogatory way.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #512 on: December 02, 2012, 10:12:58 PM »
I don't need to search for it. I know exactly how they initiate combustion in space. It's called fake video.
So you know how the rockets work then?  Good. 

What videos are fake?  Videos of rockets taking off?  Videos of how it works?  How do you know it's fake?

?

Major Twang

  • 222
  • +0/-0
  • Astronomer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #513 on: December 03, 2012, 09:56:42 AM »
The one magical trick they play is, they know that nobody can tell how a rocket would work just by looking at it, so they can play Newtons law on it all day long in the knowledge that nobody can disprove it, without them having the Newton counter argument.

It's clever manipulated science but bogus science all the same.

Newtons laws of motion are validated every day in schools, colleges & universities all around the world.  Engineers use them.  People who build aircraft rely on them.  They have never been found lacking as long as objects do not approach relatavistic speeds or quantum scales.

If you are so bloody sure that Newton's laws are wrong, do what any scientist does & construct an experiment to demonstrate what's wrong.

When you can do that, maybe someone will take you seriously.  Until then, you're just another delusional person on the internet claiming that black is actually white.


*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #514 on: December 03, 2012, 11:42:39 AM »
What sets you apart from other delusional people that know they are right? Anything more than the balloons, they are pretty flimsy?
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

burt

  • 849
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #515 on: December 03, 2012, 05:33:54 PM »
The one magical trick they play is, they know that nobody can tell how a rocket would work just by looking at it, so they can play Newtons law on it all day long in the knowledge that nobody can disprove it, without them having the Newton counter argument.

It's clever manipulated science but bogus science all the same.

Newtons laws of motion are validated every day in schools, colleges & universities all around the world.  Engineers use them.  People who build aircraft rely on them.  They have never been found lacking as long as objects do not approach relatavistic speeds or quantum scales.

If you are so bloody sure that Newton's laws are wrong, do what any scientist does & construct an experiment to demonstrate what's wrong.

When you can do that, maybe someone will take you seriously.  Until then, you're just another delusional person on the internet claiming that black is actually white.
This is where you and others get me wrong.
I'm not discounting his laws on the whole.

Let's put it this way, I'm basically saying his law is getting used with rocketry when it does not rely on his third law in how it's told.
This is the problem.

For instance, his law gets used ridiculously as far as rockets go with people using the reliance on his action reaction forces and using them in the terms of the medicine ball and ice skate type method, when it's simply not the case.

It's action and reaction but it's the action of the burn and thrust against the expanding air from that and not an up the nozzle kick up the arse.

It's still Newtons law on Earth but not in how it's told.
The so called rocket throwing medicine balls out of the back constantly, and using the reaction push up the rocket from that is absolutely 100% bogus science.

You can sit there all day and tell me I'm an fool or I'm wrong but I know I'm right.

You know you're right? How?

?

burt

  • 849
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #516 on: December 04, 2012, 12:36:23 PM »
All of which have been successfully rebutted rationally by Mantaxi (If a little rudely), Major Twang et al?.

I have been through the discussion, and have seen that your inability to understand is only outdone by your invincible ignorance.

instead of being sceptical before you understand it, why don't you do some research? Converesly why not look up actual rational arguments against the concepts you are denying, there are plenty out there that aren't informed by conspiritorial or denialist/wishful thinking.

there are a few good fringe authors aswell, like James Demeo.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #517 on: December 05, 2012, 03:22:28 AM »
Why is it so hard to understand Newtons laws? ???
Im a tractor

*

Wolf

  • 133
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth non-believer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #518 on: December 05, 2012, 04:43:29 AM »
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?

Case closed.
lol - they actually believe the earth is flat!

?

Major Twang

  • 222
  • +0/-0
  • Astronomer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #519 on: December 05, 2012, 05:08:48 AM »
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?

Case closed.
Case closed my arse.

Oh ok, I see what you mean.

Ok I can relax now. The rocket works by shooting out bursts of gas and goes up via recoil, recoil, recoil,recoil,recoil,recoil...all the way into space.

 ::)

You've finally got it - except it shoots out a steady stream of gas rather than bursts.

Hot gas goes one way very fast, rocket goes the other.  It doesn't need anything to 'push' against.

All objects obey Newton's laws of motion.  There isn't a special clause that exempts certain types of machine.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #520 on: December 05, 2012, 05:19:22 AM »
sceptimatic, have you ever fired a rifle?

Case closed.
Case closed my arse.

Oh ok, I see what you mean.

Ok I can relax now. The rocket works by shooting out bursts of gas and goes up via recoil, recoil, recoil,recoil,recoil,recoil...all the way into space.

 ::)

You've finally got it - except it shoots out a steady stream of gas rather than bursts.

Hot gas goes one way very fast, rocket goes the other.  It doesn't need anything to 'push' against.

All objects obey Newton's laws of motion.  There isn't a special clause that exempts certain types of machine.

Think of it this way sceptimatic.

A rifle goes BANG. An explosion goes BANG.
A rocket goes BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG.

Understand?

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #521 on: December 05, 2012, 05:32:02 AM »

?

Major Twang

  • 222
  • +0/-0
  • Astronomer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #522 on: December 05, 2012, 05:48:30 AM »
I got the bull shit from the very start about Newtons laws applying to the rocket.
The point I'm making, is, it's bull shit science as far as the propulsion of the rocket is concerned.

No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I can now no longer believe that anyone is as obstinately stupid as you, and I have concluded that you are an otherwise normal bloke who is just enjoying winding up people.

Newtons LAWS of motion are called laws for the very simple reason that they apply to all objects without exception.  If this were not the case, they wouldn't be called the 'Laws of Motion' - they would be called the 'approximate correlations we've noticed in the lab but can't be bothered investigating properly'.

They have been understood, used & relied upon by every physical scientist, engineer & mechanic since the 18th century.

Conservation of momentum states that if a kilo of exhaust gas is expelled from a one tonne rocket at 4,000m/s, then the rocket will gain 4m/s of velocity.

It doesn't need anything to push against.  In fact, atmospheric pressure slightly reduces the efficiency by decreasing the pressure differential between the inside of the reaction chamber & the outside.  It also provided drag against the rocket.

If you don't like this, you can bloody well lump it, because it's a FACT.

You're wrong.  Get over it.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #523 on: December 05, 2012, 05:54:58 AM »
I got the bull shit from the very start about Newtons laws applying to the rocket.
The point I'm making, is, it's bull shit science as far as the propulsion of the rocket is concerned.

No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I can now no longer believe that anyone is as obstinately stupid as you, and I have concluded that you are an otherwise normal bloke who is just enjoying winding up people.

Newtons LAWS of motion are called laws for the very simple reason that they apply to all objects without exception.  If this were not the case, they wouldn't be called the 'Laws of Motion' - they would be called the 'approximate correlations we've noticed in the lab but can't be bothered investigating properly'.

They have been understood, used & relied upon by every physical scientist, engineer & mechanic since the 18th century.

Conservation of momentum states that if a kilo of exhaust gas is expelled from a one tonne rocket at 4,000m/s, then the rocket will gain 4m/s of velocity.

It doesn't need anything to push against.  In fact, atmospheric pressure slightly reduces the efficiency by decreasing the pressure differential between the inside of the reaction chamber & the outside.  It also provided drag against the rocket.

If you don't like this, you can bloody well lump it, because it's a FACT.

You're wrong.  Get over it.

FOR ABOUT THE 30TH TIME IN THIS THREAD... WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Not that this eejit will accept it... because "he is right, he knows he's right. And we are wrong".

SCIENCE!!!

I'm out.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #524 on: December 05, 2012, 08:29:59 AM »
Quote
A rocket "burns" it's fuel after initial ignition and it's simply a constant burn, that's it, no bangs and recoils.
It's just the hot gases pushing on the dense cold gases of the atmosphere and that's it.

They just tell you rockets work the way they do because if they didn't...space exploration would be a no go and they couldn't bull shit the public.
I don't understand one thing about this. The hot gases push against the atmosphere, causing THE GASES to move, but not yet the rocket, since they are not one single body. In order for the momentum to be transferred from the hot gas to the rocket, they have to be in contact, so the hot gas has to go upward and "clump" near the bottom of the rocket. However we see the gas expelled from the combustion going downwards.
And also, according to you, a submarine working somehow with jets instead of helixes could easily achieve great speeds, since water is (more or less) 1000 times more dense than air.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #525 on: December 05, 2012, 08:50:44 AM »
I wasn't actually in this to win anything but I accept you were wrong and it's an easy mistake to make.
You are out, so there's no need to answer this.
Thanks for the comments.

Nice try but you are still hanging onto the bogus science behind the rockets lift.
I am right and you are wrong.
Like you said, you are done with this thread, so no need to reply to this.

You are not winning anything, everybody will eventually stop answering you because you are incredibly ignorant and incapable of understating any logical explanation.
Apparently by now you've noticed that the best you can do is have the last comment saying "I'm right".

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #526 on: December 05, 2012, 09:41:14 AM »


Not that this eejit will accept it... because "he is right, he knows he's right. And we are wrong".


It's because we're all not a balloon scientist like he is.

I for one must say this though;

Thank you sceptimatic for creating this thread.  That's right everyone, I'm thanking him, and here's why. 

By debating in this thread (besides the entertainment factor), I have actually learned more about how rockets really work than before.  I never really put much thought into, but after doing a bit of reading on the subject and thinking up experiments that even a four year old could grasp, I have to admit I have a much better understanding of it all even if sceptimatic doesn't. 

Anyway, since I'm a curious experimental kind of guy, I might just try something and film it too, so that I can post it here.


?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #527 on: December 05, 2012, 10:08:59 AM »
Now just who is ignorant here?

Me or those who are calling me an idiot for sticking to my stance?

You Sir can choose to take part or not, just like anyone else.
I've said it before and I'll re-iterate it again. Put your point across and as forcefully as you want but if I keep seeing the same old crap of the rocket working against itself, I'm going to sit back and shake my head and come back with what I come back with.

Either post or cry, it makes no difference to me...but don't be so arrogant yourself thinking you know for sure when you are simply following a trend and are working on peer pressure from when you were indoctrinated into all this , just the same as your class mates and most people in life.

You think your argument beats mine when in actual fact , your argument to me beggars belief whilst mine makes absolute sense.

The problem here though, is, my argument to you and others, beggars belief and to you and others, your's makes more sense.

Do you see where we are at here?

I think i do, you seem to believe its your word against ours.
I was indoctrinated this just as my classmates? i didn't have physics as a subject until 3 years before I finished high school and I barley remember some of the things I was taught.

I am being arrogant? you are the one thinking all scientists do is follow what they have been taught not really knowing what they are doing, or not caring to look for a logic behind it because its commonly accepted. And you really believe that because you "think for yourself", your ideas have the same weight or more than an entire scientific community. As if one persons knowledge, obtained only by himself, could surpass the knowledge that has been tested, studied, and used over the centuries by millions of people. You simply dismiss it by saying they were following a trend, believing you are the only one thinking by yourself.

?

cartwheelnurd

  • 517
  • +0/-0
  • Iname as One
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #528 on: December 05, 2012, 10:46:02 AM »
After 700 posts, I have to conclude that sceptimatic isn't an elaborate troll, just stubborn and close-minded.

I think we won this argument 48 pages ago.

But if we continue, then we can get on the page for biggest threads!
Ravioli is how the universe fills a small part of itself with cheese.

Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #529 on: December 05, 2012, 11:05:37 AM »
Why did you bother making this thread if your so sure of your self.
Im a tractor

?

cartwheelnurd

  • 517
  • +0/-0
  • Iname as One
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #530 on: December 05, 2012, 11:19:33 AM »
Why did you bother making this thread if your so sure of your self.

Because he wanted to frustrate people by not understanding their arguments.
Ravioli is how the universe fills a small part of itself with cheese.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #531 on: December 05, 2012, 12:44:43 PM »
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.

If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?
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.

?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #532 on: December 05, 2012, 01:23:56 PM »
Mr. Sceptimatic -

Now that you've brought your message to this fine forum, what is your next step?

Surely your journey to enlighten the world to the follies of Newtons laws IN SPACE cannot end here.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #533 on: December 05, 2012, 01:24:32 PM »
Tell us a story about a toy water rocket with cold water in it on a hot day.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

burt

  • 849
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #534 on: December 05, 2012, 01:32:22 PM »
No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.

If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?

The best way to explain this is to tell you a story about it.
It is simply a story, so don' t take it as any put down or offence towards you or any attempt by me to belittle you because this is not my aim...My aim is to try and put it into context as to how it works, using a simple story.

Once upon a time, there was a rocket, who spent all his days sitting on a launch pad but his dream was to go into the sky.

Below the rocket, was a big family of dense cold air and this dense cold air family taunted the rocket and mocked him because he could not fly.

The rocket knew he was full of fuel and oxidiser but he just needed a spark to show this dense cold air crowd that he could launch.

The dense cold air crowd were all around the rocket and under the rocket and gathered together waiting for this spark so that the rocket could ignite his fuel, so they could test themselves against the might of his fierce burning gases.

Just then, a spark ignited under the rockets nozzles and the hot gas family shouted, " ok dense cold air family, if it's a fight you want, we will come at you in force and we will power through you.

The cold dense air crowd started to get really angry as the hot air gas family started rushing out of the rocket nozzle and expanding outwards and pushing the cold dense air family away from the bottom of the rocket, but as they did this, the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements  in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.

The hot air gas family finally started to push through into the cold dense air family and lifted off, yet the cold dense air family kept on following it up and attacking the hot air from all angles, squeezing it back as much as the hot air family were trying to still push through.

The fight lasted for many minutes, until the hot air family shouted to the rocket, " we cannot push through, we have sent just about all of our family out to break through but the cold dense air family just keep coming at us, we are fading Mr rocket, we are fading.

The rocket was happy though, because, although he knew he would come crashing back down to Earth, he achieved his dream of launching into the sky, thanks to the spark and fight that the hot air family gave him,

Everyone remembers the day and it's in legend that the gas on gas fight ensured that Mr rocket achieved his dream.

The end.

Cool story bro,
 Now back to the point:

No matter what is said, the rocket relies on the atmosphere to work like everything else on this planet.
You are wrong and I am right and I know I'm right.

If the exhaust gasses are pushing against the atmosphere as you say, then what's pushing against the rocket?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #535 on: December 05, 2012, 03:59:29 PM »
The cold dense air crowd started to get really angry as the hot air gas family started rushing out of the rocket nozzle and expanding outwards and pushing the cold dense air family away from the bottom of the rocket, but as they did this, the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements  in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.

The hot air gas family finally started to push through into the cold dense air family and lifted off, yet the cold dense air family kept on following it up and attacking the hot air from all angles, squeezing it back as much as the hot air family were trying to still push through.

So what happens if you put the rocket on its side and light the engine?
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #536 on: December 05, 2012, 04:20:24 PM »
The Saturn V, fully loaded, weighed in at over 6.2 million pounds.  The shuttle was 4.4 million pounds.  How much hot air do you suppose that it take to lift either of those rockets into the air and out of sight?
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.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #537 on: December 05, 2012, 04:57:56 PM »
the cold dense air family kept on bringing reinforcements  in to push those gases back and it was like a push of war instead of a tug of war.
Wow... who needs science when you have imagination?

So you have some proof or evidence of this cold air rushing into the direct vicinity under the rocket with enough volume to create the pressure needed to push against several million pounds?

Displacing cold air with hot air, does just work for upwards movement, you should be aware of this.
I guess you've never seen a bottle rocket launched horizontally, or even downward?

?

geepun92

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #538 on: December 05, 2012, 10:59:27 PM »
Sceptimatic needs a lesson in Newtons Third Law

?

geepun92

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #539 on: December 05, 2012, 11:05:04 PM »
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.)

Newton's Third Law is usually expressed as, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," and you can also think of it as "Forces always come in pairs." While you are pushing on the medicine ball, Newton's Third Law says that the medicine ball is also pushing on you. Thus, you are accelerated by the force acting (backward) on you by the medicine ball. Never mind that it was you who decided to start the pushing in the first place; you can't push on the ball without having the ball push back. Forces always come in pairs.

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.

Thus for example a Delta II rocket can send a 1800 kg payload into geosynchronous orbit, using about 200,000 kg of propellant. The total rocket at launch would have a mass of about 232,000 kg. That's a lot of fuel! This is because 2 km/s (= 4500 mph) is considered "low" speed in Rocket World, so you have to achieve thrust by squirting lots of mass. If you could squirt something even faster out the back of the rocket, you could get more thrust with less fuel, and therefore send heavier payloads.