Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 82625 Views
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #690 on: July 07, 2013, 08:47:06 PM »
Pyrolizard and markjo could I give you some advice based on my experience. ?

If you're trying to carry on an intelligent debate with sceptimatic.....Forget it !
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #691 on: July 07, 2013, 08:58:46 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard
So the idea of three different cameras giving three different angles stumps you.  How is that a problem with the footage?
So I was right then, someone did climb a tower and then all 3 amateurs knitted the videos together. Or were they official cameramen.
Hmmm.

Evidently sarcasm eludes you as well, so I'll say it real plain.  Nobody needed to climb a tower, because there were three cameras that gave footage to the video up to the point of around eleven seconds.  This footage was spliced together to give the video you see.

So...  What's your point, here?  Seems like the first two camera angles were from fixed cameras.  For the third, who said the camera guy doing this was amazing at his job?  Or the guy editing the video together, for that matter, since they may well not be the same guy?  And how is any of this relevant to you pulling a number from nowhere and the validity of it's launch speed?
Well, for one thing, there are no 360 foot rockets, so I just went from guessing a ballistic missile that was launched.
To be honest, it's hard to tell what is a real launch and a fake one to be fair.

Real or fake?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle


Real or fake?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">ROCKET ARES I - NASA ANIMATION




And now a new number, although closer, comes right out of nowhere too.  Nobody claimed Ares I-X was 360 feet tall.  I know you have trouble with numbers, too, but that doesn't mean copy and paste don't work.

And hey, if you can't tell that a video is an animation, that's fine.  Animation is getting better all the time.  Usually checking the title and the comments helps, like in that second video you gave that has animation in the title. and bringing it up in places like the NASA forums will give you a definite answer.  Or you could, you know, do a bit of research.

Oh shoot, I forgot.  Every piece of information that contradicts what you believe is a conspiracy.  Huh, I can see why you have such trouble telling animations from real launches now.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #692 on: July 07, 2013, 09:33:23 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard
So the idea of three different cameras giving three different angles stumps you.  How is that a problem with the footage?
So I was right then, someone did climb a tower and then all 3 amateurs knitted the videos together. Or were they official cameramen.
Hmmm.

Evidently sarcasm eludes you as well, so I'll say it real plain.  Nobody needed to climb a tower, because there were three cameras that gave footage to the video up to the point of around eleven seconds.  This footage was spliced together to give the video you see.

So...  What's your point, here?  Seems like the first two camera angles were from fixed cameras.  For the third, who said the camera guy doing this was amazing at his job?  Or the guy editing the video together, for that matter, since they may well not be the same guy?  And how is any of this relevant to you pulling a number from nowhere and the validity of it's launch speed?
Well, for one thing, there are no 360 foot rockets, so I just went from guessing a ballistic missile that was launched.
To be honest, it's hard to tell what is a real launch and a fake one to be fair.

Real or fake?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle


Real or fake?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">ROCKET ARES I - NASA ANIMATION




And now a new number, although closer, comes right out of nowhere too.  Nobody claimed Ares I-X was 360 feet tall.  I know you have trouble with numbers, too, but that doesn't mean copy and paste don't work.

And hey, if you can't tell that a video is an animation, that's fine.  Animation is getting better all the time.  Usually checking the title and the comments helps, like in that second video you gave that has animation in the title. and bringing it up in places like the NASA forums will give you a definite answer.  Or you could, you know, do a bit of research.

Oh shoot, I forgot.  Every piece of information that contradicts what you believe is a conspiracy.  Huh, I can see why you have such trouble telling animations from real launches now.
Now you have confirmed that tongue in cheek runs right past you. How are you ever going to look at something critically if you cannot see the reason for the last two videos.  :P

I may have started it, but by that point I was only responding in kind.

I really don't see the point of the videos, they're fairly obvious animation, both of them.  Like I said, if you have trouble telling the difference, that's fine.  Animation really is getting better all the time.  The difference between those and the supposed ballistic missile launch are nearly night and day, to my eye at least. 


So back on the topic of whether a rocket is even feasible, how fast does something have to be going to take off as shown in the video?  It's clearly not an animation, or your whole comment about ballistic missiles would be irrelevant.

Edit:  Should probably mention that what I meant is, how fast does it have to accelerate from launch.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 09:40:45 PM by Pyrolizard »
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #693 on: July 07, 2013, 09:49:49 PM »
I may have started it, but by that point I was only responding in kind.

I really don't see the point of the videos, they're fairly obvious animation, both of them.  Like I said, if you have trouble telling the difference, that's fine.  Animation really is getting better all the time.  The difference between those and the supposed ballistic missile launch are nearly night and day, to my eye at least. 


So back on the topic of whether a rocket is even feasible, how fast does something have to be going to take off as shown in the video?  It's clearly not an animation, or your whole comment about ballistic missiles would be irrelevant.

Edit:  Should probably mention that what I meant is, how fast does it have to accelerate from launch.
Fast enough for the nose cone to push through the air to create a low pressure down it's sides to balance it out. So think of it launching like this..............pssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.....whooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I'm sorry, I have no idea how fast that is, I've never heard a water gun turn into a firehose before.  You're gonna have to give me a number, or something.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #694 on: July 07, 2013, 09:56:09 PM »
Oh, ok. Any idea how this video guy/gal saw over the trees in that 7 seconds. I mean, did he/she climb "quickly" up a tower or something to zoom in or am I missing something here?
So you really couldn't figure out on your own that multiple cameras at different locations were recording at the same time and the footage was edited together?

Considering you were also baffled by a camera's auto exposure;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57366.560.html

Or that you couldn't comprehend that two different images with two different ground features and two different shadow patterns were in fact two different landings;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58300.180.html

I'm not surprised.  You really should learn some basics of video/imaging if you ever want to be taken seriously in these areas.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #695 on: July 08, 2013, 01:46:36 AM »
Quote
Oh, so this makes the rocket take off in slow motion does it.
Let me give you a little simple physics lesson.
Rockets use the atmosphere to achieve all movement, which includes "stability"...but stability can only be achieved "vertically" by launching at speed for a "rocket."

The thrust from the nozzle of a rocket engine doesn't really change a lot from ignition to shut off, so according to Newton's f=ma, the small acceleration is due to the rocket's large mass. Ironically, the large mass is mostly fuel for the rocket engine.Thrust is barely equal to weight, so the rocket has to burn off a bit of fuel before it can accelerate. Your notions about movements and stability are goofy.

It has nothing to do with gimbaled thrust--that only refers to the ability of some engines to change the angle of thrust like I stated--to point the nozzle in different directions. Nor does atmosphere have anything to do with it--a rocket would work just the same in atmosphere as in outer space.

It's mainly due to two things. One is that the rocket is at its heaviest at ignition. The second is that acceleration is cumulative--after ten seconds, the rocket is already moving due to the acceleration of the first nine seconds of continual thrust, and now every second there is less weight to lift because of fuel depletion.

Quote
stability can only be achieved "vertically" by launching at speed

No. I don't know where you heard this, but it's wrong.

Quote
Rockets use the atmosphere to achieve all movement

That too is totally wrong. Why do you think that?

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #696 on: July 08, 2013, 02:20:04 AM »
Well at least it proves you know nothing about how rockets work, except for what you have been told or read, which is so wrong it's not even funny.

And how did you learn about rockets? It's not as though you've built a functional one or anything...

The guy is right, and he's only applying simple physics knowledge. You could also apply the same logic to any other propulsion system - including a water bottle rocket - and you'll get similar results.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #697 on: July 08, 2013, 02:41:48 AM »
Once you grasp how water bottle rockets and every other rocket works, then you will understand why they cannot do what they say they can.
I can't foresee you ever wanting to grasp it though, as all I ever see you do is simply slip in a silly dig and have no desire to learn how they work.
I know how they work and I'm happy with that. Whether you accept it or not, is entirely up to you. It has no bearing on what I "know."

I spent a good portion of my first semester in university studying pressure, which also required a prerequisite knowledge of force and energy, so I have a good grasp of how bottle rockets work.

If you feel that what I've been taught is wrong, then go and pick out exactly which part of it is wrong and let me know.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #698 on: July 08, 2013, 03:22:54 AM »
Once you grasp how water bottle rockets and every other rocket works, then you will understand why they cannot do what they say they can.
I can't foresee you ever wanting to grasp it though, as all I ever see you do is simply slip in a silly dig and have no desire to learn how they work.
I know how they work and I'm happy with that. Whether you accept it or not, is entirely up to you. It has no bearing on what I "know."

I spent a good portion of my first semester in university studying pressure, which also required a prerequisite knowledge of force and energy, so I have a good grasp of how bottle rockets work.

If you feel that what I've been taught is wrong, then go and pick out exactly which part of it is wrong and let me know.
Do me a diagram of how you think a bottle rocket works and also, do me one of how a fireman's hose works, as these often get mentioned to prove a rocket can work in a vacuum.
Once you do that, I'll be happy to show you where you are going wrong, or where you have been led up the garden path by mainstream science. Seriously I will.
I'll give you an explanation in writing first, and if there's anything you don't understand I can clarify or as a last resort, provide a diagram.

The bottle is partially filled with water. The air in it is compressed up to some high pressure value. With its nozzle pointed downwards, since the air would be at the top with the water under it, when the bottle cap is released, the water suddenly can't apply an equal and opposite reaction upwards to the force applied by the air downwards, so the air forces the water downwards, out of the bottle. Since this is a closed system, momentum is conserved which means that since the mass of the water has accelerated downwards, the same force is applied upwards on the bottle + leftover water system, hence it accelerates upwards. This is lift-off. Now, as more water is released, the mass of the bottle + leftover water is lowered, but at the same time, the air pressure difference between the atmosphere and air in the bottle is lower, so the bottle's acceleration won't increase over time in the same way that a rocket's acceleration does.

Any problems so far?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #699 on: July 08, 2013, 04:05:51 AM »
Quote
Well at least it proves you know nothing about how rockets work, except for what you have been told or read, which is so wrong it's not even funny.

No, it proves you don't have any idea how a rocket works. I do physics for a living - I know what I'm talking about. You're displaying your ignorance about a subject you don't understand. I don't get my ideas or thoughts from what I have been told or read, I get it from experiments, going through observations and getting the data to come to the conclusion. As Sherlock Holmes quoted, "It's a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." Give me the data and evidence to prove that I'm wrong. Oh, wait, you don't have it. Now, you arguing about water rockets. Again, idiotic because you can't even do your research. 

Quote
Once you grasp how water bottle rockets and every other rocket works, then you will understand why they cannot do what they say they can.
I can't foresee you ever wanting to grasp it though, as all I ever see you do is simply slip in a silly dig and have no desire to learn how they work.
I know how they work and I'm happy with that. Whether you accept it or not, is entirely up to you. It has no bearing on what I "know."

A water rocket gets its thrust from the built up air pressure within the bottle meaning that the maximum thrust will be at the start and it will then gradually decrease causing lowering acceleration. A conventional rocket gets its thrust from the combustion of fuel at a constant rate (usually). So as fuel is burnt the mass of the rocket decreases but the force on it remains constant meaning that the acceleration would increase over time.

The principle between the two is identical.

The only differnce is the source of the thrust. The rockets used in NASA use chemical combustion (often Hydrogen and Oxygen stored in liquid form). The big difference is the weight of the two rockets, the very heavy one takes more thrust to overcome gravity so the small light one will appear to go up faster than the heavier one.

You see Force = Mass x Acceleration.

If the mass is small even a small force can generate a lot of acceleration, if the mass is large even though the force is large the acceleration might not be as rapid.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #700 on: July 08, 2013, 06:18:46 AM »
If you want a rocket to leave the launch pad slowly, then don't be anywhere near it, because it will simply lift , unbalance...and fall over, end of rocket.
And yet there are countless eye witness and video accounts of large rockets leaving the launch pad slowly and accelerating upwards for many miles without unbalancing, falling over or crashing.  Are all of those eye witnesses lying and all of these videos fake?
Any slow rocket take off video is fake, yes.
Show me witnesses that have witnessed a slow rocket take off.
Vehicles that weigh 100 grams must accelerate identically to vehicles that weigh a 100 tons. Right. Must be 100% true because that's what makes sense to Scepti.

Just like in the previous subjects talked about here, you have nothing with which to support your idea. It being 100% true in your mind just isn't an argument as long as there are facts to suggest otherwise and oh my, there are.
No, they all don't accelerate identically, they all just accelerate fast out of the blocks or they're fake.
In other words, larger the rocket the slower it's rate of acceleration. Good. What's "fast" for a hundred ton rocket obviously is slower, glad that you get this simple fact. And while the large rocket accelerates it maintains it's upward direction by gimbaling and ailerons so it doesn't crash. Certainly takes Scepti-level stupidity to claim 100% impossible.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #701 on: July 08, 2013, 06:28:33 AM »
Presuming is pointless.

I presume you're no a physicist looking all the evidence I have collected by the posts you have posted.

You have no idea what I do

Correct, but I know one of them isn't to do with physics.

and having a name like PhD physics, does not hold any water with me.

Is it meant to?


Everyone has explained in detail the answers to all your questions, yet you still ask for them same, if not similar, questions. Maybe one word answers will help you understand?

what the thrust is doing to propel the bottle rocket.

Thrusting (pushing)

What's it thrusting against

Itself (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. see first answer)

and why does the bottle fly into the air.

Thrust (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. see first answer)

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #702 on: July 08, 2013, 06:52:20 AM »
The mass of the ejected water is what moves the bottle vertically...

You actually got that bit right, it's just like the person-in-the-boat example from waaaaaay back: the bottle moving up is the equal and opposite reaction to the water being ejected down.

What gets me though, is that you were okay with all the rest of it.

Quote from: Puttah
I'll give you an explanation in writing first, and if there's anything you don't understand I can clarify or as a last resort, provide a diagram.

The bottle is partially filled with water. The air in it is compressed up to some high pressure value. With its nozzle pointed downwards, since the air would be at the top with the water under it, when the bottle cap is released, the water suddenly can't apply an equal and opposite reaction upwards to the force applied by the air downwards, so the air forces the water downwards, out of the bottle.
 Any problems so far?
Nope.

No problem with air pressure inside the bottle being higher than outside and thus pushing the water out of the bottle.

Quote from: Puttah
Since this is a closed system, momentum is conserved which means that since the mass of the water has accelerated downwards, the same force is applied upwards on the bottle + leftover water system.
Any problems so far?

Nope.

And no problem with the conservation of momentum, which is the reason for the bottle going up when the water goes down. So why did you get all hung up on the last bit?

Quote from: Puttah
hence it accelerates upwards. This is lift-off. Now, as more water is released, the mass of the bottle + leftover water is lowered, but at the same time, the air pressure difference between the atmosphere and air in the bottle is lower, so the bottle's acceleration won't increase over time in the same way that a rocket's acceleration does.

The bottle accelerates upwards because of the first two parts, which you had no problem with.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #703 on: July 08, 2013, 06:59:57 AM »
I will repeat what I said in my last post. I presume you're not a physicist looking at all the evidence I have collected by the posts you have posted. Thank you for support this claim with the post you have just posted a few minutes ago.

And rockets work like this do they.

Thrusting against itself? Yes, think about it logically, if you can.

It's like blowing your own sail or trying to paddle your bath out of the bathroom by dipping your oar into the bath whilst you are in it.

No, it's not like blowing your own sail. It's more like turning round and blowing backwards. The combustion of rocket fuel in the engine creates a rapidly expanding mass of exhaust gas. This expansion is the thrust. It initially pushes in all directions, but soon encounters the rocket engine and pushes on that. The exhaust is deflected by the rocket engine to go in the direction of the big open end where the exhaust can escape and, in accordance with the conservation of momentum, this forces the rocket engine (and hence the rocket it is attached to) to go in the other direction.

It's the same principle as the recoil when you firec a gun, and the same force that causes things around an explosion to be pushed outwards radially from the centre of the blast. The force is the rapid expansion of gases caused by the explosion which pushes against anything it encounters. Channel that in one direction and you push something in the other.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #704 on: July 08, 2013, 07:14:08 AM »
It's the same principle as the recoil when you fire a gun...

I've used this example before, and I'd like to take this opportunity to expand on it slightly.

Firing a heavier projectile at a (slightly) lower speed (thus creating less back pressure from the atmosphere) actually generates more recoil, which (logically) shows that recoil is related to mass, not back pressure. The greater the mass you throw one way (or the faster you throw the same mass), the greater the reaction force pushing the thrower the other way.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #705 on: July 08, 2013, 08:47:18 AM »
This is where you fall apart. It's an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the bottle, so no force is applied to move the bottle rocket from inside, because it's like Samson pushing on one pillar and against a impenetrable wall, the pillar being the water and the wall being the base of the bottle rocket, or upside down bottle.
I'm struggling to understand your point.
The pressure within the bottle isn't creating a net force because it's pushing equally in all directions, but the ejected water is. In a closed system (ignoring what happens to the water after ejection and ignoring gravity) the centre of mass of the system (bottle + water) wouldn't move. Since water is shot downwards, something must go upwards so that the centre of mass stays in its position.

The mass of the ejected water is what moves the bottle vertically, coupled with it's base pushing air out of the way.
Yes, that's right, what's the problem here?

What you have been told, is a lie.
You better let the world know then.

Thrusting against itself.  ::) It's like blowing your own sail or trying to paddle your bath out of the bathroom by dipping your oar into the bath whilst you are in it.
And rockets work like this do they.
Have a word will you, Mr physics.
It's nothing like that. When you blow into your own sail, the air is deflected back at you (in an ideal circumstance), creating a force in the wrong direction for your boat, thus cancelling the force you've applied for your boat's movement.
If you had the rocket thrust its propellants into a wall that's attached to itself, then the rocket wouldn't go anywhere. It's also similar to trying to lift your own chair while you're sitting in it.

Do you seriously think that scientists haven't thought this through? Trust me, you are never going to even come close to debunking mainstream science, because anything you can think of (as long as it's sane, logical, and scientific) would have already been thought of. Newton's laws of motion have been put under severe scrutiny for centuries, and they've held up to the test.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #706 on: July 08, 2013, 08:50:57 AM »
I just sit back and smirk at you lot hanging on to this clap trap, I really do, because I can't for the life of me believe that you supposed smart people cannot grasp it.
I don't even think you even try to understand the real model, you would rather stick to the bull crap one, because it keeps your space stuff alive and ticking.

I've been reading a large majority of your replies to this forum post and I have truly been lost for words on so many occasions. Particularly this comment here (which I can bring up since it was newly written).

In all honesty scepti, I think you are delusional. You are out of sync with reality, you think that anything that goes against your belief system is a conspiracy/cover-up as is evident by the recent discussion on "slow rockets" and nobody ever witnessing them which is utterly and completely insane.

You are unfazed by the fact that literally no other person alive on this planet right believes in what you believe and you are unfazed by the expert opinions that are refuting time and time again your assertions.

I'm amazed this topic has gone on for so long, your belief system is so demonstrably and obviously wrong that it would require somebody with some sort of mental deficiency to be unable to realise this.

Seek a therapist for help, for the love of God, please. And this topic really needs to end, arguing about this is completely futile. You are wrong.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #707 on: July 08, 2013, 09:02:50 AM »
Sceptimatic, how about instead of just arguing with the mantra "I'm right because I know I'm right" you design some experiments to prove/disprove your ideas?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #708 on: July 08, 2013, 09:03:44 AM »
I know for an absolute fact I am correct.

Do something you haven't done so far, then. Prove what you're talking about.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #709 on: July 08, 2013, 09:08:49 AM »
Turning to attempted ridicule does nothing to deter me Ryan. I am 1 million per cent CORRECT here.
You are in denial or simply refusal, because you either know I'm right or you won't admit I'm right in case you lose face.
I know for an absolute fact I am correct.

I'm not ridiculing you, I am trying to be nice, you are obviously a really nice guy, I just think you have some sort of mental illness and your response just now proves my point.

It takes 10 minutes to find other people like you scepti, do you think they are delusional? They think they are 100% correct and they KNOW they are correct. They know that the earth is hollow and they know that there are reptilian overlords that rule this planet.

Would you class them as having some sort of mental deficiency? Psychologists and psychiatrists would and I'm sure they would for you as well.

There truly is nothing that is going to convince you otherwise, your thinking is analogous to the jihads that blow up primary schools. They believe they are doing the work of God and nothing else on this planet would convince them otherwise, because God is supreme and he is all knowing and there is nothing above him. Only in your case, the mentality doesn't come from religious dogma, it has a neurological foundation and will not be overturned through will alone.

And none of what I said will convince.

*I'll add that the first step is admitting you may have something wrong, I hope you come to this realisation one day. I hope I have planted the seed.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 09:10:47 AM by RyanTG »

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #710 on: July 08, 2013, 09:16:30 AM »
Newtons laws are used...but what they fail to tell you is, there is "two" sets of action/reaction and they con you by using just the first one, which is clever but not clever enough.
Once again, you've completely ignored my remark about you never having a chance in hell in debunking mainstream science.
There are many action/reaction sets happening throughout the system. Each water molecule is pushing against another, and the other is pushing back. Why is this ignored though? Because taking it into consideration doesn't give us any new information in our force diagram. Assumptions are often made in physics to simplify the problem, and considering the entire water volume as being one entity is one of them.

It's the second action/reaction that follows, that sends your rocket soaring, which is ejected water against the ground then the compressed air below it and spring boarding the rocket up as I explained a few posts earlier.
What's the first action/reaction?
Just to make sure we're on equal footing here - the water doesn't need to eject against the ground. What happens to the water after it leaves the nozzle is irrelevant and doesn't apply to the closed system of the bottle+water.
Remember that the compressed air is pushing equally in all directions. If we opened the nozzle for a split second, it's as though one of the walls had given way and so the air will be pushing in all directions, but that one wall cannot apply a equal and opposite reaction so that wall is forced downwards. During this split second, the air is still pushing equally in all directions. After a split second the nozzle closes again and the air continues to push (now with less pressure because there's a larger volume of space to occupy) on each wall equally.

I hope you don't mean to say that the compressed air is pushing up on the bottle which is what's giving the bottle its lift, because that's very wrong.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #711 on: July 08, 2013, 09:19:51 AM »
I have some diagrams here but it's pointless putting them out, because you have no intention whatsoever in bothering to understand them

I'm a scientists. This is what I do for a living. Give me evidence, and I will take a look at it. From this evidence, I will come to the conclusion if it's reliable or not depending on how you came to the evidence and what the evidence specifically is. If it's correct and within the laws of physics and science to which we know at present, I will understand them, but only if it's reliable evidence you have shown.

than my stance on the earth differs from yours and the fact that I will not back down.

If your stance is different than most people on this planets, and you want to make people aware of it, you need to prove it sufficiently with evidence. You may believe the Earth is flat, but there must be a reason for that, unless if it's just based on faith. 

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #712 on: July 08, 2013, 09:26:01 AM »
Sceptimatic, how about instead of just arguing with the mantra "I'm right because I know I'm right" you design some experiments to prove/disprove your ideas?
Do you have access to a fireman's hose, or a high pressure hose?
If you do, explain to me how it would work in pushing the person back and I'll show you why you are wrong.
No, I know your ideas on this and as far as I'm concerned at this moment in time they're just that, ideas. The way you go about convincing people is to come up with some experiments which prove those ideas are correct.

While the argument "I'm right because I'm right" is convincing for you it provides absolutely no reason for anyone else to believe you. Now if this is enough for you then that's fine but then what are you doing on a forum trying to prove those ideas correct as you must know that without experimental data backing you up no-one will be convinced. If you are on here trying to convince the brainwashed masses then this is the next logical step for you, take some of the time you spend on this forum and devote it to proving/disproving and refining your ideas.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #713 on: July 08, 2013, 09:34:42 AM »
If the force of rockets comes from the interaction against air, then why not test this? Take a volleyball, a medicine ball, and a rolley chair (or a dolly or whatever you have that moves easily. A hovercraft will work equally as well.)

The two orbs have roughly the same surface area, so would displace roughly the same air. Throw the volleyball, and measure how far you roll/float. Then throw the medicine ball and do the same. I'm assuming you can throw the volleyball faster, so if you're movement truly comes from the projectile interacting with the air, the volleyball should send you farther.

Physics, the same one that NASA uses to claim things like ... well, most everything they do, says the medicine ball will affect you more, as it's more massive (assuming you attempted to throw them the same speed, that is).

Here, I'll even go so far as to create a table of hypothesis:

Exp 1: Thrown identical speeds
Force from air: both projectiles make you roll the same distance
Force from mass: Medicine ball makes you roll farther than the volleyball

Exp 2: Thrown with identical force (volleyball thrown faster)
Force from air: volleyball makes you roll farther than the medicine ball
Force form mass: both projectiles make you roll the same distance

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #714 on: July 08, 2013, 09:35:25 AM »

You know we are constantly lied to in many forms...of that you cannot deny, surely, so why not much much more?

There is a difference between being lied to and the mass conspiracies people talk regularly about on this forum. Bullshit conspiracies such as the ones surrounding 9/11 and the moon hoax are bad enough, yet a large majority of people on this forum believe NASA have managed to hide the fact that satellites have ever been launched into space?

Yet when people point to the lack of evidence of this cover up such as the fact the nobody has ever spoken out or the media have never mentioned anything, they are tossed aside as part of the conspiracy. These ideas are unfalsifiable. They are similar to the belief in a God, you can't prove he doesn't exist you can just point to the lack of evidence, in which theists will say "it is all part of God's plan". See the resemblance?

*I got a bit side tracked in that comment, I'll just leave it here though, other people can debate with you. But as you said, you are 100% correct and you know you are 100% correct so it is completely pointless, on this topic anyways.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 09:37:05 AM by RyanTG »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #715 on: July 08, 2013, 09:36:59 AM »
it based on piecing together a jigsaw that slowly but surely is making sense.
I have a long way to go but I'm on the right track.
Look at the evidence for a Spherical Earth. You can surely piece together the jigsaw with the evidence we have today. By doing this, you don't have a long way to go to be on the right track.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #716 on: July 08, 2013, 09:50:37 AM »
In 10 minutes you will get a diagram by diagram and we will discuss each one separately, just so people can see what I'm talking about and that you may understand it. If not, It's no loss.
Sure.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #717 on: July 08, 2013, 09:52:09 AM »
If the force of rockets comes from the interaction against air, then why not test this? Take a volleyball, a medicine ball, and a rolley chair (or a dolly or whatever you have that moves easily. A hovercraft will work equally as well.)

The two orbs have roughly the same surface area, so would displace roughly the same air. Throw the volleyball, and measure how far you roll/float. Then throw the medicine ball and do the same. I'm assuming you can throw the volleyball faster, so if you're movement truly comes from the projectile interacting with the air, the volleyball should send you farther.

Physics, the same one that NASA uses to claim things like ... well, most everything they do, says the medicine ball will affect you more, as it's more massive (assuming you attempted to throw them the same speed, that is).

Here, I'll even go so far as to create a table of hypothesis:

Exp 1: Thrown identical speeds
Force from air: both projectiles make you roll the same distance
Force from mass: Medicine ball makes you roll farther than the volleyball

Exp 2: Thrown with identical force (volleyball thrown faster)
Force from air: volleyball makes you roll farther than the medicine ball
Force form mass: both projectiles make you roll the same distance
This is another classic con job.
This does not explain rockets. It's a con.

Rockets work by accelerating particles out one end, just as you would accelerate a volleyball or medicine ball away from you and your chair or hovercraft. But since it's obvious that it's air that pushes the rockets upward, surely it's air that pushes me back when I toss my volleyball. Right?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #718 on: July 08, 2013, 09:57:22 AM »
I don't see any evidence. I see lots of rigged up bull crap though.

It's the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it, and that's the way it looks. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

You don't see any evidence? You must be looking in the wrong places. Go on a plane half-way around the world and returned not going back but forward, does imply it's round. I don't see any rigged up bull crap of this. Astronauts can clearly see the Earth is round,  I don't see lots of rigged up bull crap of this. The phases of the moon are caused by the round shape of the Earth casting a shadow on the moon,  I don't see any rigged up bull crap of this. Satellites orbits right around the Earth,  I don't see any rigged up bull crap of this. You can see the curve of the Earth by look out to sea at the horizon.  I don't see any rigged up bull crap of this. It was proven to be round by Eratosthenes in the 3rd Century BCE - an experiment you can to on own today - I don't see any rigged up bull crap of this.

There is very little or no evidence for a flat Earth.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #719 on: July 08, 2013, 10:03:11 AM »
Do you believe in Santa, as in a real Santa, not a department store one?
[/quote]

No.