Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 229044 Views
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #720 on: July 08, 2013, 10:10:25 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.

Thanks for pointing that out to us Sceptimatic, now can you please explain what's really going on in this experiment? You don't seem to be disputing the expected results, so how do you explain them in terms of air pressure?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #721 on: July 08, 2013, 10:20:18 AM »
Well that's all you are being asked to do with this space rubbish.


Well, there's a problem. Santa had no evidence to be trusted, similar to saying the earth is flat; no evidence. Saying the Earth is Spherical can be trusted because there is a large amount of evidence (Some stated above). Evidence has to do with trust. We need evidence to believe and prove. This is also for the Space programs - there is evidence.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 10:22:15 AM by PhDPhysicss »

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #722 on: July 08, 2013, 10:20:50 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?
Let me explain something to you, see if you can get your head around this, because the volley ball/medicine ball, ice skates etc are all just a little con job as they are thrown horizontally.

What you should be saying is, tie someone to a beam, head facing down and holding a medicine ball. Now throw that medicine ball to the ground, what do you think will happen.
A. You will simply hit the ground with the ball and no upward movement.
B. You throw the ball and your feet hit the ceiling.
Which one?

No human being can throw the ball fast enough to accomplish B, so what does this prove? Now if you had a medicine ball launcher that could fire it fast enough, of course you could hit the ceiling, why not? Of course you'd have to be strapped tightly to the launcher and it would probably be very dangerous, so that's why we do the rolling chair experiment. It demonstrates the concept in question with much less effort and expense and loss of human limbs due to unfortunate medicine ball launcher accidents.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #723 on: July 08, 2013, 10:32:35 AM »
It's simply more mass/weight compressing more air with more force, making it a better spring board effect as in pushing a person back a little more.

So, if I were to do this under water, I'd get going REALLY FAST right? If throwing the medicine ball around wouldn't work in space, then surely the thicker the medium I'm in the more effective this would be!

To the local pool!

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #724 on: July 08, 2013, 10:32:49 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.

Thanks for pointing that out to us Sceptimatic, now can you please explain what's really going on in this experiment? You don't seem to be disputing the expected results, so how do you explain them in terms of air pressure?
It's simply more mass/weight compressing more air with more force, making it a better spring board effect as in pushing a person back a little more.

So when you throw the ball, it's compressing the air, which then tries to equalize pressure and springs back, propelling you backwards?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #725 on: July 08, 2013, 10:36:10 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?
Let me explain something to you, see if you can get your head around this, because the volley ball/medicine ball, ice skates etc are all just a little con job as they are thrown horizontally.

What you should be saying is, tie someone to a beam, head facing down and holding a medicine ball. Now throw that medicine ball to the ground, what do you think will happen.
A. You will simply hit the ground with the ball and no upward movement.
B. You throw the ball and your feet hit the ceiling.
Which one?

No human being can throw the ball fast enough to accomplish B, so what does this prove? Now if you had a medicine ball launcher that could fire it fast enough, of course you could hit the ceiling, why not? Of course you'd have to be strapped tightly to the launcher and it would probably be very dangerous, so that's why we do the rolling chair experiment. It demonstrates the concept in question with much less effort and expense and loss of human limbs due to unfortunate medicine ball launcher accidents.
It's false demonstration that has no bearing on how rockets work and it should be blatantly obvious.

In fact it's exactly how rockets work. The reason you think it's obviously false is because you don't understand how the physics relates the experiment to the motion of a rocket. If your theory was right, someone would have already figured it out and put it into practice, because people really do want to launch rockets.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #726 on: July 08, 2013, 10:42:30 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.

Thanks for pointing that out to us Sceptimatic, now can you please explain what's really going on in this experiment? You don't seem to be disputing the expected results, so how do you explain them in terms of air pressure?
It's simply more mass/weight compressing more air with more force, making it a better spring board effect as in pushing a person back a little more.

So when you throw the ball, it's compressing the air, which then tries to equalize pressure and springs back, propelling you backwards?
The second you use energy to launch that ball. That ball is in motion two ways. Down and horizontal.
If you want to push back further, try it with a 4x4 ft sheet of ply board and push that away from you.

Right, but about the medicine ball. It's been demonstrated that throwing it while you're on the rolling chair causes you to roll back. I just want to know if I'm right in stating that the force pushing the person back is from the air compressed by the ball springing back.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #727 on: July 08, 2013, 10:47:33 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?
Let me explain something to you, see if you can get your head around this, because the volley ball/medicine ball, ice skates etc are all just a little con job as they are thrown horizontally.

What you should be saying is, tie someone to a beam, head facing down and holding a medicine ball. Now throw that medicine ball to the ground, what do you think will happen.
A. You will simply hit the ground with the ball and no upward movement.
B. You throw the ball and your feet hit the ceiling.
Which one?

No human being can throw the ball fast enough to accomplish B, so what does this prove? Now if you had a medicine ball launcher that could fire it fast enough, of course you could hit the ceiling, why not? Of course you'd have to be strapped tightly to the launcher and it would probably be very dangerous, so that's why we do the rolling chair experiment. It demonstrates the concept in question with much less effort and expense and loss of human limbs due to unfortunate medicine ball launcher accidents.
It's false demonstration that has no bearing on how rockets work and it should be blatantly obvious.

In fact it's exactly how rockets work. The reason you think it's obviously false is because you don't understand how the physics relates the experiment to the motion of a rocket. If your theory was right, someone would have already figured it out and put it into practice, because people really do want to launch rockets.
Many people have figured it out but mainstream always wins by sheer numbers and a host of specially selected ridicule.
People are just too timid to go with a minority, even if they believe it's correct, for fear of ridicule.

That makes no sense. Back when the U.S. and Germany were trying to develop rockets, how could they have failed to miss your idea if it had any worth? They were trying everything I'm sure. If your idea was right it would be the mainstream now. Do you think that you alone, sitting in your computer chair without doing a single experiment, could really have discovered something that hundreds of people spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars trying to figure out, for the sake of defending their nation? Your ignorance and arrogance really boggles the mind.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #728 on: July 08, 2013, 10:59:03 AM »
Christmas present. Half eaten mince pie, half drunk milk and a missing carrot, plus a wrecked fire and surround for those that take it really seriously.  ;)

Kids believe it all. Just because we aren't kids, doesn't make us less naive when tall stories are given out.
How many adults get caught out with April fool pranks.
The only difference is, those that do this stuff, don't let on and add to it, because they can do it from distance and through the media, then "bingo" most people are hooked.

As I hope you realise, you're talking complete bollix. I once heard one of my children say to the other, "Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Devil are all Dad". The problem with the Santa 'evidence' and Round earth evidence is that everyone can physically go outside and do an experiment to prove the Earth shape. The evidence you have describe about Santa only happens when you have parents or people willing to fake the belief in evidence to keep their children happy. You can't get the evidence on your own, only from what other people say. Like I said, this isn't the same for the Round Earth evidence - you can gather the evidence on your own, together with the space programs.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #729 on: July 08, 2013, 11:08:03 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.

Thanks for pointing that out to us Sceptimatic, now can you please explain what's really going on in this experiment? You don't seem to be disputing the expected results, so how do you explain them in terms of air pressure?
It's simply more mass/weight compressing more air with more force, making it a better spring board effect as in pushing a person back a little more.

So when you throw the ball, it's compressing the air, which then tries to equalize pressure and springs back, propelling you backwards?
The second you use energy to launch that ball. That ball is in motion two ways. Down and horizontal.
If you want to push back further, try it with a 4x4 ft sheet of ply board and push that away from you.

Right, but about the medicine ball. It's been demonstrated that throwing it while you're on the rolling chair causes you to roll back. I just want to know if I'm right in stating that the force pushing the person back is from the air compressed by the ball springing back.
It's both the balls weight and the push , which compresses much more air.

What do you mean it's both the ball's weight and the push? Is the air springing back from being compressed by the ball responsible for pushing the person back or not?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #730 on: July 08, 2013, 11:16:27 AM »
You have just mentioned space programs as evidence.

Sorry, I was actually meant to talk about different space agencies and their missions on what they do that proves the earth is round etc etc.

How do you go outside and prove a round earth?

You can calculate the circumference of the Earth.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #731 on: July 08, 2013, 11:43:55 AM »
You have just mentioned space programs as evidence.

Sorry, I was actually meant to talk about different space agencies and their missions on what they do that proves the earth is round etc etc.

How do you go outside and prove a round earth?

You can calculate the circumference of the Earth.
You cannot calculate the circumference of earth.
It's been done,  but it does require some use of equations,  so it's obviously fake.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #732 on: July 08, 2013, 12:06:46 PM »


I think I see what you mean. Ideally you would not throw the ball up at all, just horizontally. But I do see what you mean by the air being compressed by throwing it, and how the air pushes back.

However if the air could push back that hard, enough to send the person rolling back, then it would also have to push the ball back. In your scenario, you wouldn't even have to let go of the ball, because pushing against the air would be similar to pushing against a wall. But in fact, the push back from the air is actually negligible in this situation. Furthermore, if the air really were compressed to the extent that it could push the person back, remember that the air would expand in all directions, not just back to the person. Therefore anyone on the other side of the ball would feel a blast of air strong enough to send them rolling, if they wear on a rolling chair too that is.

Really Sceptimatic, it's not that I am blindly following my schooling, and ignoring your ideas. It's just that I've taken the time to think about your ideas and their consequences, and came to the conclusion that it can't really work that way. I hope you'll take this into account as you continue to develop your theory. For now it seems clear that "push back" from the air is not significant at all when it comes to rockets, or the chair experiment.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #733 on: July 08, 2013, 12:22:01 PM »
You cannot calculate the circumference of earth.

You can do it a similar why Eratosthenes of Cyrene did it - with more technology. Of course, these days we have satellites to measure it out exactly. In the days of Eratosthenes, he used the shadow the Sun casts at local solar noon on the summer solstice. The town of Aswan (I'm using the modern name so you know the geography) is on the tropic of Cancer. His home town (Alexandria) is a few degrees North of the Tropic of Cancer. So when he noticed in his city on the summer solstice the Sun still casts a small shadow at local solar noon, but in Aswan the Sun is directly overhead and all shadows disappear to the point that you can't see your own reflection in a well at noon on the summer solstice, Eratosthenes realised that the Earth's surface must be curved and calculated what the circumference of the Earth had to be (so many miles per degree - only he used stadia not miles).

but it does require some use of equations,  so it's obviously fake.

I hear something new everyday. How does equations make something fake?  ???


Re: Space Flight
« Reply #734 on: July 08, 2013, 12:29:54 PM »
I'm back with the results from my underwater test. It took me a while to attain neutral buoyancy, or neutral enough for the test, but when I threw the medicine ball, I moved only a few millimeters, whereas when I throw it from the chair, I moved about 150 centimeters.

I thought the water was supposed to make me move faster! But the water behind me kept me from moving anywhere....

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #735 on: July 08, 2013, 12:31:07 PM »
You cannot calculate the circumference of earth.

You can do it a similar why Eratosthenes of Cyrene did it - with more technology. Of course, these days we have satellites to measure it out exactly. In the days of Eratosthenes, he used the shadow the Sun casts at local solar noon on the summer solstice. The town of Aswan (I'm using the modern name so you know the geography) is on the tropic of Cancer. His home town (Alexandria) is a few degrees North of the Tropic of Cancer. So when he noticed in his city on the summer solstice the Sun still casts a small shadow at local solar noon, but in Aswan the Sun is directly overhead and all shadows disappear to the point that you can't see your own reflection in a well at noon on the summer solstice, Eratosthenes realised that the Earth's surface must be curved and calculated what the circumference of the Earth had to be (so many miles per degree - only he used stadia not miles).

but it does require some use of equations,  so it's obviously fake.

I hear something new everyday. How does equations make something fake?  ???
I was being a little overly sarcastic. I've seen it multiple times that scepti doesn't like to see equations in explanations.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #736 on: July 08, 2013, 05:09:48 PM »
You seem to have missed my post regarding recoil, here it is again:

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.

So, as anyone with half a brain or better could see, this:

There are "two" recoils in a gun, did you know this?
A gun fires a bullet from the bullet casing by detonation, which is your first recoil but this is not felt as it's the minor of the two recoils.
The real recoil is when the bullet leaves the barrel, just as it leave, the air rushes in to fill the void created by the super hot gases expelled as explosion with the bullet and this is what the recoil is and rockets do not work exactly like this.
They burn fuel, they do not detonate fuel, except on ignition, then it just burns.

is utter bollocks. If the major recoil effect was from air rushing back into the barrel, it would always be the same. The truth of the matter is (and this can be verified by experiment), that the projectile being accelerated down the barrel creates the most recoil, with the hot gasses escaping behind it creating a lesser secondary effect. I do know what I am talking about here, I have been using firearms for over 20 years.

Rockets work by accelerating gas (which has mass, like a bullet, just not as dense) out the exhaust nozzle. The reaction to this acceleration force is like the recoil from a gun: the rocket moves the other way. But because the rocket has a lot more fuel available to burn, it keeps going.

Now, another misunderstanding of yours; gunpowder does not detonate, it burns, it just burns very fast when confined in a cartridge case.

Rockets used to be made (and can still be made) using black powder, which is the original gun powder. The SRB's on the space shuttle worked the same way as these old black powder rockets, except they used a better, more efficient propellant. Liquid fueled rockets just replace the solid propellant with liquid fuel, which allows the engine itself to be made smaller, because it can now be separate from the fuel storage.

I realise this probably won't change your mind, and you'll most likely come up with some convoluted reason why I'm 'wrong' (at least, according to you), but that's ok. As I have said before, your opinion has no influence on reality, except as perceived by you.
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 #737 on: July 08, 2013, 07:52:29 PM »
Scepti, explain the water bottle rocket to me again. I didn't quite catch what you meant.

Are you saying that the bottle isn't propelled by the water ejection but rather by the compressed air pushing upwards inside the bottle?
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 #738 on: July 09, 2013, 02:06:02 AM »
You see, this is where I simply reject all this stuff, because it makes no sense.

To you it doesn't.  ::)

In this day and age, people still bring up this kind of stuff to try and put a believable point across and it proves nothing at all.

You can do the experiment yourself.

The sun inside the ice dome is what is seen, not in space, outside of it.

No, it's 93 million miles away, which we can easily prove with calculations. Do you have any evidence for the sun being inside this ice dome you speak of or is it just a belief without evidence?

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #739 on: July 09, 2013, 03:09:50 AM »
Scepti, explain the water bottle rocket to me again. I didn't quite catch what you meant.

Are you saying that the bottle isn't propelled by the water ejection but rather by the compressed air pushing upwards inside the bottle?
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 #740 on: July 09, 2013, 03:53:24 AM »
I don't think you understand detonation.
Gunpowder does not detonate, it deflagrates. Fact.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #741 on: July 09, 2013, 03:59:03 AM »
I don't think you understand detonation.
Gunpowder does not detonate, it deflagrates. Fact.
Inside a closed container, it detonates as in a bullet.
Gunpowder is a "low explosive", that is, it burns at a subsonic speed; it deflagrates. "High explosives" burn at supersonic speeds, which is called detonation. Gunpowder does not detonate.

edit - that's for black powder, by a strict definition modern gunpowders aren't explosives at all.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 04:06:18 AM by neimoka »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #742 on: July 09, 2013, 04:14:15 AM »
I don't think you understand detonation.
Gunpowder does not detonate, it deflagrates. Fact.
Inside a closed container, it detonates as in a bullet.
Gunpowder is a "low explosive", that is, it burns at a subsonic speed; it deflagrates. "High explosives" burn at supersonic speeds, which is called detonation. Gunpowder does not detonate.

edit - that's for black powder, by a strict definition modern gunpowders aren't explosives at all.
I'm not even going to argue this because it's irrelevant.
Glad to hear that. It's plain fact anyway so there's nothing to argue about really.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #743 on: July 09, 2013, 04:27:21 AM »
I don't think you understand detonation.
Gunpowder does not detonate, it deflagrates. Fact.
Inside a closed container, it detonates as in a bullet.
Gunpowder is a "low explosive", that is, it burns at a subsonic speed; it deflagrates. "High explosives" burn at supersonic speeds, which is called detonation. Gunpowder does not detonate.

edit - that's for black powder, by a strict definition modern gunpowders aren't explosives at all.
I'm not even going to argue this because it's irrelevant.
Glad to hear that. It's plain fact anyway so there's nothing to argue about really.
It is when you frantically google it. You are just looking for anything to try and dent the obvious, which is that guns have two recoil actions and the first recoil action, is NOT how a rocket works, which is what we are dealing with.
Fact is what it is regardless of if you needed to google it. I didn't need to. You might have noticed that I didn't respond to any other part of your post, I merely wanted to correct this one simple thing over which you were insulting other people, not to take any further part in the ongoing rocket argument. Carry on.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #744 on: July 09, 2013, 04:48:04 AM »

Quote from: Scintific Method
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.
So, as anyone with half a brain or better could see, this:
This makes absolutely no sense. Where are you coming up with this from?
You have just contradicted yourself in this above post, can't you see it?


Quote from: Scintific Method
is utter bollocks. If the major recoil effect was from air rushing back into the barrel, it would always be the same. The truth of the matter is (and this can be verified by experiment), that the projectile being accelerated down the barrel creates the most recoil, with the hot gasses escaping behind it creating a lesser secondary effect. I do know what I am talking about here, I have been using firearms for over 20 years.
The detonation between the bullet and casing is only minor recoil and is negligible against the force of air rushing back into the barrel after the bullet just leaves the barrel. I think you need to look at how machine guns work, this might give you a clue.
If you have been using firearms for 20 years then you should know what happens but clearly you don;t appear to know, except the first action/reaction, which is what bull crap space rocketry is based on, yet they fail to tell you what really happens, because it means their space exploits are BUSTED.
If you want a full explanation on how a gun works, I'll give you one, unless you grasp what I'm already talking about, which I doubt.
Quote from: Scintific Method
Rockets work by accelerating gas (which has mass, like a bullet, just not as dense) out the exhaust nozzle. The reaction to this acceleration force is like the recoil from a gun: the rocket moves the other way. But because the rocket has a lot more fuel available to burn, it keeps going.
Rockets do not fire bullets, so why are you using this analogy. This is the classic bull crap that people swallow and is why people accept that rockets must work in how they are told.
I'm telling you right now, they don't work like a recoil of a bullet and casing. This is just a con job. It does work like a gun but it's the secondary recoil of that gun, is how rockets work, "after" the bullet "leaves" the chamber, only in a different method, as in constant ejection of hot gas , as in a rocket.
Quote from: Scintific Method
Now, another misunderstanding of yours; gunpowder does not detonate, it burns, it just burns very fast when confined in a cartridge case.
I don't think you understand detonation.


Quote from: Scintific Method
I realise this probably won't change your mind, and you'll most likely come up with some convoluted reason why I'm 'wrong' (at least, according to you), but that's ok. As I have said before, your opinion has no influence on reality, except as perceived by you.
I know you are wrong, I know 100% that you are incorrect in your thinking.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FLYING BULLETS
Take a look at the gun around the 1:10 mark of this video.  You can clearly see the slide begin to move prior to all the gases being expelled, meaning the atmosphere could not rush back into the chamber to cause it to move.  Which would indicate it is the gases or projectile from the bullet that cause the recoil. 
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #745 on: July 09, 2013, 06:01:52 AM »


Quote from: Puttah
Are you saying that the bottle isn't propelled by the water ejection but rather by the compressed air pushing upwards inside the bottle?
The compressed air inside the bottle against the water is the first stage of action/reaction.
The second stage is what propels the bottle rocket, as in mass of water against atmospheric pressure. They just con you into believing it's the first stage that does all the work but I can assure you, it's not.

So... Does this mean that a bottle rocket won't propel itself in a vacuum* chamber?

*not a perfect vacuum
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.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #746 on: July 09, 2013, 06:39:05 AM »

Quote from: Scintific Method
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.
So, as anyone with half a brain or better could see, this:
This makes absolutely no sense. Where are you coming up with this from?
You have just contradicted yourself in this above post, can't you see it?

I'm saying this from years of experience, and there is no contradiction, just an affirmation of Newton's 3rd law.

Quote from: Scintific Method
is utter bollocks. If the major recoil effect was from air rushing back into the barrel, it would always be the same. The truth of the matter is (and this can be verified by experiment), that the projectile being accelerated down the barrel creates the most recoil, with the hot gasses escaping behind it creating a lesser secondary effect. I do know what I am talking about here, I have been using firearms for over 20 years.
The detonation between the bullet and casing is only minor recoil and is negligible against the force of air rushing back into the barrel after the bullet just leaves the barrel. I think you need to look at how machine guns work, this might give you a clue.

I know how machine guns work (recoil, gas, and mechanically operated types), thank you. Air rushing back into the barrel after the bullet has left has nothing to do with it.

If you have been using firearms for 20 years then you should know what happens but clearly you don;t appear to know, except the first action/reaction, which is what bull crap space rocketry is based on, yet they fail to tell you what really happens, because it means their space exploits are BUSTED.
If you want a full explanation on how a gun works, I'll give you one, unless you grasp what I'm already talking about, which I doubt.

No need for the explanation, I've studied them plenty long enough to work it out for myself thanks.

Quote from: Scintific Method
Rockets work by accelerating gas (which has mass, like a bullet, just not as dense) out the exhaust nozzle. The reaction to this acceleration force is like the recoil from a gun: the rocket moves the other way. But because the rocket has a lot more fuel available to burn, it keeps going.
Rockets do not fire bullets, so why are you using this analogy. This is the classic bull crap that people swallow and is why people accept that rockets must work in how they are told.
I'm telling you right now, they don't work like a recoil of a bullet and casing. This is just a con job. It does work like a gun but it's the secondary recoil of that gun, is how rockets work, "after" the bullet "leaves" the chamber, only in a different method, as in constant ejection of hot gas , as in a rocket.

That made no sense whatsoever. What are you on about?

Quote from: Scintific Method
Now, another misunderstanding of yours; gunpowder does not detonate, it burns, it just burns very fast when confined in a cartridge case.
I don't think you understand detonation.

I see others have spared me the frustration of trying to explain this to you.

Quote from: Scintific Method
I realise this probably won't change your mind, and you'll most likely come up with some convoluted reason why I'm 'wrong' (at least, according to you), but that's ok. As I have said before, your opinion has no influence on reality, except as perceived by you.
I know you are wrong, I know 100% that you are incorrect in your thinking.

That's about what I expected: utter ignorance, outstanding arrogance, nonsensical statements, and absolutely no evidence to back up your position. You are the one who is wrong, sceptimatic, and no amount of assertion to the contrary is going to change that.
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 #747 on: July 09, 2013, 07:19:08 AM »
Quote
I see others have spared me the frustration of trying to explain this to you.
Don't get frustrated.
Just ask Sceptimatic some numbers, or even some rule of thumb of how the things really work.  He is factually unable.
He'll derail, insult you, ask you to provide them instead, and eventually call you a liar. In fact you may notice that in 6000+ posts, he had never provided ONE single piece of evidence or anything related to a decent experience. He relies on provocation, spectacular statements, and self-claimed "free thinking", implying that yours is corrupted.

This post grew to 1400+ replies, only because he has an audience. Stop replying, and he will stop his show.





Re: Space Flight
« Reply #748 on: July 09, 2013, 08:12:36 AM »
It does work like a gun but it's the secondary recoil of that gun, is how rockets work, "after" the bullet "leaves" the chamber, only in a different method, as in constant ejection of hot gas , as in a rocket.

Assuming this is true, that the recoil of a gun is from atmosphere rushing into the barrel of the gun after the bullet leaves, how does this translate to a rocket? As in, if rockets have a 'constant ejection of hot gas', when does the air have time to rush in and push the rocket upward? Wouldn't you have to detonate some fuel, wait for the recoil, detonate some more fuel, wait for the recoil, and repeat until you're out of fuel?

Though, since you failed to respond to the results of my pool experiment, I have suspicions that Antonio is right:

This post grew to 1400+ replies, only because he has an audience. Stop replying, and he will stop his show.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #749 on: July 09, 2013, 08:23:58 AM »
The detonation between the bullet and casing is only minor recoil and is negligible against the force of air rushing back into the barrel after the bullet just leaves the barrel. I think you need to look at how machine guns work, this might give you a clue.
When the gun powder burns, it creates gasses under very high pressure that push the bullet down the barrel.  Why on earth (flat or round) would you think that air would be rushing back into the barrel?  ???

Quote
If you want a full explanation on how a gun works, I'll give you one, unless you grasp what I'm already talking about, which I doubt.
As someone who was quite familiar with the working of the M16-A1 rifle, I would love to hear your explanation  of how you think it works.  Seriously, this should be good. 
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.