Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 229011 Views
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #750 on: July 09, 2013, 08:38:45 AM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FLYING BULLETS
Quote from: DuckDodgers
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.
It is the gases that cause the recoil. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gases are hit head on by the higher outside pressure channelling into the barrel and pushing the gases back.
How do you figure that the outside pressure is higher?  Heated gas expands,  in a confined space this increases pressure,  so it stands to reason the expelled gas is at a higher pressure.  And I didn't see the gases being deflected during that particular shot,  so how was the atmosphere pushing back on the gases but not affecting them?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #751 on: July 09, 2013, 08:52:12 AM »
The difference with a rocket is, it expels gas "constantly"<<< this is important to note, because it's gases span out from the nozzle and create a "massive" void, or extreme low pressure.
You keep using that word "void".  I don't think that it means what you think it means.
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.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #752 on: July 09, 2013, 09:01:59 AM »
As this thread rages on, people may not be aware that there's another thread on the same topic on another board, where Sceptimatic (or his twin) is also making an appearance:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632

Somehow he's getting a lot more support over there, although the arguments against space flight aren't of any better quality, just more numerous.

Anyhow, I just thought this was interesting, carry on!
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #753 on: July 09, 2013, 09:02:49 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
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.
It is the gases that cause the recoil. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gases are hit head on by the higher outside pressure channelling into the barrel and pushing the gases back.
1) slide starts moving back before the bullet has exited the barrel and pressurized gas is allowed to exit from both ends of the barrel
2) gases now filling the barrel are at a higher pressure than normal air pressure, what would cause air to rush in the barrel?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #754 on: July 09, 2013, 09:07:57 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
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.
It is the gases that cause the recoil. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gases are hit head on by the higher outside pressure channelling into the barrel and pushing the gases back.
1) slide starts moving back before the bullet has exited the barrel and pressurized gas is allowed to exit from both ends of the barrel
2) gases now filling the barrel are at a higher pressure than normal air pressure, what would cause air to rush in the barrel?
I'd love to answer your questions but , if you remember, you are ignoring me so I'll go away. Stick to your plan and stop getting itchy fingers one minute and crying the next. ;)
I said I wasn't going to actively follow this thread anymore, not that I was putting you on some silly ignore list.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #755 on: July 09, 2013, 09:10:43 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
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.
It is the gases that cause the recoil. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gases are hit head on by the higher outside pressure channelling into the barrel and pushing the gases back.
1) slide starts moving back before the bullet has exited the barrel and pressurized gas is allowed to exit from both ends of the barrel
2) gases now filling the barrel are at a higher pressure than normal air pressure, what would cause air to rush in the barrel?
I'd love to answer your questions but , if you remember, you are ignoring me so I'll go away. Stick to your plan and stop getting itchy fingers one minute and crying the next. ;)
So pretend the questions came from me and answer anyway,  because that is what I was getting at.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #756 on: July 09, 2013, 09:13:50 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
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.
It is the gases that cause the recoil. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the gases are hit head on by the higher outside pressure channelling into the barrel and pushing the gases back.
1) slide starts moving back before the bullet has exited the barrel and pressurized gas is allowed to exit from both ends of the barrel
2) gases now filling the barrel are at a higher pressure than normal air pressure, what would cause air to rush in the barrel?
I'd love to answer your questions but , if you remember, you are ignoring me so I'll go away. Stick to your plan and stop getting itchy fingers one minute and crying the next. ;)
I said I wasn't going to actively follow this thread anymore, not that I was putting you on some silly ignore list.
You need to make your mind up.
Huhwhat? I dare you to look up where I said anything about me going to be ignoring you. I don't see how posting here violates my promise of not actively following the thread either so I don't see what's your problem.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #757 on: July 09, 2013, 09:14:27 AM »
As this thread rages on, people may not be aware that there's another thread on the same topic on another board, where Sceptimatic (or his twin) is also making an appearance:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632

Somehow he's getting a lot more support over there, although the arguments against space flight aren't of any better quality, just more numerous.

Anyhow, I just thought this was interesting, carry on!

That's interesting! Although, I don't believe it's scepti because the OP of that thread used way more scientific jargon than our cute little genius over here understands.

As for that guy, he acknowledges the list of physical phenomena that need to be considered as

Quote
There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1.   Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2.   Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3.   Conservation of Momentum
4.   The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

but then he goes on to say that

Quote
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

And completely ignores the 3rd point in the list - conservation of momentum.
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.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #758 on: July 09, 2013, 09:19:18 AM »
The difference with a rocket is, it expels gas "constantly"<<< this is important to note, because it's gases span out from the nozzle and create a "massive" void, or extreme low pressure.
You keep using that word "void".  I don't think that it means what you think it means.
Fair enough, you keep thinking that. I know what I mean, which is plenty good enough.
Being smug will get you no help at all, so carry on. I dismissed your last post because of it and I'll dismiss all of your posts if you continue. ;)
...no, Scepti, when discussing with other people it's important that THEY know what you mean, too.  Especially when you're either misusing a word or have a seriously different definition.  If you don't communicate what you mean, it sounds like you're using a bunch of words that you know, but you don't know the meaning of, to try and sound smart and back up your ideas.
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #759 on: July 09, 2013, 09:48:43 AM »
The difference with a rocket is, it expels gas "constantly"<<< this is important to note, because it's gases span out from the nozzle and create a "massive" void, or extreme low pressure.
You keep using that word "void".  I don't think that it means what you think it means.
Fair enough, you keep thinking that. I know what I mean, which is plenty good enough.
Actually, it doesn't do anyone else any good if we don't know what you mean.

Quote
Being smug will get you no help at all, so carry on. I dismissed your last post because of it and I'll dismiss all of your posts if you continue. ;)
I don't know, I thought that asking why you would think that air would rush into a rifle barrel just after extremely high pressure gasses pushed a bullet out was a pretty reasonable question.  You seem to have a different opinion as to what's going on that I really would like to understand.
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.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #760 on: July 09, 2013, 10:15:55 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread. 
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #761 on: July 09, 2013, 10:42:49 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #762 on: July 09, 2013, 11:25:31 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
The oxidiser inside the bullet casing would be evacuated in a true vacuum, leaving the bullet at the base of the gun, because expansion would push it out of the weakest point which is where the bullet is crimped to the casing.
In a partial vacuum, like in the video, sure it would fire as long as the casing holds up.
I'm working on the diagram to explain the gun, so you'll have to wait a bit.
erm. the oxidizer somehow "expands" and oozes out? wtf, seriously.

edit - are you thinking that the air inside the casing is the oxidizer?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #763 on: July 09, 2013, 11:36:54 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
The oxidiser inside the bullet casing would be evacuated in a true vacuum, leaving the bullet at the base of the gun, because expansion would push it out of the weakest point which is where the bullet is crimped to the casing.
In a partial vacuum, like in the video, sure it would fire as long as the casing holds up.
I'm working on the diagram to explain the gun, so you'll have to wait a bit.
erm. the oxidizer somehow "expands" and oozes out? wtf, seriously.

edit - are you thinking that the air inside the casing is the oxidizer?
No, I'm not. Have I said this?
You can read above what you said, which is that apparently something inside the casing expands, as "expansion pushes it [oxidizer] out". What expands, and why only oxidizer would be pushed out, why not other solid particles that gunpowder consists of?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #764 on: July 09, 2013, 12:11:55 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
The oxidiser inside the bullet casing would be evacuated in a true vacuum, leaving the bullet at the base of the gun, because expansion would push it out of the weakest point which is where the bullet is crimped to the casing.
In a partial vacuum, like in the video, sure it would fire as long as the casing holds up.
I'm working on the diagram to explain the gun, so you'll have to wait a bit.
erm. the oxidizer somehow "expands" and oozes out? wtf, seriously.

edit - are you thinking that the air inside the casing is the oxidizer?
No, I'm not. Have I said this?
You can read above what you said, which is that apparently something inside the casing expands, as "expansion pushes it [oxidizer] out". What expands, and why only oxidizer would be pushed out, why not other solid particles that gunpowder consists of?
All the gases would expand and be lost.

Well, we can add chemistry to the list of sciences Sceptimatic doesn't know about. The oxidizer in gunpowder is a solid.
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 #765 on: July 09, 2013, 12:23:12 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
The oxidiser inside the bullet casing would be evacuated in a true vacuum, leaving the bullet at the base of the gun, because expansion would push it out of the weakest point which is where the bullet is crimped to the casing.
In a partial vacuum, like in the video, sure it would fire as long as the casing holds up.
I'm working on the diagram to explain the gun, so you'll have to wait a bit.
erm. the oxidizer somehow "expands" and oozes out? wtf, seriously.

edit - are you thinking that the air inside the casing is the oxidizer?
No, I'm not. Have I said this?
You can read above what you said, which is that apparently something inside the casing expands, as "expansion pushes it [oxidizer] out". What expands, and why only oxidizer would be pushed out, why not other solid particles that gunpowder consists of?
All the gases would expand and be lost.

Well, we can add chemistry to the list of sciences Sceptimatic doesn't know about. The oxidizer in gunpowder is a solid.
I know what it is but it would be turned to gas. It's salt petre or equivalent, so don't shoot off before I even say anything Mr clever. :P

I don't have a phase diagram of saltpeter handy, at what pressure does it become a gas, say at 70 degrees Fahrenheit?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #766 on: July 09, 2013, 12:26:39 PM »
So there should be more recoil in high pressure and less recoil in low pressure correct? 
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 #767 on: July 09, 2013, 12:35:20 PM »


I didn't do the action/reaction of the bullet and casing as you all know this one, which is the first recoil.
This picture is the second recoil action and is what gives the main recoil.

Awesome drawing, but I don't see why the compressed air from the bullet would want to invade the gun barrel, which is already full of hot, expanding gas. Wouldn't it make more sense for the compressed air in front of the bullet to just fill in the low pressure area left behind in the wake of the bullet?

Never mind the guessing, let's just look at an actual picture of how air behaves around a bullet:


from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0074.shtml
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 #768 on: July 09, 2013, 12:41:37 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+in+vacuum&oq=gun+in+va&gs_l=youtube.1.0.0.734883.738830.0.740667.9.9.0.0.0.0.246.1246.1j3j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.QFl8rUd_2Wg
Check out the first video.  I'm posting from a phone so I couldn't get the link to the actual video without it being the mobile site version. 
The gun fires in the vacuum chamber just fine,  it also appears to have recoil seeing as the box vibrates.  I'm also curious why the box wouldn't implode given your view on pressure,  but that is best left in your gravity thread.
It's not in a vacuum. It's in a partial vacuum.
If it was in a real vacuum, it would not fire at all.
It's in a vacuum chamber, which has a miniscule amount of air inside it.  We have been over the semantics of vacuum vs space vs vacuum chamber before about 40 pages back, was we wouldn't need to go through it all again.  It would still fire in a vacuum,  as the video was able to show that the gun did not need atmosphere to function (atmosphere being any significant gas and related pressure).  So let's get away from the semantics and see your explanation of the gun successfully firing and producing recoil.
The oxidiser inside the bullet casing would be evacuated in a true vacuum, leaving the bullet at the base of the gun, because expansion would push it out of the weakest point which is where the bullet is crimped to the casing.
In a partial vacuum, like in the video, sure it would fire as long as the casing holds up.
I'm working on the diagram to explain the gun, so you'll have to wait a bit.
erm. the oxidizer somehow "expands" and oozes out? wtf, seriously.

edit - are you thinking that the air inside the casing is the oxidizer?
No, I'm not. Have I said this?
You can read above what you said, which is that apparently something inside the casing expands, as "expansion pushes it [oxidizer] out". What expands, and why only oxidizer would be pushed out, why not other solid particles that gunpowder consists of?
All the gases would expand and be lost.

Well, we can add chemistry to the list of sciences Sceptimatic doesn't know about. The oxidizer in gunpowder is a solid.
I know what it is but it would be turned to gas. It's salt petre or equivalent, so don't shoot off before I even say anything Mr clever. :P

I don't have a phase diagram of saltpeter handy, at what pressure does it become a gas, say at 70 degrees Fahrenheit?
I'm not interested. We are talking about why space flight is impossible and you people liken it to firing a bullet when it's the second recoil you should be concerned with, because it's this one that is closer to how rockets work.
The only difference is, the air does not go back into the gun barrel, because it's constantly pushed against by the "continuous" burning rocket fuel at high pressure.

Sorry, but it's you that makes the discussion difficult when you just make things up as you go along.

Anyway, there's no "second recoil". Your diagram only represents your imagination, not reality. I agree the rocket is full of high pressure, which causes an unbalanced force inside the rocket, causing it to accelerate in the direction opposite to which the gases are escaping.
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 #769 on: July 09, 2013, 12:46:06 PM »
The high pressure from the casing and the bullet at explosion is what propels the bullet. The gas behind the bullet is simply expanding and losing pressure as it does so.
By the time it reaches the end of the barrel, it becomes low pressure, but the bullet is at high velocity which pushes the air out of the way and sending it down it's side and back in to fill the gun barrel, which expels the lower pressure upwards (smoking gun) and this is also why you see a gun kick up as well as back.
Can you see what I mean?

No, because you have it wrong. Gases are still expanding and burning after the bullet clears the barrel (muzzle flash). Once the combustion is completed, the gas will equalize back to atmospheric pressure as it cools. Why should it become low pressure? And again, why is the compressed air in front of the bullet preferentially shooting back into the barrel, instead of just expanding in all directions available like it should?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #770 on: July 09, 2013, 12:49:16 PM »
No, Smeggley, It's not my imagination at all. It happens. You believe what you want to but you are simply in denial, because it renders rockets in space, "BUSTED."
Do you have evidence of this happening?  A longer barrel should mean more recoil right?  Since more air is compressed?  And conversely a shorter barrel should mean less recoil,  right?  So a .22 rifle should have more kick than a .22 pistol and this should be true for any caliber,  right? 
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 #771 on: July 09, 2013, 12:51:16 PM »
No, Smeggley, It's not my imagination at all. It happens. You believe what you want to but you are simply in denial, because it renders rockets in space, "BUSTED."

It happens, why, because you say it does? I'd love for rockets to be "busted", it would be the most exciting discovery of a lifetime. But all evidence points to you being wrong, and space flight to be real. Air can't possibly behave the way you say it does, not because I fear the "truth", but because A. It makes no sense for it to behave like that and B. it's been demonstrated in thousands of experiments that it DOESN'T behave like that.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #772 on: July 09, 2013, 01:01:15 PM »
Scepti,

Just one quick question - if a gun has no barrel, does it have recoil?

According to you it would have almost nil (only the "first recoil" as you put it). This is something that a forum member might be able to experiment on. Not me, I don't have any guns but someone here?

We saw your lack of enthusiasm for experimenting with your ideas before though.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #773 on: July 11, 2013, 04:36:39 PM »
Returning to the original Subject.:

RE: Space Flight

Both Flat Earth and Round Earth believers might be interested in the spread sheet on "Cosmic Journeys" in the June, 2013 issue of National Geographic Magazine.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5winfographics/8902918717#

However, I would guess and I assume Flat Earthers are going to discount it as nothing more than a "pretty drawing."

And I suppose they would consider it fake and National Geographic Magazine is just one more member of the Conspiracy.  ;D

But it would be interesting to hear comments from both sides of the question of FE-vs.-RE.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 04:41:36 PM by Googleotomy »
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 !

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #774 on: July 13, 2013, 06:56:02 AM »
Scepti,

Just one quick question - if a gun has no barrel, does it have recoil?

According to you it would have almost nil (only the "first recoil" as you put it). This is something that a forum member might be able to experiment on. Not me, I don't have any guns but someone here?

We saw your lack of enthusiasm for experimenting with your ideas before though.
A gun with no barrel would have minor recoil, yes...from the explosion of the bullet from the casing but it would be minor compared to having a barrel and having the second "instant" recoil.
The reason why a gun with no barrel would give only minor recoil is because the gases are immediately dispersed in all directions and are soaked up, type of thing.

Thank you, this is exactly what I meant. While it is well documented that barrel length affects muzzle velocity (and recoil), it would be interesting to see figures for amount of recoil with the same weapon and charge, with a very short barrel versus without a barrel. Although it remains to be demonstrated from your side that a) air actually would rush into a weapon's barrel immediately after a shot, at a time when the barrel's interior should remain at a higher than 1 atm pressure b) it remains unexplained on your side what would cause this phenomena.

Any gun owner on these forums, could you experiment with this idea ??? Having a weapon with a functional chamber but no barrel might be a bit of a practical problem though... safety first, if you do it!

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #775 on: July 13, 2013, 10:01:02 AM »


Quote from: Googleotomy
However, I would guess and I assume Flat Earthers are going to discount it as nothing more than a "pretty drawing."


Correct.

Thank you sceptimatic !
Just what I would expect from any FE !
Let's give a round of applause for sceptimatic !!!!!!!
He is so predictable !
You can always depend on him for answer,  no matter what it may be !
I love this website ! LOL ! 

I assume that you assume that the artist who drew the diagram is also just one of the many members of "The Conspiracy" ....along with all the rest of the world ?  ???
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 !

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #776 on: July 13, 2013, 12:46:02 PM »
Scepti, I've got a question for you.

You say a container of gas, if exposed to space, will be vacated instantly and with no net force on the container. So, getting down to the molecules of the matter (pun intended), we have a container with a bunch of gas molecules, bouncing around and the like. Suddenly, the door is opened. At what speed does each molecule leave?

The accepted speed of air molecules at room temperature (that is, N2) is roughly 500 m/s. Let us assume our container is a kilometer long--outrageous, I know, but that's the joys of physics--taking things to an extreme to see if your suppositions hold true. Would the air still be instantly absorbed by the vacuum?

If so, how does a molecule at the far end, traveling a mere 500 m/s (let's say it's already traveling in the correct direction) get out of the container in anything less than 2 seconds? What force would accelerate this molecule to light speed (which would still take more than an instant to travel the length of our container)?

Now let us say the molecule is traveling in the other direction. How does it get turned around to leave the container? What force acts upon it to change it's direction?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #777 on: July 13, 2013, 12:57:18 PM »
Scepti, I've got a question for you.

You say a container of gas, if exposed to space, will be vacated instantly and with no net force on the container. So, getting down to the molecules of the matter (pun intended), we have a container with a bunch of gas molecules, bouncing around and the like. Suddenly, the door is opened. At what speed does each molecule leave?

The accepted speed of air molecules at room temperature (that is, N2) is roughly 500 m/s. Let us assume our container is a kilometer long--outrageous, I know, but that's the joys of physics--taking things to an extreme to see if your suppositions hold true. Would the air still be instantly absorbed by the vacuum?

If so, how does a molecule at the far end, traveling a mere 500 m/s (let's say it's already traveling in the correct direction) get out of the container in anything less than 2 seconds? What force would accelerate this molecule to light speed (which would still take more than an instant to travel the length of our container)?

Now let us say the molecule is traveling in the other direction. How does it get turned around to leave the container? What force acts upon it to change it's direction?
Before I answer your question, you do know that a lot of my flat earth thoughts do not agree with a lot of other flat earth believers thoughts, right?
My flat earth has an ice dome, so do you understand where I'm at and do you want to continue with my answer to your question?

Yes, I understand, and yes I want you to continue.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #778 on: July 13, 2013, 01:41:42 PM »
Now an air container doing the same thing, only hitting an helium atmosphere is going to be breached, no doubt about it. Can you understand this?

So you're saying any container with air in it will be breached in a vacuum? So a container at 101 kPa will, in a vacuum, breach?

What about propane tanks, rated at well over 60psi? That means the difference between inside and outside the tank is 48psi. But you're telling me if I put 14psi into that same tank and took it into a vacuum, where the difference is only 14psi, it would burst?

What if I had a container with a single air molecule? It's a container with air, but how does a single air molecule break through a steel-wall container?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #779 on: July 13, 2013, 01:51:17 PM »
Now an air container doing the same thing, only hitting an helium atmosphere is going to be breached, no doubt about it. Can you understand this?

So you're saying any container with air in it will be breached in a vacuum? So a container at 101 kPa will, in a vacuum, breach?

What about propane tanks, rated at well over 60psi? That means the difference between inside and outside the tank is 48psi. But you're telling me if I put 14psi into that same tank and took it into a vacuum, where the difference is only 14psi, it would burst?

You wouldn't get to a single molecule. It would be breached well before it got anywhere near a single molecule.

Okay, let's take that part out:

So you're saying any container with air in it will be breached in a vacuum? So a container at 101 kPa will, in a vacuum, breach?

What about propane tanks, rated at well over 60psi? That means the difference between inside and outside the tank is 48psi. But you're telling me if I put 14psi into that same tank and took it into a vacuum, where the difference is only 14psi, it would burst?