Space Flight

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 07, 2013, 04:34:38 PM

Scepti, we've been down that road already. I know how these things work, I have played with them for years, I don't even need a scientist to tell me how they work because I worked it out for myself! It just so happens that what the scientists say matches what I worked out through my own observations. What you say has little to no relation to what I have seen for myself, so if you'll excuse me, I won't be putting much value on what you have to say. I will listen, but don't expect me to take it seriously.

Ok, it's up to you,.

I know you like calculations, so here's an easy one for you.

Calculate the overall psi on a vacuum chamber at 0psi.

The chamber is 2 feet square.

I need a bit more to go on, otherwise I'll have to make some assumptions.

What is the outside pressure? I'll assume atmospheric for now, so 14.7psi

What part of the chamber is 2 feet square, and what area do the other sides have? Did you mean 2 feet cubed? as in 2ft wide x 2ft high x 2ft long? I'll assume that's what you meant so that I can actually do a calculation.

Okay, so now we have a chamber in the shape of a cube, with all sides being 2ft x 2ft. that's 4 square feet of area on each of 6 sides, so 24 square feet of area in total. There are 144 square inches in a square foot, so that's 24 x 144 = 3,456 square inches. With an outside pressure of 14.7psi, and an inside pressure of 0psi, the difference in pressure is 14.7psi. So the total pressure on the outside of the vacuum chamber is 14.7 x 3,456 = 50,803.2 pounds.

I realise that sounds like a lot, but it is not an insurmountable challenge for a competent engineer. Not that they would build a vacuum chamber in the shape of a cube, more likely a cylinder, which has a greater inherent strength in it's shape.

Of course, you actually asked for the overall psi on the chamber, which is just 14.7psi. I calculated the overall force on the outsides of the chamber.

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2013, 08:48:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 07, 2013, 08:36:05 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2013, 08:31:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 07, 2013, 08:24:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2013, 08:22:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 07, 2013, 08:13:37 PM

Because you said it's a complete vacuum and it isn't.

Why is it not a complete vacuum?

Because if it was, it would not still be a barometer.

Why not?  The vacuum is what makes a barometer work.

Yes. But that's the point....If it were a perfect vacuum there would be no barometer as the glass tube wouldn't be intact.

If there is no vacuum in the glass tube, then what is supporting the 29 or so inches of mercury in the tube?

You need to pay attention.
I said, if the barometer had a "complete" vacuum it would implode the barometer top.

Wait up, the barometer only contains mercury, so what's that empty space at the top? It sure isn't mercury! And it isn't any kind of gas, because the only thing in the tube is mercury. So what is it?

You people carry on thinking rockets can work in a vacuum, it's no skin off my nose. I'll tell you one thing though...your study on this stuff is built on a lot of fabricated bullshit mixed in with  truths.
The problem is, some or most of you cannot see past your own naive noses.

I sit back laughing when I challenge things with no response...then all of a sudden the same people start to appear with a full on knowledge of the subject and trying to show how I'm wrong.
All these people do is scour about on google or whatever for the answers and try and quickly grasp concepts as they go along, then come out with bullshit that they're all scientists. 

I keep things simple for a reason...something some of you refuse to do, because you are scared to be proven wrong by people who believe anything other than your indoctrinated minds.

Said the one who won't get up the chair and do simple experiments but believe he is right anyway. Also

Wait up, the barometer only contains mercury, so what's that empty space at the top? It sure isn't mercury! And it isn't any kind of gas, because the only thing in the tube is mercury. So what is it?

You people carry on thinking rockets can work in a vacuum, it's no skin off my nose. I'll tell you one thing though...your study on this stuff is built on a lot of fabricated bullshit mixed in with  truths.
The problem is, some or most of you cannot see past your own naive noses.

Which parts are fabricated and which parts are truth exactly?
Do you believe that momentum is conserved in space?

I sit back laughing when I challenge things with no response...then all of a sudden the same people start to appear with a full on knowledge of the subject and trying to show how I'm wrong.
All these people do is scour about on google or whatever for the answers and try and quickly grasp concepts as they go along, then come out with bullshit that they're all scientists. 

Nope, I knew about this stuff before you even knew you had a problem with RET.

I keep things simple for a reason...something some of you refuse to do, because you are scared to be proven wrong by people who believe anything other than your indoctrinated minds.

I'm not scared to be proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times in many subjects and simultaneously have proven others wrong. It's how you learn collectively.
You haven't proven us wrong though, you've just made a claim without a basis.

Quote from: Puttah on June 08, 2013, 08:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

You people carry on thinking rockets can work in a vacuum, it's no skin off my nose. I'll tell you one thing though...your study on this stuff is built on a lot of fabricated bullshit mixed in with  truths.
The problem is, some or most of you cannot see past your own naive noses.

Which parts are fabricated and which parts are truth exactly?
Do you believe that momentum is conserved in space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I sit back laughing when I challenge things with no response...then all of a sudden the same people start to appear with a full on knowledge of the subject and trying to show how I'm wrong.
All these people do is scour about on google or whatever for the answers and try and quickly grasp concepts as they go along, then come out with bullshit that they're all scientists. 

Nope, I knew about this stuff before you even knew you had a problem with RET.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I keep things simple for a reason...something some of you refuse to do, because you are scared to be proven wrong by people who believe anything other than your indoctrinated minds.

I'm not scared to be proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times in many subjects and simultaneously have proven others wrong. It's how you learn collectively.
You haven't proven us wrong though, you've just made a claim without a basis.

The very fact that you think a rocket would work in a vacuum, proves you are either unwilling to think for yourself and simply accept what you have read and are told, because of your trust in how scientists say they work, which is 100% clearly wrong.

Have you even considered that you could be wrong about how rockets work?  I know you say you know with 100% certainty that they won't work, but have you seen a rocket engine attempt to fire in a vacuum and it not work?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 08, 2013, 08:41:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: Puttah on June 08, 2013, 08:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

You people carry on thinking rockets can work in a vacuum, it's no skin off my nose. I'll tell you one thing though...your study on this stuff is built on a lot of fabricated bullshit mixed in with  truths.
The problem is, some or most of you cannot see past your own naive noses.

Which parts are fabricated and which parts are truth exactly?
Do you believe that momentum is conserved in space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I sit back laughing when I challenge things with no response...then all of a sudden the same people start to appear with a full on knowledge of the subject and trying to show how I'm wrong.
All these people do is scour about on google or whatever for the answers and try and quickly grasp concepts as they go along, then come out with bullshit that they're all scientists. 

Nope, I knew about this stuff before you even knew you had a problem with RET.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I keep things simple for a reason...something some of you refuse to do, because you are scared to be proven wrong by people who believe anything other than your indoctrinated minds.

I'm not scared to be proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times in many subjects and simultaneously have proven others wrong. It's how you learn collectively.
You haven't proven us wrong though, you've just made a claim without a basis.

The very fact that you think a rocket would work in a vacuum, proves you are either unwilling to think for yourself and simply accept what you have read and are told, because of your trust in how scientists say they work, which is 100% clearly wrong.

Have you even considered that you could be wrong about how rockets work?  I know you say you know with 100% certainty that they won't work, but have you seen a rocket engine attempt to fire in a vacuum and it not work?

You will never in your life, see a rocket work in a vacuum. EVER.

You may see one work in a partial vacuum for nano second if you're lucky.

Have you ever seen a rocket engine attempting to fire in a vacuum?  Just answer this simple question.

You will never in your life, see a rocket work in a vacuum. EVER.

You may see one work in a partial vacuum for nano second if you're lucky.

Does this look familiar?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo stage separation

Quote from: Puttah on June 08, 2013, 08:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

You people carry on thinking rockets can work in a vacuum, it's no skin off my nose. I'll tell you one thing though...your study on this stuff is built on a lot of fabricated bullshit mixed in with  truths.
The problem is, some or most of you cannot see past your own naive noses.

Which parts are fabricated and which parts are truth exactly?
Do you believe that momentum is conserved in space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I sit back laughing when I challenge things with no response...then all of a sudden the same people start to appear with a full on knowledge of the subject and trying to show how I'm wrong.
All these people do is scour about on google or whatever for the answers and try and quickly grasp concepts as they go along, then come out with bullshit that they're all scientists. 

Nope, I knew about this stuff before you even knew you had a problem with RET.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 04:18:25 AM

I keep things simple for a reason...something some of you refuse to do, because you are scared to be proven wrong by people who believe anything other than your indoctrinated minds.

I'm not scared to be proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times in many subjects and simultaneously have proven others wrong. It's how you learn collectively.
You haven't proven us wrong though, you've just made a claim without a basis.

The very fact that you think a rocket would work in a vacuum, proves you are either unwilling to think for yourself and simply accept what you have read and are told, because of your trust in how scientists say they work, which is 100% clearly wrong.

Why do you always skip my questions just to repeat the same babble that I've heard so many times from you already?

You think I'm illogical.
You think I'm indoctrinated.
You think that I can't think for myself.

And I don't care.

So now that we have that out of the way, let's skip to the Q and A.

Which parts are fabricated and which parts are truth exactly? Do you believe that momentum is conserved in space?

Quote from: markjo on June 08, 2013, 09:14:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 09:02:39 AM

You will never in your life, see a rocket work in a vacuum. EVER.

You may see one work in a partial vacuum for nano second if you're lucky.

Does this look familiar?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo stage separation

Are you winding me up or what?

It's not very hard to wind you up, is it?

If you believe this crap, then it's no wonder you won't accept anything other than what N.A.S.A says.

I believe lots of things that lots of different people say.  But that dosen't mean that I believe everything that everyone says.

I'm shocked at you...unless you are just kidding about mind...which is it?

Here's your chance to show me that you can learn how to properly respond to different parts of my post.  What you want to do is use a close quote tag ("/quote" in brackets instead of quote marks) to separate what I said from the response that you want to type.  You can then open a new quote right before the next block of text that you want to respond to.  Remember, open quote and close quote tags must be used in pairs in order to work properly.

I get the feeling that if you can't even learn how to use quote tags, then there is little chance that you will ever learn any useful physics.

From another thread:

I do not believe there is a vacuum in space like we are told.
I believe space is basically a gaseous ocean consisting of different layers of gas, all the way up.

Does this mean that you have changed your mind and now believe that rockets can work in space?

Quote from: markjo on June 08, 2013, 01:20:23 PM

From another thread:

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2013, 12:24:06 PM

I do not believe there is a vacuum in space like we are told.
I believe space is basically a gaseous ocean consisting of different layers of gas, all the way up.

Does this mean that you have changed your mind and now believe that rockets can work in space?

They couldn't reach space, so no.

Why couldn't a rocket reach space?

Not by a rocket, no.

Don't jump the gun scepti. Do you believe that if you were in a vacuum (protected by a suit of course) and you threw a hammer in one direction, then you'd get pushed back in the other? Conservation of momentum, do you believe it works in a vacuum too?

Now, once you answer that question in its entirety without adding your own little tidbit about a rocket's relation to it, do you then believe that momentum will be conserved if you spray an aerosol can?

So near perfect vacuums aren't possible?

Quote from: Puttah on June 09, 2013, 03:08:53 AM

So near perfect vacuums aren't possible?

Of course they're possible. Just not a "perfect" one.

That's fine, space isn't a perfect vacuum, so I guess it can work then.

Ok, so you say space isn't a perfect vacuum. So how close is it to a perfect vacuum then and how did you come to this conclusion.

Either you see what you're buying into and just go with it even though you know it's fabricated bullshit, or you are utterly naive. Which one is it?

How on earth does the light from distant stars reach our planet if space isn't a vacuum? You can't see the sun on a foggy day, why do you believe we can see stars through light years of space if in fact space is not a vacuum and simply layers of this mystical gas?

Light is scattered and absorbed by matter, if there is matter in the way between a star and us, we CANNOT see it. We may be able to detect x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared radiation etc. But as I alluded to in another post, that requires space telescopes.

Light from stars reaches our earth because they are in earth's outer atmosphere, not in any vacuum or light years away. Your head has been scrambled by indoctrinated Pinocchio science.

Do you just make this up as you go along?

Quote from: Puttah on June 09, 2013, 05:22:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 03:26:47 AM

Quote from: Puttah on June 09, 2013, 03:08:53 AM

So near perfect vacuums aren't possible?

Of course they're possible. Just not a "perfect" one.

That's fine, space isn't a perfect vacuum, so I guess it can work then.

Ok, so you say space isn't a perfect vacuum. So how close is it to a perfect vacuum then and how did you come to this conclusion.

Either you see what you're buying into and just go with it even though you know it's fabricated bullshit, or you are utterly naive. Which one is it?

It's very close to a perfect vacuum considering that satellites are succumbed to higher concentrations of gaseous particles at their heights than in deeper outer space and they can orbit for very long periods of time without losing too much height to air resistance. The exact figure though? I don't know, but wikipedia says that it can range from 10³ molecules / cm³ in cool dense areas and down to 10^-4 ions / cm³ in hot diffused regions.

So I don't know how scientists have arrived at the figures they have, because I haven't studied it, but they wouldn't just say "ok let's just make up an answer so we don't sound dumb" so yeah, maybe we should research it?

By the way, while you're going to dismiss that comment above, would you also care to say how you know that space isn't a vacuum? Oh yeah, you can't because it's fabricated bullshit that popped out of your head but you're here to support FET so you said to yourself "ok I'll just make up an answer so I don't sound dumb".

Light from stars reaches our earth because they are in earth's outer atmosphere, not in any vacuum or light years away. Your head has been scrambled by indoctrinated Pinocchio science.

My head is being scrambled by your scepti science.

Quote from: Puttah on June 09, 2013, 06:19:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 05:56:09 AM

Light from stars reaches our earth because they are in earth's outer atmosphere, not in any vacuum or light years away. Your head has been scrambled by indoctrinated Pinocchio science.

My head is being scrambled by your scepti science.

I wouldn't expect it to be any other. If you hang on to bull shit, then the truth is going to be Alien to you, isn't it.

One man's bullshit is another man's truth. There's a good reason that round, rotating and revolving earth is commonly accepted and it isn't mass delusion or conspiracy, as much as you want or think it is.

Quote from: blnjms on June 09, 2013, 07:01:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 06:27:25 AM

Quote from: Puttah on June 09, 2013, 06:19:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 05:56:09 AM

Light from stars reaches our earth because they are in earth's outer atmosphere, not in any vacuum or light years away. Your head has been scrambled by indoctrinated Pinocchio science.

My head is being scrambled by your scepti science.

I wouldn't expect it to be any other. If you hang on to bull shit, then the truth is going to be Alien to you, isn't it.

One man's bullshit is another man's truth. There's a good reason that round, rotating and revolving earth is commonly accepted and it isn't mass delusion or conspiracy, as much as you want or think it is.

There's an excellent reason that the round, rotating and revolving earth is accepted, you are correct.
It's called "mass" indoctrination or brainwashing.
It's a lie and space space rockets in vacuums.

I just said that it ISN'T mass indoctrination or brainwashing. No FE'er has proven that it is. If it were, it would have been uncovered by now. We can go on like this forever or you can WAKE UP and realize that you could be wrong. I know I'm not because I had trouble with round earth as a child and wouldn't accept it until I accepted gravity, which has been proven. I think that the debate boils down to gravity or not. Why on earth would there be brainwashing, indoctrination, conspiracy or what have you that suppresses anything other than gravity? What is so controversial about gravity, round earth, rotation, revolving, space flight, etc. I just don't get it.

No. It's called using common sense and not being naive.

You seem to be under the false impression all natural phenomenon and their subsequent explanations can be derived through common sense alone. Common sense doesn't tell you stars are in earth's outer atmosphere, that is a conclusion you come to when you need to rationalise observations whilst simultaneously refusing the consensus opinion which is that stars are in fact light years away, something nobody disagrees with.

If everybody had your mindset scepti we'd be stuck in the 6th century for eternity. (At least they knew the earth was spherical in the 6th century.)

Scepti, you have your beliefs, but gravity exists whether you believe it does or not. Can you convince me otherwise? Of course not. And I'm not brainwashed...perhaps you are. You obey the dictates of FET. How is that different from what you're accusing me of doing? In the end, it's one man's belief versus another's and I'm sticking by mine, as you appear to be doing by yours. Oh well.

Quote from: RyanTG on June 09, 2013, 08:05:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 06:08:26 AM

No. It's called using common sense and not being naive.

You seem to be under the false impression all natural phenomenon and their subsequent explanations can be derived through common sense alone. Common sense doesn't tell you stars are in earth's outer atmosphere, that is a conclusion you come to when you need to rationalise observations whilst simultaneously refusing the consensus opinion which is that stars are in fact light years away, something nobody disagrees with.

If everybody had your mindset scepti we'd be stuck in the 6th century for eternity. (At least they knew the earth was spherical in the 6th century.)

If everyone had free minds, we would be so far advanced from now, that todays technology would appear ancient.
Technological advances are governed and suppressed.

So all the technological strides we've made so far should be thrown out the window? Oh yeah, you don't believe in space flight. How silly of me. I'll stick to the current model and stay in awe of our beautiful globe in the solar system in the galaxy in the universe...and those fantastic Hubble space telescope shots!

When you talk to me...cut this 10 to the power shit out. It's not needed to explain anything, except in your mistaken belief that it impresses me or those watching.

lol? You asked me

Ok, so you say space isn't a perfect vacuum. So how close is it to a perfect vacuum then and how did you come to this conclusion.

How did you want me to answer this? With it's REALLLLLY close with 5 whole L's?

And I'm not trying to impress you or anyone else. Magnitudes are taught in early high school and if you can't comprehend it then all that manages to do is impress everyone with your lack of knowledge. Oh oops... I should replace "lack of knowledge" with "dumbness" because I don't want to look like I'm trying to impress anyone with big words 

I'll help you.....Scientists arrive at those answers, because they are fabricated to explain something they know nothing about....or, they are fabricated to hide the real reasons of what is up there.

So either they don't know anything about it while you in your infinite wisdom do, or they know it's not a vacuum and are coming up with fake science to prove what they know isn't true? Genius!

I could tell you why I know space isn't a vacuum but first of all, you need to use your own head as to how powerful "air" pressure is

So how powerful is it? Is it REALLLY or REALLLLLY powerful?

instead of believing it's simply negligible in it's use for rockets , plus it's effects on a vacuum on earth.

You won't do this, because you can't think for yourself and must rely on Pinocchio science to pull you through.

Submarines deal with a much larger pressure difference, and they're ok. Tell us about how you're an expert on the subject of pressure.

I don't need to explain to you how I'm an expert. I can plainly see that you are not and are all hot air and googlified.

I'm not an expert, I'm still in University and majoring in Mathematics with just a minor in Physics, but you're clearly an expert because you've been able to single handedly shut down the entire scientific community - experts and all - with just a few short sentences.

You should take a long hard look at yourself when even the other FEers don't want to back you up.

The great thing about scepti's beliefs is that they have no influence on reality. Of course, reality has no influence on scepti's beliefs, and that is a bit of a shame, it would be nice if he actually did some research instead of telling the people who have done it that they got it wrong.

Scepti, you keep saying you know these things with 100% certainty, but how could you? You've never done a single unbiased experiment in your life, as far as I can tell. So instead of saying you know, how about you just say you believe? That at least would be more honest.

Quote from: blnjms on June 09, 2013, 08:50:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 08:33:17 AM

Quote from: RyanTG on June 09, 2013, 08:05:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 09, 2013, 06:08:26 AM

No. It's called using common sense and not being naive.

You seem to be under the false impression all natural phenomenon and their subsequent explanations can be derived through common sense alone. Common sense doesn't tell you stars are in earth's outer atmosphere, that is a conclusion you come to when you need to rationalise observations whilst simultaneously refusing the consensus opinion which is that stars are in fact light years away, something nobody disagrees with.

If everybody had your mindset scepti we'd be stuck in the 6th century for eternity. (At least they knew the earth was spherical in the 6th century.)

If everyone had free minds, we would be so far advanced from now, that todays technology would appear ancient.
Technological advances are governed and suppressed.

So all the technological strides we've made so far should be thrown out the window? Oh yeah, you don't believe in space flight. How silly of me. I'll stick to the current model and stay in awe of our beautiful globe in the solar system in the galaxy in the universe...and those fantastic Hubble space telescope shots!

You can stick to what you want. It's no skin off my nose what you do or think.

Scepti, you're probably a nice person but you're stubborn as a mule...or you're really a RE'er and are just toying with us! Hmmm...

You're not being duped, but I can't prove this just like you can't prove to me that I AM being duped. Based on your logic, religion is false as well since we can't see God and weren't there when Jesus was on earth. So...are you religious? I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't believe that the Bible is always literally true like fundamentalists do, nor do I believe that it is perfect because I don't worship the Bible. I could go on but what I'm saying is that I believe that the earth is round, rotating, and revolving around a 93-million-mile-distant sun because that has been proven sufficiently to me. Not that I've been to space but I've seen enough photographic and video evidence to satisfy myself on RE, space travel, etc. Now, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because it has been proven sufficiently to reliable people who passed this information down.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 09, 2013, 12:54:58 PM

The great thing about scepti's beliefs is that they have no influence on reality. Of course, reality has no influence on scepti's beliefs, and that is a bit of a shame, it would be nice if he actually did some research instead of telling the people who have done it that they got it wrong.

Scepti, you keep saying you know these things with 100% certainty, but how could you? You've never done a single unbiased experiment in your life, as far as I can tell. So instead of saying you know, how about you just say you believe? That at least would be more honest.

Because I don't divulge experiments, does not mean I don't do them.
All I ever see from you lot is.."Oh I've done this and that."
Type or talk is cheap when things like this is discussed, so take it how you will as I do with comments about me.
I'm right and you and others are wrong on this.
Put your logic head on and you will see. If not, I'm not bothered.

Everything you say contradicts what I have observed for myself. Logic dictates that when a statement does not match the observation it relates to, it must be false. So far, that applies to everything you have said. You believe whatever you want to believe scepti, but I know (and have proven) that you are wrong.

Because I don't divulge experiments, does not mean I don't do them.

Oh really? What experiments would they be?

All I ever see from you lot is.."Oh I've done this and that."

Personally, whatever I claim to do I have done. I have no reason to lie because I don't care about impressing the FES since I'm often made to feel like I'm talking to a bunch of children sometimes (your comment on the powers of 10 struck that idea home), and from what I've already seen, whenever FEers ask for experimental results, it's just them stalling and hopefully calling our bluff that we will ever post the data, because when it is posted, they simply reject it without a second thought.

I'm right and you and others are wrong on this.

That's very convincing.

Put your logic head on and you will see. If not, I'm not bothered.

Did you put your logic head on when you decided that the sun doesn't fall into the horizon? Is it your logic head that still hasn't been able to post a diagram explaining how the sun can move off into the distance without actually looking like it does?

I could tell you why I know space isn't a vacuum ....

I admit I am curious.