Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 211632 Views
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #450 on: June 21, 2013, 01:25:51 AM »
Quote from: 29silhouette
If there's air pressure inside the dome and vacuum outside, why doesn't it explode outward?
Because a dome is the strongest/ possible structure we can have to hold anything pressure wise.
The domes density is strongest at the bottom, just as a sky scrapers density is strongest at its foundation.

What evidence suggests there is a dome in the first, and why couldn't we create such a chamber on Earth - just miniaturized?

I also find it hard to follow your logic w/ vacuums. A vacuum, by definition, is an area of zero matter. An object floating inside a vacuum is experiencing exactly zero force from the outside; thus, the only force acting on the object is from the pressure within which, for something like a rocket, would be atmospheric pressure.

You seem to be implying that a rocket's structure cannot withstand 14.7 psi. If a tire can hold a pressure difference of more than 14.7 psi (the tire being at 30-40 psi, outside at 14.7 psi -- difference being greater than 14.7 psi), why can't a rocket that is designed to withstand far higher pressure differences? Remember that vacuums aren't physics-breaking objects. They don't have some special attribute which makes them irresistible.

Hell, you're lungs create a pretty good vacuum inside your body on a regular basis, and they are far less durable than rocket crafts.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #451 on: June 21, 2013, 04:09:52 AM »
It's you that doesn't understand it all but you are too arrogant and mainstream viewed to even dare admit you are wrong and I'm right, because after all, I am scepti the tin foil hat nutter aren't I. ;)

I'm correct and you are incorrect and I know this 100% not 99.9%......100%.
Out of interest what have you done, apart from thinking really hard, to prove that you are 100% correct?

Have you designed and conducted a single experiment with the aim of disproving your ideas and if so could you put the details here.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #452 on: June 21, 2013, 04:13:33 AM »
Sceptimatic, I can explain pressure in a way that actually makes sense and matches real world observations perfectly. Your explanations, as imaginative as they are, do neither of these things. They do not make intuitive or logical sense, and they do not match real world observations. This is not meant as a dig at you, I'm just making an observation.
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."

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #453 on: June 21, 2013, 04:54:24 AM »
Hold on, I think I might have just had an epiphany in what Scepti is trying to say, if I'm wrong just tell me because I'm not trying to twist your words around.  It sounds like he is saying that a tire inflated to 100 psi has the same force both inside and outside acting on it.  That the local atmospheric pressure on the container, i.e. the air directly in contact with the outside of the container, has increased to counter the pressure inside the container.  Or maybe that the container expands and creates more surface area on the outside for the atmospheric pressure to work on.  Am I getting close to your thinking Scepti?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #454 on: June 21, 2013, 05:46:16 AM »
Hold on, I think I might have just had an epiphany in what Scepti is trying to say, if I'm wrong just tell me because I'm not trying to twist your words around.  It sounds like he is saying that a tire inflated to 100 psi has the same force both inside and outside acting on it.  That the local atmospheric pressure on the container, i.e. the air directly in contact with the outside of the container, has increased to counter the pressure inside the container.  Or maybe that the container expands and creates more surface area on the outside for the atmospheric pressure to work on.  Am I getting close to your thinking Scepti?
Thank you lord , finally someone with logic.
Absolutely correct Duck.

And what attracts these forces? Magnets? Magic? The Force? Why is the air suddenly thicker around the tire? Why is this not measurable?

Obvious nonsense.
You need logic to figure it out and you need to read and absorb everything I've said instead of discarding it as rubbish.
Once you get past that, you can learn how wrong you are about atmospheric pressure and it's strength.
This should be easy enough for you to test, a couple of gauges to measure the pressure being exerted on the outside surface of the tire by the atmosphere as you pump the tire up.

As usual I look forward to you posting the results.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #455 on: June 21, 2013, 05:59:15 AM »
Hold on, I think I might have just had an epiphany in what Scepti is trying to say, if I'm wrong just tell me because I'm not trying to twist your words around.  It sounds like he is saying that a tire inflated to 100 psi has the same force both inside and outside acting on it.  That the local atmospheric pressure on the container, i.e. the air directly in contact with the outside of the container, has increased to counter the pressure inside the container.  Or maybe that the container expands and creates more surface area on the outside for the atmospheric pressure to work on.  Am I getting close to your thinking Scepti?
Thank you lord , finally someone with logic.
Absolutely correct Duck.
Okay,  so now that we have that bit settled,  what about containers that don't expand?  The last time I saw a full propane tanknext to an empty one,  I couldn't tell which was which.  So without a significant increase in the outside surface area, how does the atmospheric pressure increase to counter the increased internal pressure?
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 #456 on: June 21, 2013, 06:21:02 AM »
My own logic is telling me that 14.7 psi is 14.7 psi and if you take air out of the atmosphere,  you drop the pressure.   My logic tells me that buildings are built to withstand tons and tons of force acting on them,  so pressure containers should be able to built to do this as well.   My logic tells me that submarines can handle deep sea pressures,  but they will fail if they dive too low because of the massive pressure,  and that they would be most likely to fail at seams in the vessel.   My logic tells me that people can't survive in 300 psi environments,  but submarines can,  so at no point can the inside of a submarine be 300 psi.   My logic also tells me that pressure is constant throughout a pressure container.   Every bit of my logic is working against your reasoning.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #457 on: June 21, 2013, 06:30:22 AM »
Arguing against mainstream science is always going to be looked on as arrogant with you lot and I don't care one jot, because I'm not easily backed into a corner or intimidated and I'm confident in what I say, so you take that how you want to.
Arguing against the mainstream, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.  The mainstream definitely needs people to keep it honest.  However, in order to properly argue against the mainstream, you have to understand the mainstream well enough to be able to argue against it on its level, not yours.  Mainstream science has very specific terms for very specific phenomena.  You will not be able to upset the mainstream if you misuse these terms or use childlike explanations.

Seriously, take the time to learn and understand what we're trying to teach you about these terms and concepts.  You don't have to believe or accept them, but you really do need to learn and understand them so that we can have an adult conversation.  Kiddie physics won't change the mainstream.
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 #458 on: June 21, 2013, 07:10:51 AM »
I have a grasp of your logic.   I also know your logic is flawed.   By your logic,  pressure chambers just need to be thick.   By my logic,  they need a strong shape to disperse forces.   By your logic pressures are equal throughout a container except on the walls.   By my logic,  pressures are equal throughout a container regardless of where.   
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #459 on: June 21, 2013, 07:22:14 AM »
Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #460 on: June 21, 2013, 07:41:39 AM »
If any person argues a point using the main stream view...it plays into their hands, because they baffle you with bull shit, using ridiculous equations that do not require them to simply grasp the logic of something.

Applying those forces to building stuff requires math. But figuring out the bullshit behind certain stuff, such as rockets working in a vacuum, requires common sense and logic in very simple terms.

The thing is that mainstream science realizes that what you think is logic isn't always the case.  Things are not always as simple as they seem.  When you explain something to a child, you often need to over simplify, and even tell little white lies.  When a small child asks where babies come from, do you explain the whole process of sperm and egg production, the copulation process, the relevant anatomy, etc., or do you say that babies come from mommy's tummy? 

It's the same thing here.  Rather than trying to understand the physics involved in Newton's laws and pressure dynamics, you are saying that we should just accept your "mommy's tummy" explanation.
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.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #461 on: June 21, 2013, 08:04:18 AM »
If any person argues a point using the main stream view...it plays into their hands, because they baffle you with bull shit, using ridiculous equations that do not require them to simply grasp the logic of something.

Applying those forces to building stuff requires math. But figuring out the bullshit behind certain stuff, such as rockets working in a vacuum, requires common sense and logic in very simple terms.

The thing is that mainstream science realizes that what you think is logic isn't always the case.  Things are not always as simple as they seem.  When you explain something to a child, you often need to over simplify, and even tell little white lies.  When a small child asks where babies come from, do you explain the whole process of sperm and egg production, the copulation process, the relevant anatomy, etc., or do you say that babies come from mommy's tummy? 

It's the same thing here.  Rather than trying to understand the physics involved in Newton's laws and pressure dynamics, you are saying that we should just accept your "mommy's tummy" explanation.
You don't have to accept anything I say. Most never do anyway.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. All i know is, people who are viewing are appreciating my simple logical explanations rather than have their heads filled with bull shit equations to explain something that logically can be grasped in a simplified manner.

If there's no doubt in your mind that I'm wrong and you are right and that you know I will not be swayed, then your participation with me should be over for this topic.
It isn't because you do have doubt about it in your mind and you are questioning it, whilst trying to still make out that my logic is flawed, when I know 100% that I am correct.
Again how do you know you are 100% correct? What have you done to prove this apart from thinking about it?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #462 on: June 21, 2013, 08:09:19 AM »
Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?
Anybody can build a chamber to evacuate air from. You can build one out of a thin plastic bottle but you would only be able to evacuate a minute portion of air before the bottle creases.
What you cannot do, is make a chamber that you can evacuate all air molecules from.
Many people through this and other threads have told you that the vacuum of space isn't a perfect vacuum and that we can actually create a better vacuum here on Earth than actually exists in space.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #463 on: June 21, 2013, 08:11:54 AM »
Arches are designed to deflect the forces down their arms, that is correct,  but compressed air cylinders aren't designed because of expansion,  but rather to disperse a force across the entire container as well as to hold as much air as possible in a convenient to use shape.   They would probably be spherical if they didn't have any constraints other than holding pressurized gas.  Increased surface area cannot account for a pressure container,  and I don't even know why we are still having this discussion since we know what pressure is, a force applied over an area.   Everytime you drive a car over a bridge we can see that this can be constructed to withstand pressure.   We know that building materials are tested before use,  and one popular test is putting a length of material across a gap and applying a force in the center to see the deflection and break limits.   That test is applying a pressure to the material and I can guarantee that it takes morethan 14.7 pounds per square inch to break a lot of building materials.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #464 on: June 21, 2013, 08:25:58 AM »
Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?
Anybody can build a chamber to evacuate air from. You can build one out of a thin plastic bottle but you would only be able to evacuate a minute portion of air before the bottle creases.
What you cannot do, is make a chamber that you can evacuate all air molecules from.
Many people through this and other threads have told you that the vacuum of space isn't a perfect vacuum and that we can actually create a better vacuum here on Earth than actually exists in space.
You have never been in space. No one has, so that's a bold statement.
A perfect vacuum cannot be made on earth, which should tell you that everything man made to create it, would end up in disaster.
I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #465 on: June 21, 2013, 08:50:02 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.
Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #466 on: June 21, 2013, 09:19:11 AM »
Arches are designed to deflect the forces down their arms, that is correct,  but compressed air cylinders aren't designed because of expansion,  but rather to disperse a force across the entire container as well as to hold as much air as possible in a convenient to use shape.   They would probably be spherical if they didn't have any constraints other than holding pressurized gas.  Increased surface area cannot account for a pressure container,  and I don't even know why we are still having this discussion since we know what pressure is, a force applied over an area.   Everytime you drive a car over a bridge we can see that this can be constructed to withstand pressure.   We know that building materials are tested before use,  and one popular test is putting a length of material across a gap and applying a force in the center to see the deflection and break limits.   That test is applying a pressure to the material and I can guarantee that it takes morethan 14.7 pounds per square inch to break a lot of building materials.
When you first grasped my logic, I thought "great, finally someone has switched on their logic machine" and now you have completely crumbled it all and are back to square one.
It's a shame you can't grasp it but what the hell. I'm sure someones light bulb will come on sooner or later.

I'm correct, 100%.
You're probably in the range of 40% correct.  It seems like rigid pressure vessels,  like submarines,  shouldn't be some to exist by your logic.  I'd love to see your attempt to quantify your belief and develop a model that can be used for design purposes.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #467 on: June 21, 2013, 09:28:06 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.
Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?
It cannot be done.
So how can there be a dome covering the Earth creating a sealed environment with atmosphere on the inside and a vacuum on the outside?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #468 on: June 21, 2013, 09:34:34 AM »
Arches are designed to deflect the forces down their arms, that is correct,  but compressed air cylinders aren't designed because of expansion,  but rather to disperse a force across the entire container as well as to hold as much air as possible in a convenient to use shape.   They would probably be spherical if they didn't have any constraints other than holding pressurized gas.  Increased surface area cannot account for a pressure container,  and I don't even know why we are still having this discussion since we know what pressure is, a force applied over an area.   Everytime you drive a car over a bridge we can see that this can be constructed to withstand pressure.   We know that building materials are tested before use,  and one popular test is putting a length of material across a gap and applying a force in the center to see the deflection and break limits.   That test is applying a pressure to the material and I can guarantee that it takes morethan 14.7 pounds per square inch to break a lot of building materials.
When you first grasped my logic, I thought "great, finally someone has switched on their logic machine" and now you have completely crumbled it all and are back to square one.
It's a shame you can't grasp it but what the hell. I'm sure someones light bulb will come on sooner or later.

I'm correct, 100%.
You're probably in the range of 40% correct.  It seems like rigid pressure vessels,  like submarines,  shouldn't be some to exist by your logic.  I'd love to see your attempt to quantify your belief and develop a model that can be used for design purposes.
No container on earths crust can withstand a vacuum or the deepest part of the ocean. It cannot be done.
I already linked to you the information about the sub that reached the Challenger Deep,  the deepest part of the ocean.   And there have been 3 other visits to that depth.   That is over 10 km below the surface.  People went down and came back to tell the tale,  so I'd say their vessel survived this crushing pressure.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #469 on: June 21, 2013, 09:44:00 AM »
I don't care whether you accept it or not. All i know is, people who are viewing are appreciating my simple logical explanations rather than have their heads filled with bull shit equations to explain something that logically can be grasped in a simplified manner.
What makes you believe that the things that rockets and vacuums are simple and logical?

Quote
It isn't because you do have doubt about it in your mind and you are questioning it, whilst trying to still make out that my logic is flawed, when I know 100% that I am correct.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.  Are you admitting that your logic is flawed?  ???
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.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #470 on: June 21, 2013, 09:54:28 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
I already linked to you the information about the sub that reached the Challenger Deep,  the deepest part of the ocean.   And there have been 3 other visits to that depth.   That is over 10 km below the surface.  People went down and came back to tell the tale,  so I'd say their vessel survived this crushing pressure.
Yes and shuttles and rockets have been into space and to the moon and stuff.
If you think these subs have went to the deepest part of the ocean then you are so naive, it's actually not funny.
I can understand a kid or someone who takes no notice of what's and why's and wherefores but you are supposed to have some scientific savvy like others and yet you swallow so much crap that surely your alarm bells must sound.
If not, you must be scared to have your thoughts dashed so you just go along with the crap that they dish out.

Seriously, common sense alone should tell you why those subs didn't go to where they say they did.
Hands up how many believe that crap about the subs?

I, too, am not quite sure as to what you are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench

Or is this just another typical FE reply that any thing on wikipedia is fake ?
Or that any thing or any source of information that disagrees with FET is fake ?
Or that any thing or any source of information that disagrees with what FE "thinks" or "believes" is fake ?
I suppose that wikipedia is just one more member of "The Round Earth Conspiracy" ?

Or maybe : Paraphrasing the words of Will Rogers) : "All I know is what I read in the papers Internet and that's my excuse for ignorance."  ;D
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:07:48 AM 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 #471 on: June 21, 2013, 10:01:46 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.
Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?
It cannot be done.
Prove it. Your claim, your evidence. Enough theory and  more real world facts.
And by the way show us the calculated answers to my previous question.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #472 on: June 21, 2013, 10:11:50 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
I already linked to you the information about the sub that reached the Challenger Deep,  the deepest part of the ocean.   And there have been 3 other visits to that depth.   That is over 10 km below the surface.  People went down and came back to tell the tale,  so I'd say their vessel survived this crushing pressure.
Yes and shuttles and rockets have been into space and to the moon and stuff.
If you think these subs have went to the deepest part of the ocean then you are so naive, it's actually not funny.
I can understand a kid or someone who takes no notice of what's and why's and wherefores but you are supposed to have some scientific savvy like others and yet you swallow so much crap that surely your alarm bells must sound.
If not, you must be scared to have your thoughts dashed so you just go along with the crap that they dish out.

Seriously, common sense alone should tell you why those subs didn't go to where they say they did.
Hands up how many believe that crap about the subs?

I, too, am not quite sure as to what you are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench

Or is this just another typical FE reply that any thing on wikipedia is fake ?
Or that any thing or any source of information that disagrees with FET is fake ?
Or that any thing or source of information that disagrees with what FE "thinks" or "believes" is fake ?
Look at the depth and look at the sub, the tonnage...everything and then think about the amount of air he would need for that trip down.
It's absolute bollocks and if you can't see that, then I can't help you. Just carry on believing it.

Thank you for your fine forensic anaylysis Mr. Sceptimatic. I assume you have Doctor's degrees in oceanography , physics and engineering et cetera  and Post-Graduate studies and experience in those subjects  to back up your statements.  ;D

"Just go with what you believe. I'm not arsed whether you believe it or not. It doesn't affect me in any way.
One day the light bulb may come on, you never know."

I sometimes wonder if Sceptimatic has had a power outage ?  ???
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:19:57 AM 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 #473 on: June 21, 2013, 10:16:50 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.
Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?
It cannot be done.
Prove it. Your claim, your evidence. Enough theory and  more real world facts.
And by the way show us the calculated answers to my previous question.
Just go with what you believe. I'm not arsed whether you believe it or not. It doesn't affect me in any way.
One day the light bulb may come on, you never know.
That's not the point.
"Don't accept anything without questioning it" does apply to your claims too. I'm questioning them and gave you a very easy mean to substanciate them, but I'm still waiting for answers others than " because I'm 100% correct" or "I'm right".
 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #474 on: June 21, 2013, 10:21:34 AM »
My conversation with you ends here.
No need to reply.
I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that are too difficult for you to answer, but sometimes life hands you tough questions that you just can't walk away from.  Good luck when that happens to you.
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.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #475 on: June 21, 2013, 10:24:02 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?
Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.
Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?
It cannot be done.
Prove it. Your claim, your evidence. Enough theory and  more real world facts.
And by the way show us the calculated answers to my previous question.
Just go with what you believe. I'm not arsed whether you believe it or not. It doesn't affect me in any way.
One day the light bulb may come on, you never know.
That's not the point.
"Don't accept anything without questioning it" does apply to your claims too. I'm questioning them and gave you a very easy mean to substanciate them, but I'm still waiting for answers others than " because I'm 100% correct" or "I'm right".
If you can't logically see by the explanations I've spent this entire topic giving out, then you are never going to get it, or you have no intention of.
Come back to me when you want to use your my logic.
Just fixed  the previous sentence.
I'm not asking for your logic, but for some bit of truth in your beliefs. You can't give it? that's fine.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:25:36 AM by Antonio »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #476 on: June 21, 2013, 10:49:47 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers
I already linked to you the information about the sub that reached the Challenger Deep,  the deepest part of the ocean.   And there have been 3 other visits to that depth.   That is over 10 km below the surface.  People went down and came back to tell the tale,  so I'd say their vessel survived this crushing pressure.
Yes and shuttles and rockets have been into space and to the moon and stuff.
If you think these subs have went to the deepest part of the ocean then you are so naive, it's actually not funny.
I can understand a kid or someone who takes no notice of what's and why's and wherefores but you are supposed to have some scientific savvy like others and yet you swallow so much crap that surely your alarm bells must sound.
If not, you must be scared to have your thoughts dashed so you just go along with the crap that they dish out.

Seriously, common sense alone should tell you why those subs didn't go to where they say they did.
Hands up how many believe that crap about the subs?
I have no reason to believe these dives did not occur the way they described.   Sure the design of the submersible would be an extraordinary feat and need to withstand incredible pressures,  I believe I saw at 15k psi figure if I remember correctly.   This is no ordinary undertaking and is evidenced by the very small number of dives to this location despite it's fame of being the deepest sea floor.  Design and rebreathers can account for much of what you have issues with.

What is the safety limit on dives by your logic and opinion?  Just how deep can we go before hitting the wall of impossibility?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #477 on: June 21, 2013, 11:04:46 AM »
Something else for FE to cry "Fake ! It's probably just a small scale model used in some science fiction movie and photoshopped against a background ! "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bathyscaphe_Trieste.jpg
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 !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #478 on: June 21, 2013, 11:12:43 AM »
You shouldn't need any more proof than I've given.

You haven't given any.

I'm just one of many, but I have seen exactly zilch . ??? There seems to be plenty of proof from the other side........But of course, it can be discounted since  it is all from sources that are members of "The Round Earth Conspiracy."
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 !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #479 on: June 21, 2013, 11:56:46 AM »
Something else for FE to cry "Fake ! It's probably just a small scale model used in some science fiction movie and photoshopped against a background ! "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bathyscaphe_Trieste.jpg
It doesn't matter what the sub is. It didn't go to the trench. It's impossible. We are talking 7 miles of deep ocean. ::)

Simple answer . :
It DID go to the trench.
It WAS possible. I'm sorry, but I really have to tell you that.  :'(

Why ?
Because it was very carefully  DESIGNED ........  AND...... It was very carefully CONSTRUCTED that way  to withstand the pressures and able to go down to 7 miles of deep ocean.

(Besides,  those old so-called "no-nothing" scientists and engineers had to DESIGN .......AND......CONTRUCT it that way to withstand the pressures and go down to 7 miles of deep ocean.)

If I remember correctly, James Cameron only had to go down about 2 1/2 miles to the wreck of the Titanic.

Sceptimatic Was that too deep, too, and it was obviously faked, too. ?  ???

This may be a startling revelation, but there are some people that are smarter than you and I, sceptimatic and know about how to make things such as Trieste .

Of course, I "know" that you don't "believe" that, sceptimatic.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 06:53:24 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 !