Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

I have never once mentioned any degrees. Geoffrey's just trying to desperately stop me exposing the bullshit he has been paid to hang onto.

You previous claimed to possess thirteen academic qualifications.

Can you please name them and end this stupid back-and-forth discussion?

Note that I'm not asking you to prove their existence in any way—simply name them.  When people use their credentials to support the veracity or accuracy of their claims, then it's imperative they name those qualifications.  If for example someone has a Ph.D in biology, then they're poorly equipped to debate the intricacies of astronautics for example.

And I really can't believe that you're unable understand even the basic high-school level physics that explains why the balloon slides along the string.  If you can't grasp this centuries-old principle, how then are you gonna cope with contemporary science and/or rocket propulsion?




Give this diagram to any high schooler, and they'll explain the theory in a couple of minutes.  Why can't you?

I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?. Big rockets wont work in septic land.
Put all his bullshit on one page it would stink. Hope his mom busts him leaving that mess around the computer, we may get a rest.

I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?.

I guess I'm just being generous of spirit, and giving the guy numerous opportunities to redeem himself.  Unfortunately—and being a habitual liar—he seems unable to do so.  He obviously prefers to live in some sort of self-contained fantasy world invented inside his tiny brain.

He's also apparently oblivious to the simple fact that everybody else here regards him as some sort of whack-job, or simply a major and persistent troll.

The fact that he can't comprehend even the simple physics of the grade-school demo of the balloon "rocket" is a clear indication that he has not the faintest understanding of science.  Which in the 21st century is kinda frightening.

This might clarify the forces acting on the balloon "rocket"—for sceptimatic's benefit:



The bottom diagram represents a "real" rocket nozzle.

And assuming that sceptimatic is unfamiliar with Newton's third law of motion:  "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.

Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 10:00:01 AM

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.

firstly, modify your stance when imagining your shotgun shooting for pain-free day-dreaming.

what represents your shoulder if the analogy is reversed? what will the rocket 'inflict pain' upon? is fire a slow explosion, or an explosion a rapid fire?

do you practice negative reinforcement techniques to improve your own cognitive processes?

Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 10:00:01 AM

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.

For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?

Quote from: guv on November 11, 2014, 04:36:30 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 10:00:01 AM

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.

For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?

Try holding a fire-hose!

Quote from: guv on November 10, 2014, 08:14:26 PM

I remember the degree crap septic. Aus, how come you seem to have a hard time nutting out that septic is an idiot?.

I guess I'm just being generous of spirit, and giving the guy numerous opportunities to redeem himself.  Unfortunately—and being a habitual liar—he seems unable to do so.  He obviously prefers to live in some sort of self-contained fantasy world invented inside his tiny brain.

He's also apparently oblivious to the simple fact that everybody else here regards him as some sort of whack-job, or simply a major and persistent troll.

The fact that he can't comprehend even the simple physics of the grade-school demo of the balloon "rocket" is a clear indication that he has not the faintest understanding of science.  Which in the 21st century is kinda frightening.

This might clarify the forces acting on the balloon "rocket"—for sceptimatic's benefit:

The bottom diagram represents a "real" rocket nozzle.

And assuming that sceptimatic is unfamiliar with Newton's third law of motion:  "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

I'm well aware of equal and opposite action/reaction.
Your balloon is not explaining it at all, except in a scam sort of way. This is why people get duped easily and it's understandable why they get duped.

It's just a shame that people cannot use their own rational common sense to see that we live under atmospheric pressure and it's use dictates our lives in every way imaginable

You show the balloon as the action being inside the balloon, as if that's how a rocket would work. It makes no sense whatsoever for that to happen in how you've described it.
The air pressure inside that balloon creates an equal push against push when the balloon is tied, as you explain.
I have no issues with that but you are not telling the whole story, are you?

You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.

Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok  people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."

The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.

There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.  Where would the world  be without scepti?

Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 10:07:48 PM

Quote from: guv on November 11, 2014, 04:36:30 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 10:00:01 AM

Scepti not having commented here I'll chip in - as far as I can tell the 'problem' with this is, that it's sort of an invisible force: there's an action and a reaction, but there's nothing readily tangible for a layman such as myself to point at and say, "that's how the force from the accelerated jet pushes the rocket!". A bit like with gravitation. We see that jets and rockets work and math, physics and engineers who work in aviation/aerospace industries tell us how the thrust and efficiency change with ambient pressure, but he has problems accepting the first part so the rest of it must be a lie or something. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

Can you give a precise, concise, non-conceptual explanation for exactly how the flow of air from a balloon creates a force to push the balloon in the opposite direction? I don't think I could.

Go fire a shotgun, the pain in your shoulder might help your thoughts.

For a firearm's recoil, I could offer such explanation. But for a jet / rocket it's a little different. You have the answer, maybe share it here?

Try holding a fire-hose!

If you think of a fire hose, it should tell you that what you are told about action and reaction is told wrongly to try and explain rockets.

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.  Where would the world  be without scepti?

A lot further on than it is now in terms of lifestyle and the riddance of scientific bullshit theories.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 12, 2014, 05:00:37 AM

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.  Where would the world  be without scepti?

A lot further on than it is now

lol

haha   

That denpressure-or-whatever-stuff is just the usual scepti-stuff, but I think I didn't manage to convey what I was trying to. Principles of conservation of momentum & equal and opposite forces ofc hold true, but in case of our balloon rocket here, what is that something, that fundamentally transfers the momentum of that jet of air into a force pushing the balloon in to the opposite direction? Well I'm not sure if that was much clearer :/ In Scepti's world, that something does not exist because conspiracy so jets and rockets must work by pushing against the ambient air, which in a certain sense is a plausible explanation. Gun or fire hose examples aren't helpful - I can come up with examples of these principles myself, but it is that "something" that is missing... and you probably can't explain it any better if I can't ask it any better, so 

If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.

If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.

Thanks I'm already sufficiently familiar with your theory, I was asking about "the other" version

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 09:18:54 AM

If you want to know how a rocket works, all you have to do is watch a ship/boat at sea, then imagine that sea being tipped upright, as though the ship/boat was going vertical.
It's the same principle, only the rocket has to externally burn it's fuel to gain the required push vertically as opposed to a ship/boat only having to push against the water it is floating on.

Thanks I'm already sufficiently familiar with your theory, I was asking about "the other" version

That wasn't for you in particular, it was for everyone.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html

You should sit under an apple tree septic.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newtons_laws_of_motion.html

You should sit under an apple tree septic.

Why? what does that prove?
Can you explain why a rocket works as we are led to believe, or not?

If you can, then put up a diagram and explain it better than Geoffrey did, as to how it manages to push itself up without the aid of atmosphere.

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.  Where would the world  be without scepti?

LOL..... it never ceases to amaze me that—despite not having any knowledge of physics or mechanics himself—sceptimatic invariably asks me questions that I find are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer.

All I can suggest to sceptimatic is that he applies his own theory of "denpressure" to the balloon/rocket analogy, and the answer will be immediately obvious.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 12, 2014, 05:00:37 AM

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.  Where would the world  be without scepti?

LOL..... it never ceases to amaze me that—despite not having any knowledge of physics or mechanics himself—sceptimatic invariably asks me questions that I find are very difficult, if not impossible, to answer.

All I can suggest to sceptimatic is that he applies his own theory of "denpressure" to the balloon/rocket analogy, and the answer will be immediately obvious.

I'll tell you why you can't answer in a logical way. It's because to do so would show the rocket ruse up for exactly what it is.
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.

It's a clever trick but no more than that. It's equivalent to a magicians sleight of hand.
If you can prove otherwise, then do so. If not, then accept that you've been fed, fodder.

You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.

Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok  people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."

The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.

There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.

Er, NO!

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.

To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin.

And this very basic point is exactly the sort of stuff that flies straight over sceptimatic's head LOL.  He can't even grasp the concept that the air inside the balloon is compressed, or at a higher pressure than the outside air.  I'd love to see his explanation of how SCUBA tanks work.

I wonder sometimes if he ever completed high school science.  Or even if he started it.   

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 04:55:21 AM

You also have the outside atmosphere doing exactly the same thing around that balloon, squashing it from all sides in an equal and opposite reaction to action.

Once you open up that balloon nozzle, it's the atmosphere acting all around it that squeezes that balloon and pushes the compressed air out of that nozzle.
So basically, it's like regimented arrows that were pushing all around inside, are now all pointed to the exit (nozzle) in a sort of " ok  people, all rush for the exit, last one out, stinks."

The movement starts at that point where the air rushes out to meet the atmosphere outside of it which creates a barrier, which is why the balloon starts to move the other way, because as that compressed air inside the balloon tries to push into the outisde air, it rebounds back as the outside air goes to equalise with it, which pushes that balloon forward.

There is no inside push. It all happens outside.
If you want to argue this, then explain in exactl detail just what your balloon is doing, or more to the point...show me exactly what's happening inside of a rocket for it to move as we are led to believe. Merely showing an arrow inside and one outside, is a cop out, because to explain it properly would destroy the ruse.

Er, NO!

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.

To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.

I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.
This throwing stuff to make you go the opposite way in how you've been told, is not correct, it's just that you refuse to look at it properly and believe that atmospheric pressure has no effect.

I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.

Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.

Quote from: LuggerSailor on November 13, 2014, 04:45:06 AM

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin.

And this very basic point is exactly the sort of stuff that flies straight over sceptimatic's head LOL.  He can't even grasp the concept that the air inside the balloon is compressed, or at a higher pressure than the outside air.  I'd love to see his explanation of how SCUBA tanks work.

I wonder sometimes if he ever completed high school science.  Or even if he started it.   

Sometimes it pays to read back. If you bothered, you would plainly see I mentioned compressed air.
My twister, Geoffrey: you will gain nothing but frustration trying to play games like this.

My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.

It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.

I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.

And for this we can all be eternally grateful LOL.

Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.

"Promises" made by inveterate liars are inevitably broken.  Let's hope this one is.

Thanks for the LULZ sceptimatic... well done.  10/10.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:24:35 AM

My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.

It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.

There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:54:35 AM

I won't bother explaining to people who have already made their mind up, because it's up to each individual to go with whatever way they choose.

And for this we can all be eternally grateful LOL.

Quote

Anyone that is willing to absorb what I say, will benefit from knowing the truth, I promise them that much.

"Promises" made by inveterate liars are inevitably broken.  Let's hope this one is.

Thanks for the LULZ sceptimatic... well done.  10/10.

Whenever I take you on, you get weaker by the minute. Why do you think I overlook much of what you say?
Most of your stuff concetrates on attempted put downs without addressing the problems.
You can't answer the questions I put to you because it's impossible to rationally explain for your rocket and vertical flight.

My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.

If you can maybe take a time out on your attempts and faliures to put down anyone who isn't attached to your thoughts, then let me see you explain how a rocket works, as plain as you can and showing how it is pushed up without the use of atmosphere.

Infact, omit atmosphere and go straight into your space, then show me how it works, making sure you explain where the internal push is coming from and against the reactive force it is pushing against.

Over to you, Geoffrey.

Quote from: neimoka on November 13, 2014, 05:08:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:24:35 AM

My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.

It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.

There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.

Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.