Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2014, 11:14:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 10:58:53 AM

Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.

I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s² value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine.  If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.

Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.

If what I did was a lie, then what does it matter?  I want to know how to do it the right way.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 24, 2014, 10:08:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 23, 2014, 10:50:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.

So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true?  I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure.  Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic?  Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel.  How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work?  Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?

Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better  in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?

Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.

Rockets and propellers work differently although they exploit the same laws of motion.  Propellers take external liquid or gas and accelerate it back to push the vehicle forward and they need at atmosphere to work but a rocket generates it's own gas with a controlled explosion and ejects that gas out of the back and the lack of an atmosphere would make the gas expand out more violently and quickly which increases the efficiency of the engine.  Does that make sense?

Monthy reminder that scepti's pet hypothesis is completelly disproven by this experiment, and that he still refuses to address this problem:

I dont know why doesnt anyone call on the bs that scepti execrates. You all seem to be falling for the typical weight/mass trolling he likes to use.

The truth is, rockets can work, independently of the prescence of measurable gravitatorial pull or gasseous countermass (atmosphere, for example), thanks to momentum. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation explains, rockets gain a deltaV based on the speed that fuel particles are expelled. This equation can be derived from Newton's laws and momentum. If scepti doesnt believe on momentum, I dare him to explain how Newton's cradle works BETTER at a vacuum:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes

PS: Where's the youtube tag? I cant embed the player

Just a note also that there is little hope of Scepti understanding the principles of rocketry when he doesn't even understand the properties of a gas under pressure and couldn't explain Brownian motion.....

Just a note also that there is little hope of Scepti understanding the principles of rocketry when he doesn't even understand the properties of a gas under pressure and couldn't explain Brownian motion.....

I wouldn't be too sure about that Mainframes...

One of his recent rebuttals directed at Mikeman7918 was pretty convincing, and showed that he can mount a sound defence of his theories.

Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.

It's hard to argue with logic like that.