Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 02:41:34 AM

Yes we can agree on what you're telling of how rockets 'really' work is misinformation, looking at it ourselves clearly shows that. Water coming out of a bottle rocket does not expand and so the pressurization of the atmosphere around the water jet is minimal, yet the thrust generated is orders of magnitude greater than if the bottle contained only pressurized air (which would expand); mass of the material ejected plays an obvious and significant role in thrust generation, while atmospheric pressure on the outside only slows down the jet and has no increasing effect on the amount of thrust as is proven by increase of specific impulse when a reaction engine is operated at a higher altitude.

You really do excel on insisting to know how it 'really' works while not really explaining anything and ignoring all points opposing your ideas.

You know. Sometimes it pays to look at the basics and the logic instead of saturating your mind with a host of supposed technical stuff that does not fit in reality, yet looks quite plausible to the onlooker.

Exactly, and that's why you shouldn't have ignored everything I just said.

Let me see if I can explain it a bit better. At least I'm trying to help, where-as, no one is explaining exactly what's happening inside this supposed combustion chamber.

wtf is your problem with combustion chambers? You aren't seriously insisting that jets burn kerosene outside of the engine? Combustion is what's happening inside the combustion chamber, hence the name. Combustion pressurizes the propellant to increase it's exit velocity.

Back to the water bottle rocket.

Ok. If you tip up a bottle of water, you notice that the liquid simply falls to the ground in a stream, right?
If you let go of that bottle, it would also fall to the ground because it's not doing enough work to stop it doing that.

Pressurise the air inside the bottle with the water in it and you'll immediately notice that the water is ejected out and fans out as it is forced out.
This is the key to the rocket propulsion. It is the fanning out of the water that creates the springboard effect as it forces the outside atmosphere to compress under the power of the water, where it tries to stop it .

This creates the action and reaction. The action being the water ejected at speed that creates a reaction in compressing the air, which naturally springs back. It's called high and low pressures.

See my previous post.

The very same scenario can be seen on water with a boat, except it's working horizontally, yet the same visible reaction to action is taking place.

People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations because they're much more shrouded in magical properties. This is for a very good reason. To go basic would render space rockets unusable, so they have to hang onto this bullshit.

Or we're just observing that the technology works while conspiracy loonies need to come up with alternative explanations to support their own ideas.

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does a reaction engine's efficiency improve in less lower atmospheric pressure?

(edit, extra word)

How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.
Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.

How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?

Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.

Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.

I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?

Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.

I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?

Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.

I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.

I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?

Explain how the efficiency improves. Give me examples using craft. I mean, you mention lower atmospheric pressure, so explain how it was tested and what craft to get to this. Then I can maybe explain why you're wrong.
As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.

Scepti, are you saying that you can't understand basics of physics and you brag about understanding the mysteries of universe ? Let me sit here and laugh at you a moment.

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:53:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?

Efficiency improves, as in, works more efficiently, generates more force per amount of propellant used.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

Explain what you are talking about and what craft you are thinking of so I know what you're trying to say.

I am talking about reaction engines, not of any particular craft that the engine may be attached to. How is the craft relevant?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:38:50 AM

Save all the loony stuff for angry ranting or something and just concentrate on what we are talking about.
It just gives me a batter idea of what you are actually gauging.

I will when you quit with the 'bullcrap explanations', 'alleged combustion', 'that you're lead to believe' etc, that's just annoying and makes you look like an idiot. I doubt you can refrain from those though. Maybe you can't because you're 'a paid shill' and wouldn't get your paycheck if you didn't 'spread your ridiculous fantasies'?

Explain how the efficiency improves. Give me examples using craft. I mean, you mention lower atmospheric pressure, so explain how it was tested and what craft to get to this. Then I can maybe explain why you're wrong.
As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.

All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?

Scepti, are you saying that you can't understand basics of physics and you brag about understanding the mysteries of universe ? Let me sit here and laugh at you a moment.

What basics of physics are these?
All I see are lies, not physics.
I don't brag about understanding the mysteries of the universe. There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.

All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.

Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?

It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.

You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:47:14 AM

All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.

Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.

Climbing requires more power than going level. Right. So what? Have a think about how you are ignoring the fact that the engine's efficiency changes with altitude.

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:47:14 AM

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?

It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.

Pressure requirement to push the water out is irrelevant, what matters is the mass of the propellant and how fast it exits the nozzle/bottle. Air escapes the bottle much faster than water, yet it's the water that manages to shoot the bottle up; so mass is definitely a factor, your model completely ignores this fact.

You can put the same pressure in bottles with and without water and the one with water still generates way more thrust. Go ahead and try it. The fact that using the slower-escaping, non-compressible water as propellant instead of air generates more thrust tells us that the resistance from the outside air pressure is not working to generate thrust, all it does is slow down the propellant exiting the nozzle and so is in fact working to lower the rocket's specific impulse. What happens if the outside pressure is elevated to as high as the pressure inside the bottle? Nothing happens, the rocket won't work. Pressure differential from inside the engine(bottle) to the outside of the nozzle is required, greater the differential, higher the thrust and efficiency. Therefore, rockets work well in vacuum environments.

And your answer did in no way address that in case of water that whole 'compressing to squeeze' thing isn't happening in the first place.

You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.

Yes that is exactly how you operate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 06:34:41 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:47:14 AM

All right, let a jet aircraft be the example craft. It's fuel efficiency is observed and measured on every flight it makes. I'm not going to start digging up reports on specific tests.

Now we're getting somewhere. Tell me when a jet uses the most fuel? tell me when a jet uses the least fuel?
Here's a clue. Climbing and levelling out, respectively. Have a think about that.

Climbing requires more power than going level. Right. So what? Have a think about how you are ignoring the fact that the engine's efficiency changes with altitude.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 06:34:41 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:47:14 AM

If propulsion comes from the atmosphere squeezing back as you put it, why does the jet of non-compressible water generate more thrust than compressed air?

It's more dense, so it requires more pressure to push it away to lift the bottle by compressing the air as it exits the nozzle or bottle neck.

Pressure requirement to push the water out is irrelevant, what matters is the mass of the propellant and how fast it exits the nozzle/bottle. Air escapes the bottle much faster than water, yet it's the water that manages to shoot the bottle up; so mass is definitely a factor, your model completely ignores this fact.

You can put the same pressure in bottles with and without water and the one with water still generates way more thrust. Go ahead and try it. The fact that using the slower-escaping, non-compressible water as propellant instead of air generates more thrust tells us that the resistance from the outside air pressure is not working to generate thrust, all it does is slow down the propellant exiting the nozzle and so is in fact working to lower the rocket's specific impulse. What happens if the outside pressure is elevated to as high as the pressure inside the bottle? Nothing happens, the rocket won't work. Pressure differential from inside the engine(bottle) to the outside of the nozzle is required, greater the differential, higher the thrust and efficiency. Therefore, rockets work well in vacuum environments.

And your answer did in no way address that in case of water that whole 'compressing to squeeze' thing isn't happening in the first place.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 06:34:41 AM

You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.

Yes that is exactly how you operate.

You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.

I've been trying to grasp your idea of this but it seems reality is getting in the way.

Firstly, I admit to being totally bored on this dismal, cold, rain-swept evening.  I noticed the ongoing debate here about rockets and their engines and means of propulsion etc, and couldn't help but note the reams of absolute pseudo-scientific drivel, bogus analogies and personal insults that our resident liar sceptimatic has been posting.  I can only assume that the poor guy is delusional, and/or living in some sort of self-created fantasy world inside his own brain.  I just can't believe that anybody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of just about every basic principle and practice of science, and have such a profoundly distorted notion of our cosmos.

Anyway... due to my fear of becoming mentally comatose, I made up a list of sceptimatic's contributions to the discussion.  These are not necessarily the worst or most laughable of his blunders, but they do indicate his general level of ignorance and childish naivety about the real world and the natural sciences, plus his petulance with other people who ask him to consider various scientific scenarios.

- You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.
- You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
- There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.
- All I see are lies, not physics.
- As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
- How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
- People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations.
- What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
- Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against.
- Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
- Can't you see where you're being duped?
- Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it.
- You're being duped.
- The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right?
- I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
- So explain where the rocket gets pushed upwards.
- The problem here is, rockets are not complicated at all. They're as basic as you can get for vertical flight.
- You see folks, this is why you will always believe the bullshit.
- Rockets into space is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.
- It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
- Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
- The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind.
- I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.
- I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.

And bear in mind that this list is not by any means the entirety of sceptimatic's posts on this thread.  This is just a selection of the more intelligible ones LOL.

I really think the guy needs to get out and about a bit more.  Maybe an immediate trip in his personal jet for an extended North Korean holiday, and with a bit of time spent chatting about his latest research with the Korean science gurus might be in order?

             

And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?

Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. 

There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.

There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.

So what's this then?

And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?

Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. 

We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.

Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 09:55:16 AM

And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?

Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. 

We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.

Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? 

Scepti is getting to close to the truth. There is no turning back now. I have decided to blow the whistle and can confirm that there is a massive conspiracy. Please show the media this post so that the world can know the truth. Much important.

Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework?

Are you seriously telling us that you're unable to see the obvious parallels with 4th of July fireworks—sky rockets—and real space rockets?

You must be having us on, surely?   

Firstly, I admit to being totally bored on this dismal, cold, rain-swept evening.  I noticed the ongoing debate here about rockets and their engines and means of propulsion etc, and couldn't help but note the reams of absolute pseudo-scientific drivel, bogus analogies and personal insults that our resident liar sceptimatic has been posting.  I can only assume that the poor guy is delusional, and/or living in some sort of self-created fantasy world inside his own brain.  I just can't believe that anybody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of just about every basic principle and practice of science, and have such a profoundly distorted notion of our cosmos.

Anyway... due to my fear of becoming mentally comatose, I made up a list of sceptimatic's contributions to the discussion.  These are not necessarily the worst or most laughable of his blunders, but they do indicate his general level of ignorance and childish naivety about the real world and the natural sciences, plus his petulance with other people who ask him to consider various scientific scenarios.

- You'll never grasp it, or don't want to.
- You can't see what I'm saying because you refuse to.
- There isn't a universe. It's all bullshit.
- All I see are lies, not physics.
- As for the rest of your crap, I'll let you sit and soak in that.
- How does it improve under lower atmospheric pressure?
- People simply can't or won't grasp the simplicity of it because it's just too simple and they prefer to hang onto the scientific bullcrap explanations.
- What you are told about rockets is mis-info about how they really work. I guarantee you that.
- Because the water is thrust out of the bottle neck, it compresses the air under it and around it which creates a springboard that the rocket can push against.
- Not a chance in hell will I ever agree to a lie like the one you buy into.
- Can't you see where you're being duped?
- Now this burning fuel has to push through the atmosphere below it and around it.
- You're being duped.
- The exhaust from the nozzle is irrelevant, right?
- I smile when no one can explain what's happening to make a rocket work in space.
- So explain where the rocket gets pushed upwards.
- The problem here is, rockets are not complicated at all. They're as basic as you can get for vertical flight.
- You see folks, this is why you will always believe the bullshit.
- Rockets into space is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.
- It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.
- Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.
- The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind.
- I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.
- I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.

And bear in mind that this list is not by any means the entirety of sceptimatic's posts on this thread.  This is just a selection of the more intelligible ones LOL.

I really think the guy needs to get out and about a bit more.  Maybe an immediate trip in his personal jet for an extended North Korean holiday, and with a bit of time spent chatting about his latest research with the Korean science gurus might be in order?

             

Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.

Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.

C'mon; be fair.  I did say I was bored to the point of becoming mentally comatose.  I was actually surprised myself when I read back over this massive amount of absolute bullshit posted by sceptimatic in only a couple of days.

And when you see it all gathered in the one steaming pile, you realise what a waste of oxygen the guy really is LOL.

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 12:52:21 PM

Who needs to get out more again? geoffrey, you are an absolute disgrace. A skidmark on the underpants of society.

C'mon; be fair.  I did say I was bored to the point of becoming mentally comatose.  I was actually surprised myself when I read back over this massive amount of absolute bullshit posted by sceptimatic in only a couple of days.

And when you see it all gathered in the one steaming pile, you realise what a waste of oxygen the guy really is LOL.

Ask yourself a question, geoffrey. Do the many visitors who come to this site come to read what you have to say, or what Scepti has to say? The sad thing is, you probably think they come here for you.

It's not like they ask for sceptis rants by name. They just come here to read the most absurd and crazy shit that they possibly can. Hey, its what got me started here. If there weren't fe'rs here, this wouldn't be any fun. I certainly find you guys amusing.

Ask yourself a question, geoffrey. Do the many visitors who come to this site come to read what you have to say, or what Scepti has to say? The sad thing is, you probably think they come here for you.

I'd be guessing that people read each of our comments in equal numbers—as I would think for any two posters compared at random.

The major differences in their responses of course is that they'd go away scratching their heads and/or laughing over sceptimatic's bizarre notions and nonsensical comments, whilst they'd be more interested in mine and (hopefully) at least learning a little bit more about legitimate science.  sceptimatic's posts would in all likelihood only reinforce their probable preconception that anybody who believes the earth is flat in the 21st century is a definite whack-job.  At least they'll take away some contemporary science-based logic from my posts.

I have to say—and I don't wish to embarrass you legion—but you invariably rush to sceptimatic's defence far too often for your relationship to be purely platonic.  Is there something you need to tell us about you two?  Or are you—as they say—just good friends?

   

It's not like they ask for sceptis rants by name. They just come here to read the most absurd and crazy shit that they possibly can. Hey, its what got me started here. If there weren't fe'rs here, this wouldn't be any fun. I certainly find you guys amusing.

Once again, not everyone here is a flat earther. Otherwise you would be, wouldn't you? I prefer to split members in to two groups: the believers and the unbelievers. The believers will believe everything they are told by their masters. They are apparently incapable of original thought (plenty of evidence on these forums), because they don't want to appear wrong. They have been conditioned to associate pleasure with getting the right answer (the one they have been taught). "I got a good mark from Miss Hawking!"

You believers are boring. Ten-a-penny. Everywhere. People want to see something else. That's right, people want to meet unbelievers. We are interesting and make people think. Ultimately you will lose.

Ask tour grandpop septic, v2 rockets did work. Here is one giving a lift to a little rocket, you admit they work, this got high enough to see the flatness of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper

Bumper 5   February 24, 1949   White Sands   Pad 33   393 km (244 mi)   Successful flight. Separation of stages at 32.2 km (20.0 mi)

SMDDD

I have to say—and I don't wish to embarrass you legion—but you invariably rush to sceptimatic's defence far too often for your relationship to be purely platonic.  Is there something you need to tell us about you two?  Or are you—as they say—just good friends?

   

I have never met Scepti. We are on a forum dominated by believers. Why you would suggest my comments were anything more than one unbeliever supporting another unbeliever puzzles me.

Kindly provide reasons why you would think that myself and Scepti are lovers, as you implied. And after that, why don't you explain why that would be a problem.

Quote from: sokarul on November 15, 2014, 10:06:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 09:55:16 AM

And after all of that, Geoffrey - none of you can show me exactly what's happening inside a rocket to propel it, rendering the external burning exhaust irrelevant. I wonder why this is?

Up your game, Geoffrey if you want to take me on, or simply give up. I'm right and you are wrong, so add this bit to your sought out quips. 

We have already explained it to you many times. We have already destroyed denpressure many times.

Here is a video that contains a clear rocket engine.
Skip to 4:40.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A firework?
Are you seriously telling me that a space rocket works like this firework? 

A plastic bottle with some air and water in it was an okay analogy but a solid fuel rocket isn't? Well now that you've admitted to having watched it, are you going to say that the fire somehow burns outside of the rocket like on a welding torch?

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 10:01:58 AM

There is no 'external burning exhaust'. Try actually reading what has been posted here.

So what's this then?

Looks to me like some sort of a rocket. You know, a thing that burns fuel inside of it to create a propelling jet of gas to lift it up. What do you see in that picture? Maybe it's fake?

Ask tour grandpop septic, v2 rockets did work. Here is one giving a lift to a little rocket, you admit they work, this got high enough to see the flatness of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper

Bumper 5   February 24, 1949   White Sands   Pad 33   393 km (244 mi)   Successful flight. Separation of stages at 32.2 km (20.0 mi)

SMDDD

The sooner you realise that a ballistic missile/rocket will burn out its fuel in seconds, the sooner you'll realise that these so called intercontinental ballistic missiles/rockets are nothing more than fantasy.

They've fed you full of so much bullshit for so long in your lives, you cannot and will not see any further than that, because just like superman or star trek and all the rest of the TV fantasy shows, it gives you the illusion of magic being a reality, just like people believe time travel can exist and cannot grasp that time is simply man made and cannot be used in any other context than what it was designed for, which is to regiment our lives, as is, for the purpose of productivity.

Space rockets are made for the purpose of keeping controland amazement of the populations whilst pilfering their pockets as they sit and admire the fantasy of it all, through Hollywood type productions and cartoons, plus artists impressions.

The most shocking thing to me - out of everything - is, the fact that so called intelligent people cannot see through some of this bullshit.
I'm not talking about the Geoffrey's. I'm talking about intelligent but weak minded individuals that would rather be walking among the mass indoctrinated, who simply know nothing else but to follow a given path and who cannot be blamed for their ignorance to things they take no real notice of, except to play follow the leader.
These people are intelligent in their own right - and I believe - if shown - they would see the major duping, if they weren't so tied up in life's well organised materialistic world of must have gadgets/attire, plus talking about their soap plots.


You see. If you can make a person believe a soap storyline to the point of them crying among friends as they re-enact it...how in the hell are you going to get them to accept that the science world is pulling the wool over their eyes?

Most people don't give science a second glance, despite the Geoffrey's, constantly mentioning everything to do with science is grade school simplistic then go on to spew utter drivel about quantum frigging mechanics and warped space time. Of course. I mean, all kids know this stuff, right? 

The real intelligent and logical thinkers, are those that have trodden many paths, yet still see many others to tread. These are the people that can see the bullshit unravelling before their very eyes.

Those who see nothing - even after having crap after crap splattered in their faces, yet profess to being scientific...aren't anything of the sort - except for being scared of challenging the readily accepted norm, and would prefer to sit in their cages parroting the same stuff out, time and time again for their entire lives, only ever changing what they parrot, when newer words are recorded into their minds from their peers.

What a sad state of affairs. But you know what? I can't be worrying about that. I am just thankful that I can see the absolute total, utter crap for what it all is - and for every person that sees it, it makes me smile, whether they only see one or thousands - because those that see one piece of bullshit - that is the very trigger they needed to dissect the endless amount of others, to the point of taking a stance of "believe nothing and question everything."