Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM

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?

Maybe it is fake. The point I'm making is; those rockets use the atmosphere to achieve vertical flight. To think they burn inside some silly chamber and that pushes them up, is silly in the extreme but somehow you just can't see it, or won't, because to say it uses the atmosphere, kills off space in one swoop.
You know this and so do the mis-info crew.

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 15, 2014, 01:40:10 PM

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.

You're taking my comment far too seriously. It's actually much more simple than that. There is 3 types. There are people who love science and arguing, there are people who you call indoctrinated and then there are the flat-earthers, which are basically either trolls who actually know better (probably you) and whack jobs who know nothing (like scepti). This place is the laughing stock of the world. Don't kid yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

Please look it up for yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.

Ok then, show me how those solid fuel booster rockets burned all their fuel. I bet you can't. And stop stuttering.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

Please look it up for yourself.

No. You people will do all the running and if you don't, then you lose.

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.

Why should a ballistic missile/rocket burn out its fuel in seconds?  Are you saying that rocket scientists can't design rockets that burn fuel for more than a minute?

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

This page has a nice flash animation that discusses how solid rocket burn rates are managed.
http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4

Quote from: sokarul on November 15, 2014, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 10:10:18 AM

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?

No. We are talking about different rockets and you know it.
Your solid fuel is great for fireworks and even small rockets. It would be no good for any space rocket and this should be obvious.

But solid rocket fuel has a higher energy density than liquid rocket fuel for all the obvious reasons.

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

NASA's old space shuttle used solid engine boosters. Not rocket science to look up.
In conclusion, you are are dumb.

Ok then, show me how those solid fuel booster rockets burned all their fuel. I bet you can't. And stop stuttering.

I don't have access to them so I can't show you. But I can say solid rockets are self oxidizing. They essentially work like the rocket in the video I posted.

This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy 

Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard,  I can't tell which.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:29:23 PM

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.

Why should a ballistic missile/rocket burn out its fuel in seconds?  Are you saying that rocket scientists can't design rockets that burn fuel for more than a minute?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 04:00:24 PM

Ok, so you show me how a space rocket works using solid fuel. A diagram of the rocket showing how the fuel is all burned.

This page has a nice flash animation that discusses how solid rocket burn rates are managed.
http://www.esa.int/Education/Solid_and_liquid_fuel_rockets4
[/quote]Thanks for that. So the solid fuel boosters on the shuttle burn exactly like a firework rocket all the way up inside the tank to the nose. Seriously?

You see, this is what you do. You build a massive tank and fill it with? hydrogen, then you have a shuttle strapped to that tank....BUT, you also strap the shuttle and tank to the two solid rocket boosters that burn their solid fuel right up inside of those tanks....right next to the big hydrogen tank and all is well. No problems at all.

Seriously, sometimes it's not a bad thing to realise when you're being taken the piss out of. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Thanks for proving my point.

This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy 

Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard,  I can't tell which.

How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.

Feel free to support anything you say with evidence.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 15, 2014, 04:31:43 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Thanks for proving my point.

You've made a point?

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:34:21 PM

This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy 

Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard,  I can't tell which.

How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.

How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.

Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.

Feel free to support anything you say with evidence.

I will when someone requires it that can actually use their brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 04:38:56 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 04:34:21 PM

This thread has reached an entirely new level of batshit crazy 

Seriously scepti, how can you know so little of things that you deny? And you call yourself a scientist, a serious thinker. It's a disgrace. Or just trolling gone overboard,  I can't tell which.

How about I know what I'm talking about and it's you that doesn't. You are the one being willingly duped.

How about you've made some shit up to support your conspiracy fantasies. But that's not what I said there; you claim absolute knowledge on subjects that you have no clue of, not even at the most basic level.

Look up a jet engine diagram and tell us how the fuel is burnt outside of the engine. Go on, do it.

Who said anything about fuel being burned outside of an engine on a jet engine?

Thanks for that. So the solid fuel boosters on the shuttle burn exactly like a firework rocket all the way up inside the tank to the nose. Seriously?

No.  The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.

You see, this is what you do. You build a massive tank and fill it with? hydrogen, then you have a shuttle strapped to that tank....BUT, you also strap the shuttle and tank to the two solid rocket boosters that burn their solid fuel right up inside of those tanks....right next to the big hydrogen tank and all is well. No problems at all.

Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.

Seriously, sometimes it's not a bad thing to realise when you're being taken the piss out of. 

Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.

No.  The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.

A hollow design made of a thin skin that burned from inside out. Seriously? I mean, frigging seriously? 

Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.

Yes, a pretty serious problem indeed. I'd say only a lunatic would build a rocket this way. Luckily those people aren't lunatics, they're just Hollywood bullshit artists that make these things appear real with explanations that should tell the switched on people how deep the bullshit goes. But allegedly some are simply blinded by the splatters of thick and quickly dried bullshit that covers their eyes.

Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.

I have no need to. The pretend space agencies are doing a remarkable job of that.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2014, 04:52:31 PM

No.  The SRBs had a hollow design so it burned from the inside out.

A hollow design made of a thin skin that burned from inside out. Seriously? I mean, frigging seriously? 

What is the problem? Sadly you cannot go and watch them work anymore though.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2014, 04:52:31 PM

Actually the massive tank was 2 massive tanks: one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen. And the Challenger explosion proved that it could be a pretty serious problem when things go wrong.

Yes, a pretty serious problem indeed. I'd say only a lunatic would build a rocket this way. Luckily those people aren't lunatics, they're just Hollywood bullshit artists that make these things appear real with explanations that should tell the switched on people how deep the bullshit goes. But allegedly some are simply blinded by the splatters of thick and quickly dried bullshit that covers their eyes.

Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2014, 04:52:31 PM

Yes, I realize that you're taking the piss out of all of us.

I have no need to. The pretend space agencies are doing a remarkable job of that.

So much opinion, so little effort to back it up.

Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.

Yes, space rockets are just like cars. You just step on or off the accelerator, depending on what vertical speed you choose to fly. I mean, they start off with just a little throttle on lift off, as anyone can see with these space rockets. You can pedal faster than these heaps of crap on lift off.

And hydrogen is the simplest fuel is it?
Liquid hydrogen is simply stored in that big tank. 

I'll give you people one thing. You are like the actornauts. You make this space stuff sound like a walk in the park.

Having said that - it basically is a walk in the park. It's just models and film making with a few bozo's punching the air sitting next to shit computers with the usual coffee cups sat on their important paperwork. 

Wake up before you get too old and feel foolish for believing this garbage. Seriously.

How do rebut an argument without actually making a rebuttal? Astonishing.

Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you.  The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk

Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you.  The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk

I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.

They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 15, 2014, 05:36:46 PM

Here Scepti, since your memory span is less than two years, let me link to the 46 page thread in which rockets were explained to you.  The first 29 pages might be hard to follow, as your posts were all deleted from your tantrum fueled deleting spree, typical of a sore loser crying about not being taken seriously..... or whatever.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56543.0#.VGf9vmfvgSk

I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.

They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.

What possible reason could we have for disbelieving you keen and insightful words?  Your confidence is magnetic. Your reasoning impregnable.

Quote from: sokarul on November 15, 2014, 05:14:07 PM

Liquid fuel rockets have an advantage in that they can be throttled. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel that can be used. It's actually a good idea to use it.

Yes, space rockets are just like cars. You just step on or off the accelerator, depending on what vertical speed you choose to fly. I mean, they start off with just a little throttle on lift off, as anyone can see with these space rockets. You can pedal faster than these heaps of crap on lift off.

Yes, like a car. More fuel and oxidizer means more thrust. Thousands of people have seen the shuttle take off really slowly over the years.

And hydrogen is the simplest fuel is it?
Liquid hydrogen is simply stored in that big tank. 

It's the first element on the periodic table. It's not some hydrocarbon.

I don't need it explaining. You're wrong and I'm right. Anyone that says they do not use atmosphere to work, is wrong, 100%.

They cannot work in a near vacuum, no matter what bullshit gets attached to them. No atmosphere, no flight. It's as simple as that.

We are not wrong, you are, 212%. Remember that whole evidence thing? You have none.