Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2014, 07:12:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 07:11:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2014, 07:07:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 07:00:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2014, 06:33:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 06:22:18 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 17, 2014, 03:30:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 08:01:36 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 17, 2014, 07:59:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2014, 05:55:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 16, 2014, 05:50:29 PM

It will ever get there. You think two balls of equal dimension but different densities drop at different rates. This shows that you have never tested your theory. Once you test it, you will realize it is full of holes and be forced to delete all your posts in a fit of pique.

You have never tested it either. I know I'm correct and anyone who has the ability to test it, wills ee I'm correct. It requires a high structure and someone at the bottom with a camera focused on the drop. Then you will see who's correct.

Gravity is a lie and denpressure is reality.

Have your tested objects falling?

Have you?

Yes, school experiments.

Well come on then. What experiments did  you do that you physically knew was actually happening in the way it was and by what force?

I won't speak for inquisitive but in my class we dropped objects of the same size and shape but with different densities and timed how long they took to fall.  In a not so surprising turn they all fell at the same rate.  So this disqualifies denpressure.  Can you move on?

At what height and what did you use?

You tell me the title of a book you have written and I reveal exactly how wrong you are.  Deal?

Either answer or don't. Either way I'm happy with it.

It is good to be happy when your ideas are incorrect.  I admire that.

I won't waste another second on you.

If I had a nickel for every time you said that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM

You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?

The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.

It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?

Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?

The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 04:24:14 AM

Quote from: sokarul on November 16, 2014, 08:37:58 PM

In the ball experiment, you said that air moves around the ball from high pressure to low pressure, and as a result the ball moves towards the high pressure.

How about reading what I type? By reading it and grasping it all, you may get the chance to understand what I'm saying.
The ball does not move towards the high pressure. The ball under energy, as in the throw, creates the higher pressure by compressing the air above it which is forced around it to equalise with the lower pressure that is now under it.

Have a serious think on this and absorb what I'm saying.

Yes I did think about what you are saying. The bold part is what you are saying. Now you need to realize you don't believe in inertia. So like I said, you have the ball traveling from low pressure to high pressure. The top of the ball is high pressure. Why don't you absorb what you say. Remember, the ball is only moving because of the air touching it.

Quote

Quote from: sokarul on November 16, 2014, 08:37:58 PM

Then you mentioned wind.  Objects in wind move with the wind which is moving from high pressure to low pressure. Your two ideas are contradictory. So what is it. Do objects in wind move from high pressure to low pressure or do they move from low pressure to high pressure?

Should you really be asking this?

Yes, seeing as how you contradict yourself.

Quote

No, it's not what I believe. It's what you interpret me believing because you are not willing to grasp what I'm saying.

Let me try and hammer this home one last time.
A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. It's black to our eyes because it does not exists as anything, meaning that inside our cell     with clear ice dome, we see black when we look up at the dark sky. It's not that we see into the vacuum, it's that we cannot see past the clear dome as there is no matter for us to see.

Light can go through a vacuum. Light is not effected by partial vacuums, which is should if what you said was correct. In between atoms and molecules in a gas there is nothing, it's like a mini vacuum. And now we are back to this old argument. How does light cross these mini vacuums?

Quote

Now taking that into account, no gold ball or man or machine is going to move in something that does not exist, so basically you thinking I'm talking about an actornaut hitting a gold ball and it just stopping, is not even valid to talk about because it simply can't happen in a true vacuum.

I know you believe this, it's hypothetical. You believe the energy from the golf club will just disappear.

Quote

For someone to swing a club at a gold ball, requires movement, which has to have a medium for that movement to take place. Earth offers it and that's where it ends.

How does mechanical energy know what the medium is around it?
Do you try to get dumber over time?

You have yet to respond to this.

You have yet to respond to this.

I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 09:10:00 AM

You have yet to respond to this.

I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?

Obviously so.

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 10:35:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM

You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?

The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.

It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?

Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?

The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.

I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?

Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?

The sooner you understand that propulsion is  not going to work in a vacuum, the sooner you'll realise that all of this stuff is gunk.

I see that the forum's resident mental midget still can't comprehend the sciences of a vacuum, and rocket propulsion LOL.

He just seems intellectually incapable of grasping Newton's Third Law; "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"—which can also be thought of as "forces always come in pairs".  Any high school kid can explain this in a couple of minutes, and understand the concept.

But oh no... not our favourite pseudo-science guru!   

How embarrassing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 08:01:44 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 10:35:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM

You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?

The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.

It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?

Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?

The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.

I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?

Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?

I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.

Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.

The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.

Is this any better for you?

Have I missed something?

Uh..... most of your high school science classes?

           

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 08:01:44 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 10:35:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM

You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?

The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.

It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?

Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?

The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.

I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?

Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?

I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.

Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.

The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.

Is this any better for you?

neimoka.... Might I suggest attempting to be blocked by him. As you can see you can still respond to his horrible posts but he just doesn't respond back. If this happened to everyone it benefits anyone reading the site.

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 08:01:44 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 10:35:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM

You wrote that the ball moves towards higher pressure. You say that it's because it has 'energy'. What is this energy that the moving ball has once released, all it has should be the pressures around it that make it move - towards higher pressure. What is this energy? Did it get warm? Did it compress? Even if it was a rigid material? Can you quantify this energy?

The energy was created by the person throwing the ball. Yes is would slightly coompress and yes it would get warm as you put it......but....and take this in.

It would not compress or get warm in any way you would recognise, as it would have to be thrown with a massive amount of energy to show this.
Why can't you grasp this stuff?

Okay so we're still looking at a ball small and light enough to throw easily, just to see what we're talking about here, let's say it's one of those medicine balls - like a basket ball but stiffer and a bit heavier. And it won't heat up or deform or compress in any noticeable way. Got it. So in what way or form does it contain that energy, that was put into it by the force of my arm pushing it up, that makes it maintain that motion, even as it has to push against the increased air pressure in it's path? It's not tensile energy, it's not thermal energy, what kind of energy is it? And how does a welding torch fit into all this?

The energy it contains in the energy you applied. If you apply enough energy to overcome a resistance, then it will overcome it.
No matter what you throw at the atmosphere, it will expand and heat up. It's just that in small doses, you will never appreciate it.
Energy applied against air to create enough viewable expansion or heat, takes an enormous amount, plus a sustained energy.

I can't decipher what "The energy it contains in the energy you applied" means. There's energy contained in energy? What?

Anywhere in your post I do not see an answer to what I asked, could you elaborate?

I know, I forgot you people have to make an issue out of one error in a letter and cannot possibly decipher it.

Ok, I'll play your game this time. Anymore silliness and you're going the journey, as well.

The energy it contains inis the energy you applied.

Is this any better for you?

I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.

Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?

I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.

Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?

It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 11:20:51 AM

I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.

Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?

It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.

So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?

It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.

So Dumbo still hasn't understood one of the basics of science—that atmospheric pressure is acting from all directions at once.  He still seems to think that the atmosphere operates in one direction only on a body, which is one of the reasons he claimed that people sitting at the back of a moving bus were under more pressure than those sitting at the front.  He also seems to think that it's the "weight" of the "column" of air above us that's pushing down on the tops of our heads, and keeping us anchored to the earth.

He now seems to think that if you throw a ball up in the air vertically, it somehow—magically—compresses a column of air above it which is trying to push it back towards the ground.  The ball also "heats up" due to this increased pressure "compressing" the ball.  You can—apparently—actually "notice" this with say a golf ball or a tennis ball, but definitely not with a "dense" medicine ball (although he doesn't say why specifically).

I'm guessing this sort of thermodynamic theory explains why we see so many tennis balls bursting into flames at Wimbledon?   

neimoka.... Might I suggest attempting to be blocked by him. As you can see you can still respond to his horrible posts but he just doesn't respond back. If this happened to everyone it benefits anyone reading the site.

Shhhh, I want to see where this goes   

I see that the forum's resident mental midget still can't comprehend the sciences of a vacuum, and rocket propulsion LOL.

FFS  Would you please knock it off with the insults already?  It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.

How embarrassing.

Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.

FFS  Would you please knock it off with the insults already?  It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.

I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic?  Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers:  You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL.  Cyanoacrylate maybe?

Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.

Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention?  But I forgive you this little slip.   

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2014, 01:00:10 PM

FFS  Would you please knock it off with the insults already?  It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.

I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic?  Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers:  You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL.  Cyanoacrylate maybe?

Quote

Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.

Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention?  But I forgive you this little slip.   

You're kidding right?

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 18, 2014, 01:43:25 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2014, 01:00:10 PM

FFS  Would you please knock it off with the insults already?  It makes you look petty and childish and it does nothing for your argument.

I can only assume you meant to direct this comment to sceptimatic?  Although, having said that, I will say one thing about you flat earthers:  You sure stick together whenever the going gets tough LOL.  Cyanoacrylate maybe?

Quote

Yes, you are getting to be quite an embarrassment for RE'ers trying to have a civil discussion.

Again, I'm sure you meant this to be for sceptimatic's attention?  But I forgive you this little slip.   

You're kidding right?

We wish.

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 09:10:00 AM

You have yet to respond to this.

I don't see anything specific to respond to. Have I missed something?

Ok, I accept that you made such a stupid claim that you won't even try and back it up. Let it be known that denpressure is dead.

Let it be known that denpressure is dead.

sceptimatic's silly "denpressure" theory was never a starter from day one LOL.  He couldn't even differentiate "mass' and "weight"—he thinks they're the same thing!  And he still can't get his head around the schoolboy science that pressure is defined as force per unit area, or for EG newton per square metre. 

To put it politely, the guy is a total ignoramus... and I mean that in the nicest possible way.   

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 11:34:58 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 11:20:51 AM

I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.

Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?

It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.

So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?

Sorry about taking so long to answer. I had other things to attend to.
However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.

However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.

The only way sceptimatic could "help" anybody is if he stopped posting his reams of pseudo-scientific blather on these forums.

Although I'm seriously starting to believe that he's simply unaware of the fact that everybody here—even most flat earthers—are repeatedly taking the piss out of him.  No sense; no feelings as they say LOL.

It's kinda bizarre that he describes anybody who disagrees with his notions of the earth and the cosmos as "clowns" as though that's a satisfactory defence against any opposition.  He needs to start posting some viable, empirical evidence and/or citing references for all his many claims.  There's really no point in just insulting people's intelligence without, at the same time, providing any sustainable arguments of his own.

I enjoy a robust intellectual debate along with the best of them, but debating an issue—particularly involving the sciences—with someone like sceptimatic is just marginally better than sticking toothpicks into your eyeballs.  Which is one of the reasons I'm more than pleased he's finally added me to his IGNORE list.  I can only suggest that other round earthers ask the same, as it relieves you of feeling any need whatsoever to respond to his puerile drivel and childish antics.

Through his last somewhat embarrassing responses, it's obvious the guy doesn't know the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy LOL.

More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 12:18:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 11:34:58 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 18, 2014, 11:20:51 AM

I honestly didn't realize it was a typo.

Okay, so that's the quantity of the energy the ball has - it has what I gave it. That's not what I asked. It was established that the ball didn't get hot, or compress, so exactly what is the form of the energy that the ball has?

It's mass, propelled by your energy, compresses the air above it and pushes it out of the way, around and back under the ball.
It compresses the ball and heats it up as it does this but for something as dense as a medicine ball, you are never going to notice this, obviously.

So there is heating/compression - but so minute that it can't be noticed, while still so much that the hefty ball moves up at speed, against the high air pressure - just the right amount. How does this heat (and compression) produce force to push the ball up? Is it like a rocket, the thermal energy heats and expands the air around the ball, creating a pressure to 'squeeze' the ball up, is that it?

Sorry about taking so long to answer. I had other things to attend to.
However, I can clearly see you have no clue as to what I'm trying to help you with, so you can follow the other clowns into the bin. No need to respond.

Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.

More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html

There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of these pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?

Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.

Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. 

Of course I have no clue how it all works, this revolutionary theory is so unintuitive for us who understand classic laws of motion that in-depth explanation of these mechanics is required but you refuse to give it. Too bad, I would have had couple more questions ad well, force that moves the ball up while no external force is applied was just one thing to get cleared up.

I told you I'd converse with you, but to do so, you better stop sucking up and following those pricks I binned and think for yourself.

Quote from: guv on November 18, 2014, 09:34:10 PM

More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html

There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of tehse pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?

Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.

Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. 

Get used to it septic this the 21st century.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 02:15:13 AM

Quote from: guv on November 18, 2014, 09:34:10 PM

More electric propulsion, only works in a vacuum.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Stacks_Two_Satellites_to_Launch_as_a_Pair_999.html

There's just no end to the absolute stupidity of tehse pranksters, is there?
conjoined satellites now. What for?
What the hell is the reason for conjoined satellites?

Just when you think they can't surely think of anything else as batty, here we go again.
The next will be triplets, then quads. For crying out loud.

Electric propulsion as well, in space, as if that somehow solves the vacuum conundrum.
Pathetic. 

Get used to it septic this the 21st century.

I'm used to it, Guf.
This is the age of the ultimate in getting lies across to the whole world by technology. The tools to fool have always been there. The problem has been making it gather pace, quickly.
TV, internet and mobile phones are a part of just about every home, so they can feed you as much bullshit as they want - every day - and clearly they do.

Your rockets that you amaze over, in your space, are bunkum. They can't work. They can't even launch in the sizes we are told. the launches are CGI or models.
All it takes, is for people to wake up and spend a little time thinking about it, then they will understand why it's not possible.
Will it happen with most?
The answer is probably not, because the bullshit goes deep into their minds, like a hot knife through soft butter.

The saying is quite clear. It's in my signature.

Here you go septic, there is a vacuum in the tube.
http://makearadio.com/tube/6ba7-superhet.php
If you are smart enough to read the circuit you will notice that is real smart. ie not flat