It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: Papa Legba on November 29, 2015, 11:48:02 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 29, 2015, 11:30:50 PM

The gas doesn't freely expand into the vacuum though. It has to do work to escape the rocket.

LOL!!!

Magic 'shpayze-gas' for magic 'shpayze-rokkits'!

Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...

How charitable of it!

Best one yet, Walter Mitty.

As for the rest of your post; I daren't say what I think, cos you'll just spam the mods with reports to try & get me censored...

But suffice to say that you are fully 'in character' today; good work!

The gas doesn't choose to do work. It is an inevitable consequence of the gas interacting with the walls of the container, and the fact that there is an exit to the container. The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.

You were the one who resorted to implying we had no girlfriends and I simply pointed out that in my case you were wrong. No need to get pathetic about it.

You trouble and that of those like you is, you're trying to  make out you know what you're talking about and clearly you don't.

The net result is a non-zero amount of work?...what kind of babble is that?

Oh and this: The gas doesn't choose to do work. What the hell are you talking about?
Papa: these people are merely using mass gibberish to wear you down, as you will know. Keep up the good work because the rational people with common sense and logic will see what you're saying.

Read this:

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2015, 10:19:27 PM

Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.

Then read this:

Quote from: Mainframes on November 30, 2015, 12:02:22 AM

The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.

Oh, dear!

Space-cultists at Loggerheads!

What a truly spectacular Fail you have all created today...

The only possible summation of which is: LMFAO - at YOU!!!

Read the statements halfwit.

He stated when the system reaches equilibrium. Gas escaping from a container is not equilibrium.

The net result is a non-zero amount of work?...what kind of babble is that?

It's called vector analysis. It's what people who know what they're talking about use. The net of all of the vector quantities of work is not equal to zero. ie work is not equal in all directions.

Oh and this: The gas doesn't choose to do work. What the hell are you talking about?

Papa was implying that my meaning was that gas was choosing to do work as per this quote:

Doing Voluntary Work it doesn't need to, just to keep the shpayze-fraud coffers filled...

It's what people who know what they're talking about use.

LOL!!!

Here's you 'knowing what you're talking about' on the subject of Newton's Law's, Walter Mitty:
 

You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.

Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.

& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:

LOL!!!

Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 07:20:02 AM

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.

But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?

'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'

So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.

The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.

Now; seems you & markjo disagree over what free expansion entails; care to sort it out for us?

Quote from: Mainframes on November 30, 2015, 02:37:22 AM

It's what people who know what they're talking about use.

LOL!!!

Here's you 'knowing what you're talking about' on the subject of Newton's Law's, Walter Mitty:
 

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 07:20:02 AM

You come nowhere near winning that debate, in fact you got destroyed.

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass. This is why you don't understand Newtons 3rd, or even 1st and 2nd.

Who cares what the origin of the word space is. It doesn't change what is present and what its properties are.

& here is my original reply, showing that I pointed out your schoolboy error at the time:

Quote from: Papa Legba on September 28, 2015, 08:15:40 AM

LOL!!!

Here is how ignorant mainframes, & the rest of you cultists, are on Newton's laws:

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 07:20:02 AM

You do not need something to push off to move. You only need to develop a force on a mass.

But how does www.thephysicsclassroom.com describe a 'force' in its section on Newton's laws?

'A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a result of its interaction with another object.'

So; 'to develop a force on a mass' IS THE SAME THING AS 'to develop a push on a mass'.

The whole farrago can be viewed on pages 167-170 of this thread.

Now; seems you & markjo disagree over what free expansion entails; care to sort it out for us?

Developing a push on a mass is not the same as pushing off a mass.

LOL!!!

And here's a post where you didn't even know what an 'object' is:

Quote from: Papa Legba on November 24, 2015, 05:33:59 AM

Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:

How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?

Bearing in mind this:

"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."

Note that it includes the number Two.

LOL!!!

What is an object....?

Here's a question: what is a Fabulist?

And here's an answer: it is You, Walter Mitty.

Still; I'm sure your story-telling abilities are useful for entertaining your 'fiancee' as you promenade round the cloisters of Bath University... Accompanied at all times by a chaperone, of course.

LOL!!!

One last question, Walt: do you in fact live in a Charles Dickens novel?

LOL!!!

And here's a post where you didn't even know what an 'object' is:

Quote from: Mainframes on November 24, 2015, 05:45:52 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on November 24, 2015, 05:33:59 AM

Yep; you're all shit-scared of answering a question so simple any child could do it, namely:

How many Objects is a rocket (singular noun)?

Bearing in mind this:

"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions."

Note that it includes the number Two.

LOL!!!

What is an object....?

Here's a question: what is a Fabulist?

And here's an answer: it is You, Walter Mitty.

Still; I'm sure your story-telling abilities are useful for entertaining your 'fiancee' as you promenade round the cloisters of Bath University... Accompanied at all times by a chaperone, of course.

LOL!!!

One last question, Walt: do you in fact live in a Charles Dickens novel?

Rhetorical question dumbass.

Rhetorical question dumbass.

Yeah; right...

So; is your fantasy existence based on the works of Dickens?

Or are you more of a Jane Austen type?

There's no chance of getting any sense or truth out of you on the subject of Science, so we may as well delve into the fevered depths of your Imaginary Life...

Quote from: Mainframes on November 29, 2015, 11:13:48 PM

Why do you keep insisting on quoting free expansion when it clearly doesn't apply to a rocket in space?

So; the FACT that a gas expands freely into a vacuum, doing no work on the way, does not have any relevance to how a gas powered rocket would function in a vacuum?

Once the gas escapes the rocket engine, it's free to expand all it wants.  However, while the gas is within the rocket engine, its expansion is constrained by the walls of the combustion chamber, the size of the throat and the bell of the nozzle.

In other words, outside the rocket engine - free expansion.  Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.

outside the rocket engine - free expansion.  Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.

Nonsense: In Vacuum - Free expansion.

Full stop.

& as we've already established that your silly 'combustion chamber' is open to the practically-infinite vacuum of 'space' that's the end of your 'shpazyze ecksplurayshun' illusions, is it not?


Now; please read this:

Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.

Then read this:

The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.

Then explain why you & mainframes contradict one another.

Get your stories straight, space-cultists!

Cindy..... Keep failing to grasp the simply fact that free expansion is a particular kind of expansion for which u need to have a very specific set of condition:
Vaccum which u have
Close container which u have NOT
insulated container which u have NOT
gasses starting from a state of equilibrium which u have NOT

u CANNOT apply free expansion results to the thermodynamics System that represent the rocket.

Quote from: markjo on November 30, 2015, 05:32:25 AM

outside the rocket engine - free expansion.  Inside the rocket engine - not free expansion.

Nonsense: In Vacuum - Free expansion.

Full stop.

& as we've already established that your silly 'combustion chamber' is open to the practically-infinite vacuum of 'space' that's the end of your 'shpazyze ecksplurayshun' illusions, is it not?

Open to a vacuum is not the same as being a vacuum.  If fuel and oxidizer are pumped into an evacuated combustion chamber and burned, then the chamber is no longer a vacuum.

Now; please read this:

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2015, 10:19:27 PM

Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.

Then read this:

Quote from: Mainframes on November 30, 2015, 12:02:22 AM

The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.

Then explain why you & mainframes contradict one another.

Since the work being done by the gas is being done within the rocket engine (which is not in a state of equilibrium), I see no contradiction.

Papa cant cope with the concept of a localised area of high pressure that is connected to a vacuum by a small orifice.

God almighty, are you lot still here?

All still asking the same bloody question I've repeatedly answered?

*Yawn!*

Here's what you are up to in a nutshell:

Okay, let me rephrase that slightly

'Let me rephrase that...'

LOL!!!

In other words: 'You have shown me to be wrong, but I refuse to accept that so will just keep badgering you until you give up...'

Yeah; cos badgering witnesses is the sign of a class act, ain't it?

A real straight-shooter!


Anyhoo; let's examine what we have learned today:

1) None of you have any kind of internal motivation or emotional life whatsoever.

(Except for one of you who apparently lives in a 19th-century romantic novel, wherein he & his blushing betrothed chastely dance minuets & waltzes at the Marquis of Bathtubshire's annual St. Swithins day Ball. Or some such nonsense.).

2) Nothing at all.

3) The same as #2 but with added STFU.

4) There is NO #4.

5) As #3 but with GTFO & LOL!!! frosting.

6) Nobody cares about #6.

7) OKAY, LET ME REPHRASE #7!!!

8 ) #7 is now rephrased as #1.

9) Repeat as necessary...

Toodle-pip, full-on mentalists who are so mental that the term mentalist is just too inadequate to do their mentalising mentalism justice...

Until we meet again: Carry on Lying!

So, would each side accept that if this experiment was performed:

Shit, my internet died when this was being created, and it somehow posted it.

Ha ha ha. You crack me up!

People do get married in the 21st century. You're just upset that I made you look like a mug when you insisted we had no girlfriends. I was quite impressed with your logical leap from I am getting married to chastely dancing waltzes. No wonder you are incapable of applying science to the correct situation.

We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly. You don't understand free expansion and yet keep desperately trotting it out in an attempt to discredit the mechanics of rocketry.

We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.

LOL!!!

Who's this 'We', white man?

Okay, let me rephrase that slightly

Knock yourself out, Walter 'me & my fiancee' Mitty; you 'rephrase' that Lie...

Because it'll always involve trying to create pressure within a practically-infinite vacuum, so nothing you can say will ever stop it being laughable bullshit.

Which is why I must end, as always: Carry On Lying!

lol

Papa is so destroyed he can't even make proper posts anymore.


lol

So cindy, if this infinite vacuum can pull out gasses immediately from the chamber, no matter how tiny is the exit or how powerful are the pumps.... What prevents it from sucking all the atmosphere away from earth?

Whatever, losers; Words are not Reality.

Now; back to this:

Quote from: Mainframes on November 30, 2015, 01:38:29 PM

We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.

Who's this 'We', white man?

Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?

Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...

You DO know them all personally, don't you?

You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...

Right?

So; tell me about this 'We'.

I'm afraid to said that u're becoming ridiculous and paranoid Cindy.

But I'm glad that u keep ignoring question, so that the rational reader could discern reality from trolling

Whatever, losers & Frenchmen (same thing); Words are not Reality.

Now; back to this:

Quote from: Mainframes on November 30, 2015, 01:38:29 PM

We keep asking the same question because you are incapable of answering it correctly.

Who's this 'We', white man?

Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?

Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...

You DO know them all personally, don't you?

You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...

Right?

So; tell me about this 'We'.

We - being all the people who are engaging in the debate on the side of correct science and actual factual evidence and therefore not on the same side as you and most FE's. A cursory scan of the last couple of pages makes it myself, lucky Fred, sokural and markjo.

Although debate is probably a stretch. All I can see is you prattling on about free expansion when it is not applicable and how a vacuum somehow manages to instantly pull out molecules out of a chamber with a small orifice. Both wrong. I suspect you couldn't even explain how a gas actually behaves.

I'm not sure which is worse you bring a troll or actually believing the crap you spout. If you're a troll then you're pretty pathetic and if you genuinely believe this stuff then you're really dragging down the average IQ of wherever it is you live.

I asked you this:

Come on, Walt; who is this 'We' you speak of?

Tell me all about them, one at a time; spare no details...

You DO know them all personally, don't you?

You've met em all, confirmed their existence, etc, etc...

Right?

So; tell me about this 'We'.

You answered with this:

We - being all the people who are engaging in the debate on the side of correct science and actual factual evidence and therefore not on the same side as you and most FE's. A cursory scan of the last couple of pages makes it myself, lucky Fred, sokural and markjo.

Thus avoiding the main thrust of my questions, as well as erroneously calling me a flat-earther, a thing I have repeatedly & strenuously denied being.

You have not met any of your 'We'; you cannot confirm their existence; they are no more than ghosts in a machine...

So, I must conclude there is no 'We'.

There is simply 'You'.

And your Imaginary Qualifications, fiancee, Dickensian lifestyle, etc, etc, of course...

Now, let us return to why markjo claimed this:

Free expansion says that when the system reaches equilibrium, the total work done is zero.

Whilst you claimed this:

The net result is a non-zero amount of work done by the gas.

Please explain why you & markjo contradicted one another.

I've been waiting a long time for an answer, Walter; do enlighten both myself & your Imaginary 'We'...

I must say, this was one of the most epic trolling threads I've ever seen.  Papa Legba trolled you idiots for 215 pages and you kept coming back for more.  Did I mention you guys are idiots?

Since this thread has pretty much devolved into name calling and ranting, it's getting locked.  It's not angry enough to get moved to Angry Ranting.  I'd like to say it's been fun, but it's really just been painful to watch this thread play out.