Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum.
Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!
The following quote from a previous post on another thread shows the complete lack of understanding shown by PL, and is as follows -
'A rocket & its exhaust are NOT Object A & Object B in a Newton 3 scenario; it is clear to a child that they both move together & are part of the same thing.
The combustED gases may trail off; but the combustING gases stay with the rocket at all times.
As previously stated, the 'man on skateboard' FALSE rocketry analogy is clearly more suited to describing the recoil from a gun.Thus, the ball (Object A), represents the projectile; the skateboard (Object B) represents the gun; & the man, in THRUSTING or APPLYING PRESSURE/FORCE upon the ball represents the propulsive charge (i.e. gunpowder or such).'Laughably, he has no idea where the skateboard fits into the experiment. He doesn't even realise that the skateboard is only there to act as a simulated frictionless platform on which to put the experiment on. I would have to assume, that if the experiment was conducted on an ice rink, PL would then state that the ice skates also represented the gun or Object B, as he also labels the skateboard as the gun or Object B?
In the 'man throwing ball' experiment, Object A is the ball, and Object B is the man - this is quite simple.
He actually understands that Object A is the ball, but then loses the plot altogether, and remarkably labels the skateboard Object B, when in actual fact, the skateboard's only purpose is to act as a platform on which to base the experiment.
In another example of pure stupidity, PL can't even see the comparison between a cannon firing a cannonball, and the man throwing a ball, even though it's obvious that exactly the same conservation of momentum laws are being applied.
A cannon 'throws' a cannonball in EXACTLY the same way as a man 'throws' a ball - what's the difference?
Obviously the man is forced in the opposite direction to the ball he has just thrown, just as the cannon is forced in the opposite direction to the cannonball which the cannon has just 'thrown'.
And here's another laughable statement made previously by PL in another thread -
'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere .'In this above statement, PL now tells us that the ball actually isn't Object A at all, and it somehow 'represents an external mass such as the atmosphere'?
And deary me, he actually thinks the man's arm, which is providing thrust to the ball, represents the exhaust? No, no, no, the ball is the exhaust - how anyone can get this wrong is beyond me, but why am I not surprised that a few 'special' people can get it soooooooooooo wrong.
It is patently clear from the above, that PL's level of understanding about conservation of momentum laws, and how to correctly label components in an experiment, is virtually non-existent.
Yet, he thinks that he can base his arguments on these obvious mistakes, and then wonders why he gains no credibility with his posts.
Naively, he thinks we can't see through his ignorance, but sorry to inform you PL, you ignorance is out in the wide open for everybody to see, and this becomes more and more apparent with each subsequent post you make on the subject.