People on skateboards.

  • 2251 Replies
  • 411006 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #180 on: October 03, 2015, 05:23:32 PM »
Besides, we all know that sustained space flight is not possible on the FE.
Who said anything about sustained space flight?  ???
I did.

You guys are arguing the same point over and over.  I thought I would move it along.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #181 on: October 03, 2015, 10:48:26 PM »
YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic. 

No; I am clearly saying that a rocket in a vacuum is adiabatic, whilst a rocket in an atmosphere is not.

You are trying to make a black & white issue out of what is clearly a matter of relative pressures.

Enough of this though; until you at least learn to read there is no further point in responding to your senseless rambling.

To neutrals; a concise summation of the term 'adiabatic' in the context of this 'debate' is 'You can't get Something out of Nothing'.

And, as our illiterate friend frenat keeps saying, a vacuum is Nothing.

& WeissEdel; so; you have been lurking here, admiring sceptimatic's postings, so very much that you just happened to pop up out of nowhere & suggest he stop making them?

Ooookay...

Sounds likely.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #182 on: October 03, 2015, 10:56:48 PM »
Here is the post frenat conveniently ignored. I have bolded the relevant part.

You see, this is why I said you are twisting words so much as to be a Liar, frenat.

A rocket in an atmosphere is not adiabatic, obviously.

But when it is in a vacuum then it will be adiabatic, again obviously.

Because you cannot 'exchange' heat & matter with NOTHING.

Yes?

It's all a matter of pressure gradients, which of course your mechanical contact-based models of rocketry can not take into account.

But whatever; for now you can take this LOL!!! with you.

You can see from the above that frenat either cannot read or is here only to troll.

Either way, he has nothing worthwhile to offer.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

WeissEdel

  • 241
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #183 on: October 04, 2015, 03:05:44 AM »
We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model

Around this point seems to be where we disagree. The globe model's been killed off countless times, they just keep coming up with special exemptions to facts and laws. Newton doesn't hold in vacuum, for example, or light doesn't need a medium.
There's no way to kill off any model when people can keep making excuses, but hopefully we can keep presenting examples until they see how tenuous and patched up the RE notion is, that just one piece of tape pulled will bring it all toppling down.

I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #184 on: October 04, 2015, 05:05:53 AM »
We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model

Around this point seems to be where we disagree. The globe model's been killed off countless times, they just keep coming up with special exemptions to facts and laws. Newton doesn't hold in vacuum, for example, or light doesn't need a medium.
There's no way to kill off any model when people can keep making excuses, but hopefully we can keep presenting examples until they see how tenuous and patched up the RE notion is, that just one piece of tape pulled will bring it all toppling down.

I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist.

No special exemptions.

Newton does hold in a vacuum and light has never required a medium.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

WeissEdel

  • 241
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #185 on: October 04, 2015, 05:10:47 AM »
Newton does hold in a vacuum and light has never required a medium.

Run that by me again. Light does not require a medium, but light is a wave. You are not talking about waves, you are talking about the existing special exemption for light. How is that not a case of an exception?

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #186 on: October 04, 2015, 06:12:00 AM »
YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic. 

No; I am clearly saying that a rocket in a vacuum is adiabatic, whilst a rocket in an atmosphere is not.

You are trying to make a black & white issue out of what is clearly a matter of relative pressures.

Enough of this though; until you at least learn to read there is no further point in responding to your senseless rambling.

To neutrals; a concise summation of the term 'adiabatic' in the context of this 'debate' is 'You can't get Something out of Nothing'.

And, as our illiterate friend frenat keeps saying, a vacuum is Nothing.

I read your post.  I have argued nothing about a rocket in atmosphere as there is nothing to prove.  I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise.   So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words. 
You don't have to "get something out of nothing".  The rocket loses heats and mass.  Whether in an atmosphere or not, it is NOT adiabatic. 
Hilarious that you are arguing a rocket doesn't lose heat or mass just by being in a vacuum.

Thanks for the humor!
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 06:22:36 AM by frenat »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #187 on: October 04, 2015, 06:18:29 AM »
We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model

Around this point seems to be where we disagree. The globe model's been killed off countless times, they just keep coming up with special exemptions to facts and laws. Newton doesn't hold in vacuum, for example, or light doesn't need a medium.
There's no way to kill off any model when people can keep making excuses, but hopefully we can keep presenting examples until they see how tenuous and patched up the RE notion is, that just one piece of tape pulled will bring it all toppling down.

I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist.
I don't know what you are. I can't quite work you out yet. Good cop bad cop routine?...not too sure. I'll wait until you open up and I'll see your true colours.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #188 on: October 04, 2015, 06:41:01 AM »
He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.

Hmm, 'cause that is not what you just said:
sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?
No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.

Oh, and this:
A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.

Are you stupid?
Wow, that was a great rebuttal!  Very informative and directly addresses the point.  Nice dodge.  I see you haven't changed a bit.

Don't expect too much from sokarul.  He is a little retarded. 

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #189 on: October 04, 2015, 08:03:25 AM »
I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise.   

You should, but you didn't. I can only criticise what you DID write.


So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words.

I'd rather sue you for lying. Which is what you are doing.

 
The rocket loses heats and mass.

We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.

So as the rocket loses heat & mass it gains nothing in return & no work is done.


Whether in an atmosphere or not, it is NOT adiabatic.

Half right, half wrong, ALL troll...


Hilarious that you are arguing a rocket doesn't lose heat or mass just by being in a vacuum.

Hilarious that you are Lying...

Not.



Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for the Trolling; Goodbye!
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 08:16:26 AM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #190 on: October 04, 2015, 08:29:52 AM »
I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise. 

So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words. 

I'd rather sue you for lying. Which is what you are doing.
I have not lied.

 
The rocket loses heats and mass.

We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.

& you cannot EXCHANGE heat & mass with NOTHING.
the word exchange is used because things CAN go in both directions, not that they have to.  Have you EVER taken a physics class?  An exchange CAN be one way whether you like it or not.  The other definition about it happening without a gain or loss of heat is also more common.  Interesting that you ignore that one.

Since you insist on the exchange being two way.  In an atmosphere, what heat and mass is the rocket gaining as it is rapidly losing both?  IF any, is it consequential to the reaction?

In a vacuum, can it not gain heat from the Sun?


Whether in an atmosphere or not, it is NOT adiabatic.

Half right, half wrong, ALL troll...
ALL right.  Troll?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
One of us has been calmly asking and responding to questions.  The other has been avoiding questions and spewing insults from the beginning.

Hilarious that you are arguing a rocket doesn't lose heat or mass just by being in a vacuum.

Hilarious that you are Lying...

Not.

still haven't lied.  YOU are claiming that a rocket in vacuum is not adiabatic (I'd love to hear where you think the magical transition takes place).  That means that YOU have to be claiming it is not losing heat and mass.

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for the Trolling; Goodbye!
Thanks for the humor!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #191 on: October 04, 2015, 09:05:04 AM »
In a vacuum, can it not gain heat from the Sun?

LULZ!!!

What a Troll...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #192 on: October 04, 2015, 09:40:13 AM »
Newton does hold in a vacuum and light has never required a medium.

Run that by me again. Light does not require a medium, but light is a wave. You are not talking about waves, you are talking about the existing special exemption for light. How is that not a case of an exception?
Because light is also a particle.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #193 on: October 04, 2015, 09:48:28 AM »
We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.
No.  It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass.  Remember that heat and mass tend to move from higher concentrations to lower until equilibrium is achieved.

An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings; energy is transferred only as work.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 09:51:33 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #194 on: October 04, 2015, 11:21:01 AM »
Quote from: jroa link=topic=64577.msg1721934#msg1721934
Don't expect too much from sokarul.  He is a little retarded.
I remember him quite well.  And so far, he has not disappointed.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 11:23:55 AM by TheEngineer »


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #195 on: October 04, 2015, 12:17:45 PM »
No.  It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass. 

LOL!!!

TRANSFER and EXCHANGE are interchangeable terms, slow-poke!

Try googling 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer'; you'll get the same results for both.

This is all you, frenat & your Troll-puppet horde have left, isn't it?

Petty quibbling...

Do you want to argue over the definition of 'petty quibbling' next?

Because circular argumentation is your only salvation...

Unless 'Engy' comes to your rescue?

'Hey, Engy, pwease hewp me make the bad men go awa-a-ay!'

Pleading for a personal army...

LMFAO!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • +0/-0
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #196 on: October 04, 2015, 01:54:55 PM »
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.

1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. gunpowder) between them.

THREE objects.

2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the man's arm) between them.

Again; THREE objects.

Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel).

Only TWO objects.

Object B is missing in the rocket example.

And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.

But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?

So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.

& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.

Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel) sitting between them.

THREE objects.

The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.

So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.

Q.E.D.


During a rocket's operation within the atmosphere, it loses a considerable amount of mass.

What is this lost mass, and where does it go?
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #197 on: October 04, 2015, 02:08:23 PM »
A better question would be : what is this lost mass doing?

Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.

We see that P in the above examples expands between 2 masses in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and... What, exactly?

Where is mass 2?

Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #198 on: October 04, 2015, 02:13:16 PM »


A better question would be : what is this lost mass doing?

Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.

We see that P in the above examples expands between 2 masses in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and... What, exactly?

Where is mass 2?

Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...
Found it.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #199 on: October 04, 2015, 04:15:19 PM »
No.  It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass. 

LOL!!!

TRANSFER and EXCHANGE are interchangeable terms, slow-poke!
No, they aren't.  Transfer is a one way action while exchange is a two way, reciprocal action.  A rocket engine is moving heat and mass into the vacuum of space and receiving nothing in return.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • +0/-0
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #200 on: October 04, 2015, 05:41:09 PM »
A better question would be : what is this lost mass doing?

Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.

We see that P in the above examples expands between 2 masses in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and... What, exactly?

Where is mass 2?

Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...

Interesting to note, that you side-stepped my questions and replaced them with your own.

The first question I asked was - 'What is the lost mass?'

Answer - The fuel.

The second question I asked was - 'Where does it go?'

Answer - It leaves the rocket via the engine nozzles in the form of high speed super heated exhaust gas particles.

I could have asked another question - 'If for example, 500kg of fuel is burnt every second in the combustion chamber and ejected out of the engine nozzles, how much lighter does the rocket become every second?'

Answer - 500kg

And another VERY interesting question that could have been asked -  'How much does 1 seconds worth of ejected exhaust weigh?'

Answer - 500kg


Do you agree with all of the above answers?


So if we look at the momentum equation, where   P = mv  and apply this to the high speed 500kg/s rocket exhaust, it soon becomes obvious that a huge amount of momentum has been created.

Now when we look at the applicable Newtonian law, we see that momentum MUST be conserved, ie the total amount of momentum must equal zero, which means the mass and the velocity of the rocket itself must balance the equation.

Therefore, we have now established that the rocket moves because of the momentum created by the high speed exhaust gases (formerly unburnt fuel).

And please remember, 500 kg of fuel combusted per second = 500 kg of high speed exhaust per second.

Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #201 on: October 04, 2015, 08:54:48 PM »
Again I ask: what is this lost mass doing?

Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.

We see that P in the example of a cannon expands between 2 masses (the cannon & the cannonball) in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and...

What, exactly?

Where is mass 2?

Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...

Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.

But, as I correctly predicted, quibbling over definitions is your last hope of 'victory', so it is what you are doing.

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #202 on: October 04, 2015, 10:15:17 PM »
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.
Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process' and the top hit says:
An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings; energy is transferred only as work

But, as I correctly predicted, quibbling over definitions is your last hope of 'victory', so it is what you are doing.
Believe it or not, sometimes it is important to use the proper words in the proper context in order to have a proper discussion.  Then again, you have proven time and again that you are not interested in a proper discussion.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 10:17:40 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #203 on: October 04, 2015, 11:02:27 PM »
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.
Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
.

Because they're both the same thing.

Duh!

& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.

Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • +0/-0
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #204 on: October 05, 2015, 12:49:40 AM »
Again I ask: what is this lost mass doing?

Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.

We see that P in the example of a cannon expands between 2 masses (the cannon & the cannonball) in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and...

What, exactly?

Where is mass 2?

Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...

Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.

But, as I correctly predicted, quibbling over definitions is your last hope of 'victory', so it is what you are doing.

When rocket fuel is combusted within the combustion chamber, it is then ejected out through the engine nozzles as high speed super heated exhaust gas particles. As in my previous example, if 500kg of fuel is combusted within the engine every second, then obviously 500kg of high speed super heated exhaust is also created every second - there is NO mass lost during this process.

It seems to me, that you're not comprehending that the 500kg of fuel that is combusted every second, retains the same weight when it is ejected out of the engine nozzles, ie. the newly created exhaust weighs exactly the same as the fuel that it formerly existed as - all that's happened, is that this 'parcel of mass' has changed its form from a liquid with 500kg of mass, to exhaust particles with 500kg of mass.

I hope you're not going to say that a mass of 500kg travelling at hypersonic speed does not have a large amount of momentum? And remember that this 500kg parcel of mass is being created and ejected out of the system every second.

How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?

You seem quite happy that the system comprising a cannon and a cannonball, causes the cannon to recoil due to the momentum of the cannonball travelling in the opposite direction, yet you can't see that the system comprised of a rocket and its fuel, acts in exactly the same way, whereby the momentum of the exhaust (mass 2) causes the rocket to be propelled (recoiled) in the opposite direction?

So the relevant conservation of momentum equation looks like this -   

M(rocket) V(rocket) =  - M(exhaust) V(exhaust)


Just to recap, it's the 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel) being ejected out of the 'rocket system' every second, that is mass 2.
This is EXACTLY the same as the cannonball (mass 2) being ejected out of the 'cannon/cannonball system' and the medicine ball (mass 2) being ejected out of the 'man/medicine ball system'.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 04:20:55 AM by chtwrone »
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #205 on: October 05, 2015, 04:44:07 AM »
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.
Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
.

Because they're both the same thing.

Duh!

& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.

Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?

An adiabatic process is one in which no heat or mass is transferred to the external environment.

Given that a rocket in atmosphere or in a vacuum is ejecting mass and energy in the form of super heated exhaust particles, then a rocket is most definitely not adiabatic.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #206 on: October 05, 2015, 06:50:25 AM »
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.
Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
.

Because they're both the same thing.

Duh!

& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.

Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?
I suppose that you're right.  We shouldn't quibble over 'transfer' vs 'exchange' when a rocket engine in a vacuum doesn't fit the definition of adiabatic either way.  Unless you care to explain how chucking hot exhaust gasses into a vacuum is adiabatic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #207 on: October 05, 2015, 09:37:29 AM »
LOL!!!

I am reminded of what Humpty Dumpty said in 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'; 'When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean - no More, no Less'.

Because you are All Humpty Dumptys; & we are Definitely Through the Looking Glass here...

Weird Adventures In Opposite-World!

I mean, really; who in their right mind would choose to self-identify as a 'Round-Earther'?

Let alone proclaim themselves 'undefeated' as such, or spend years of their lives making 28,000 posts which all merely defend ideas anyone can simply find in wikipedia?

Really?

Who, precisely, are the 'crackpots' here?

But enough of that; none of you seem capable of identifying Mass 2, let alone comprehending its necessity in order for your ridiculous 'man on skateboard' analogy to hold true when applied to a rocket...

Thus, 'sucks to be you' is, yet again, the only conclusion to be reached.

Plus, of course, LMFAO - at YOU!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45150
  • +95/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #208 on: October 05, 2015, 10:07:28 AM »
LOL!!!

I am reminded of what Humpty Dumpty said in 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'; 'When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean - no More, no Less'.
Ah, so when you use a word, it mans what you want it to mean, not necessarily what the rest of the English speaking world agrees that it means.  Thanks for the clarification.

But enough of that; none of you seem capable of identifying Mass 2, let alone comprehending its necessity in order for your ridiculous 'man on skateboard' analogy to hold true when applied to a rocket...
We identified Mass 2 as the rocket's exhaust gasses ages ago.  That is unless you have some other definition of 'mass' that we aren't aware of.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #209 on: October 05, 2015, 11:39:37 AM »
So now I'M the one quibbling over definitions?

LULZ!!!

WELCOME TO OPPOSITE WORLD, STARRING MARKJO & HIS 'ROUND EARTHER' HUMPTY DUMPTYS!
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 11:42:14 AM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!