People on skateboards.

  • 2251 Replies
  • 411323 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #150 on: October 03, 2015, 12:00:28 AM »
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...

First of all, the propellant isn't just expanding, it's burning.  You know, an energetic chemical reaction that produces a lot of energy.  That alone proves that free expansion doesn't apply.

LOL WUT?

Secondly, if the man on a skateboard's arm can be considered a separate object, then it stands to reason that the burning propellant of a rocket can be considered a separate object from the exhaust gasses that the reaction produces.  Therefore, we have THREE objects, not two.

O RLY? MORE LULZ!!!

Object B is missing in the rocket example.
No, it isn't.  It's the exhaust gasses that are the product of combustion (object B).

JUST LYING NOW...

And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
Which is exactly what the exhaust gasses are, a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket engine.

YEP; JUST MAKING SHIT UP...

So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
Yes.  The exhaust gasses.

HERE WE GO, ' A ROCKET PUSHES ON ITSELF'... LULZ!!!

& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
No, it isn't.

THEN POSIT ANOTHER; OH WAIT YOU CAN'T COS THERE ISN'T ONE!


To sum up: yet another championship-winning shitpost from Mr. Blah&fail...

If you create an explosion in a cannon, the cannon will move without the cannon ball.

So the cannonball is unnecessary in your analogy?

Then why include it in the first place?

Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is.

Which is why you completely avoided answering it.

Anyhow; looks like we're back to the insane notion that a rocket somehow Reacts against its own Action...

It 'pushes on itself'...

The only logical response to which, as well as to all the above deliberately deceptive Satanic nonsense is: LMFAO!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #151 on: October 03, 2015, 01:49:18 AM »

I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking.  Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off.  If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred.  I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.
No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Why not?
What are you trying to actually say?

This chemical reaction:

Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat

Can it occur in space?
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #152 on: October 03, 2015, 01:55:36 AM »
Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.

But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.

A BIG one, as it happens...

Now; carry on Lying.

Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.
closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.

You don't even know what you're saying by using adiabatic. You found it on google and decided to appears to solve something. What are you talking about?
Explain it instead of saying it. Don't just use the google explanation. Tell me about a closed system while you're at it, just so we know where we stand.
I HAVE explained it before. An adiabatic system is one that does not exchange heat or matter with its surroundings.  A rocket exchanges both.

Free expansion is ALWAYS described in a closed system, a small container of gas expanding into a larger container with a vacuum.
It's all a closed system no matter what you do or where you are, so what's your point?

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #153 on: October 03, 2015, 05:31:26 AM »

I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking.  Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off.  If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred.  I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.
No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Why not?
What are you trying to actually say?

This chemical reaction:

Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat

Can it occur in space?
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.

Why not?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #154 on: October 03, 2015, 05:37:26 AM »

I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking.  Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off.  If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred.  I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.
No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Why not?
What are you trying to actually say?

This chemical reaction:

Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat

Can it occur in space?
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.

Why not?
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45157
  • +97/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #155 on: October 03, 2015, 10:49:39 AM »
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...

First of all, the propellant isn't just expanding, it's burning.  You know, an energetic chemical reaction that produces a lot of energy.  That alone proves that free expansion doesn't apply.

LOL WUT?
I'm sorry, but what part didn't you understand?

Secondly, if the man on a skateboard's arm can be considered a separate object, then it stands to reason that the burning propellant of a rocket can be considered a separate object from the exhaust gasses that the reaction produces.  Therefore, we have THREE objects, not two.

O RLY? MORE LULZ!!!
Yes, really.  Unless you can tell me just where and why I'm wrong.

Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...

Object B is missing in the rocket example.
No, it isn't.  It's the exhaust gasses that are the product of combustion (object B).

JUST LYING NOW...
No, I'm not.  You just refuse to recognize the truth.

Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...

And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
Which is exactly what the exhaust gasses are, a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket engine.

YEP; JUST MAKING SHIT UP...
What did I make up?

Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...

So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
Yes.  The exhaust gasses.

HERE WE GO, ' A ROCKET PUSHES ON ITSELF'... LULZ!!!
No, the exhaust gasses push on the rocket and the rocket pushes back against the exhaust gasses.  You know, action/reaction.

& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
No, it isn't.

THEN POSIT ANOTHER; OH WAIT YOU CAN'T COS THERE ISN'T ONE!
I already told you, the other mass is the exhaust gas.

To sum up: yet another championship-winning shitpost from Mr. Blah&fail...
Which you have done nothing at all to refute.
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.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #156 on: October 03, 2015, 11:08:50 AM »

I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking.  Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off.  If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred.  I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.
No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Why not?
What are you trying to actually say?

This chemical reaction:

Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat

Can it occur in space?
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.

Why not?
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.

Fire is the result of combustion reactions which are the oxidisation of molecules or atoms releasing large amounts of energy.

Combustion requires a fuel, a source of oxygen and the activation energy required to start the reaction. Usually once started the energy released by one reaction is more than enough to trigger subsequent reactions creating a chain reaction.

In the case of rockets in a vacuum, all the elements are still present within the combustion chamber in the form of keresene(fuel), liquid oxygen, and energy from the ongoing reaction.

Vacuum does not present a problem.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45157
  • +97/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #157 on: October 03, 2015, 11:13:34 AM »
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.
I don't know if I would call a chamber filled with vaporized hydrogen and oxygen a vacuum.  Of course let's not forget the various hypergolic rocket engines that don't require a separate ignition source.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 11:18:16 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.

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #158 on: October 03, 2015, 12:33:36 PM »
Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.

But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.

A BIG one, as it happens...

Now; carry on Lying.

Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.
closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.

You don't even know what you're saying by using adiabatic. You found it on google and decided to appears to solve something. What are you talking about?
Explain it instead of saying it. Don't just use the google explanation. Tell me about a closed system while you're at it, just so we know where we stand.
I HAVE explained it before. An adiabatic system is one that does not exchange heat or matter with its surroundings.  A rocket exchanges both.

Free expansion is ALWAYS described in a closed system, a small container of gas expanding into a larger container with a vacuum.
It's all a closed system no matter what you do or where you are, so what's your point?
So you think a rocket in the vacuum of space is the same as free expansion being described expanding into a larger closed container?  Really?
And of course you ignore that a rocket is NOT adiabatic.  It DOES exchange heat and matter with its surroundings. 

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #159 on: October 03, 2015, 01:10:42 PM »
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.

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

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #160 on: October 03, 2015, 01:13:24 PM »
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.



Sorry, Yendor; I didn't see this.

Good find & case closed you'd think...

If you were dealing with intellectually honest people, that is.

Unlike sock-arul, who is desperately trying to twist the meaning of how the article is worded as I write...

You have to remember - we are dealing with addicts here; both to 'space travel' & to... well - let's just say 'other things'.

& an addict will do ANYTHING to get their next fix.

Oh, speaking of which, after its last tl;dr spam-fest:

I hope that makes sense. 

You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.

It is closed, they can't wiggle out of this. NASA has done a great job of removing this kind of evidence from prying eyes. But if you search hard enough you can usually find tidbits of proof they left behind. Those scientist were real scientist back then, they knew how shit worked. If they knew the BS that is taught in school today they would be turning over in their graves. It's a damn shame we let them get away with it.

That is a fantastic find, Yendor. I also searched for early explanations of how jet engines worked, but sadly failed. As you rightly say, the historical record has been (nearly) wiped clean.

For all you space cultists who believe the crap nasa et el churn out, consider this:

1. You are travelling in a car at 100mph as a passenger.
2. You stick your face out of the window.
3. What happens?
  3a. Nothing.
  3b. My face feels a force, which increases with the speed of the car.
4. You are a particle of gas leaving the exhaust of a rocket at ~6000mph.
5. What happens?
  5a. Nothing.
  5b. The force I feel is massive beyond all belief and creates a wall of force between the atmosphere and the gas trying to exit the nozzle, thereby propelling the rocket in the opposite direction.

I'll start:

3b, 5b.

Just try, space cultists. We will try to aid the recovery of your brain damage if you'll let us.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #161 on: October 03, 2015, 01:16:31 PM »
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.
No.  Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter.  The exchange is one way.  So STILL not adiabatic.
And I have twisted nothing. 

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #162 on: October 03, 2015, 01:28:54 PM »
No.  Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter. The exchange is one way.  So STILL not adiabatic.
And I have twisted nothing. 

You contradict yourself.

You describe an adiabatic process (badly, btw) & then say it is NOT an adiabatic process...

You twist EVERYTHING.

I can only assume this is deliberate.

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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45157
  • +97/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #163 on: October 03, 2015, 01:43:58 PM »
For all you space cultists who believe the crap nasa et el churn out, consider this:

1. You are travelling in a car at 100mph as a passenger.
2. You stick your face out of the window.
3. What happens?
  3a. Nothing.
  3b. My face feels a force, which increases with the speed of the car.
4. You are a particle of gas leaving the exhaust of a rocket at ~6000mph.
5. What happens?
  5a. Nothing.
  5b. The force I feel is massive beyond all belief and creates a wall of force between the atmosphere and the gas trying to exit the nozzle, thereby propelling the rocket in the opposite direction.

I'll start:

3b, 5b.

Just try, space cultists. We will try to aid the recovery of your brain damage if you'll let us.
No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere.  We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards.  That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself.  Same goes for jet engines.
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 #164 on: October 03, 2015, 01:56:18 PM »
]No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere.  We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards.  That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself.  Same goes for jet engines.

So now jet engines 'push on themselves' (lol!) too?!?

You are lost in delusion...

Lost.

The Lies deepen every single time you post, markjo; how far are you prepared to debase yourself?

Where's 'greatest ever' forum hero 'Engy' when you need him?

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

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #165 on: October 03, 2015, 02:01:30 PM »
No.  Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter. The exchange is one way.  So STILL not adiabatic.
And I have twisted nothing. 

You contradict yourself.
NOT a contradiction.  It is still an exchange.  That you can't see that is hilarious.

You describe an adiabatic process (badly, btw)
translation: I can't understand it so I assume others can't either.

& then say it is NOT an adiabatic process...
I didn't say that.  Why do you lie?

You twist EVERYTHING.
I have twisted nothing. 

I can only assume this is deliberate.
Paranoid much?

I pity you.
I laugh at you.  Thanks for the humor!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #166 on: October 03, 2015, 02:09:08 PM »
You said the rocket is LOSING matter, whilst adiabatic processes talk of EXCHANGING matter.

So, of course a rocket in a vacuum will LOSE matter; it will just lose it for FREE, doing NO WORK, because there is NOTHING in a vacuum for it to be EXCHANGED for.

This is not hard to understand, yet you are trying to make it so.

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

?

WeissEdel

  • 241
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #167 on: October 03, 2015, 02:16:51 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #168 on: October 03, 2015, 02:17:30 PM »
You said the rocket is LOSING matter, whilst adiabatic processes talk of EXCHANGING matter.

So, of course a rocket in a vacuum will LOSE matter; it will just lose it for FREE, doing NO WORK, because there is NOTHING in a vacuum for it to be EXCHANGED for.

This is not hard to understand, yet you are trying to make it so.

Why?
That you think a rocket, or any object, can lose mass and not have its momentum affected is hilarious.

Hilarious also that you are hung up on ONE definition of adiabatic (a term you didn't know before).  Here's another definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t
Occurring without gain or loss of heat.

You just can't accept the fact that free expansion doesn't apply because it isn't adiabatic, can you? 
This is not hard to understand, yet you are trying to make it so.

No matter how much you try to twist it, a rocket is NOT adiabatic.

Thanks for the humor!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #169 on: October 03, 2015, 02:31:23 PM »
Here's another definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t
Occurring without gain or loss of heat.

Again; a vacuum is NOTHING; how can you exchange heat when there is NOTHING to exchange it with?

Thus, a rocket in a vacuum clearly IS adiabatic; it can EXCHANGE (not LOSE) neither HEAT nor MATTER with its surroundings.

Because it is surrounded by NOTHING.

This is not hard to understand.

You cannot get something from nothing; a child knows this.

Yet you do not...


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

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #170 on: October 03, 2015, 02:46:01 PM »
Here's another definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t
Occurring without gain or loss of heat.

Again; a vacuum is NOTHING; how can you exchange heat when there is NOTHING to exchange it with?

Thus, a rocket in a vacuum clearly IS adiabatic; it can EXCHANGE (not LOSE) neither HEAT nor MATTER with its surroundings.

Because it is surrounded by NOTHING.

This is not hard to understand.

You cannot get something from nothing; a child knows this.

Yet you do not...
No, it isn't hard to understand.  YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic.  YOU are denying that the rocket loses heat and mass.  YOU are denying that free expansion only applies to closed systems.  And now apparently YOU can't understand what the word OR means.
The definition of occurring without loss or gain of heat is more common than the other definition by the way.  AND an exchange CAN be one-way whether you agree or not.

Still fun to watch you squirm and twist words though.  Thanks for the humor!

By the way, you never answered what is supposed to change the direction of the gas molecules in a closed container when opened to a vacuum.  Many of them would be moving in a different direction from the opening.  What part of your vacuum (that you agree is nothing) does the work to change their direction if they are not hitting the other sides of the container?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 02:52:56 PM by frenat »

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #171 on: October 03, 2015, 02:59:28 PM »
For all you space cultists who believe the crap nasa et el churn out, consider this:

1. You are travelling in a car at 100mph as a passenger.
2. You stick your face out of the window.
3. What happens?
  3a. Nothing.
  3b. My face feels a force, which increases with the speed of the car.
4. You are a particle of gas leaving the exhaust of a rocket at ~6000mph.
5. What happens?
  5a. Nothing.
  5b. The force I feel is massive beyond all belief and creates a wall of force between the atmosphere and the gas trying to exit the nozzle, thereby propelling the rocket in the opposite direction.

I'll start:

3b, 5b.

Just try, space cultists. We will try to aid the recovery of your brain damage if you'll let us.
No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere.  We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards.  That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself.  Same goes for jet engines.

So, a demonstrable force (atmosphere pushing on a face whilst in a fast moving car) is irrelevant, but this unverifiable/invisible/unexperienced anywhere else "force" inside the engine (somehow) is?

Enough said.



"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #172 on: October 03, 2015, 03:19:11 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?

?

WeissEdel

  • 241
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #173 on: October 03, 2015, 03:28:10 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?

Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45157
  • +97/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #174 on: October 03, 2015, 03:41:58 PM »
]No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere.  We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards.  That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself.  Same goes for jet engines.

So now jet engines 'push on themselves' (lol!) too?!?
How many times do I have to tell you that rockets and jets don't push against themselves?  They produce exhaust gasses that push against the engine.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Where's 'greatest ever' forum hero 'Engy' when you need him?
My guess is that he thinks that you're not worth the effort.  I'm beginning to agree.

So, a demonstrable force (atmosphere pushing on a face whilst in a fast moving car) is irrelevant, but this unverifiable/invisible/unexperienced anywhere else "force" inside the engine (somehow) is?
Expanding gasses in a combustion chamber are not experienced anywhere else?  ???
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #175 on: October 03, 2015, 03:50:44 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?

Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.
Your science handlers play with a stacked deck.
You people need to stop parroting the lies and start using your own naive brains instead of filling them full of garbage.

?

WeissEdel

  • 241
  • +0/-0
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #176 on: October 03, 2015, 03:59:04 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?

Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.
Your science handlers play with a stacked deck.
You people need to stop parroting the lies and start using your own naive brains instead of filling them full of garbage.

Make a claim. Then, make a justification. Most of the time, someone else can make up a contradiction.
I am new here, but I accept that the world is flat, and I have lurked long enough to admire you, Sceptimatic. Your open mindedness, and your intelligence, make you one of the best posters on this forum.
It is as you say, however. Theorizing is pointless, as you say, when faced with those who closed-mindedly accept only what they think to be true. This is why I suggested we stop. To them, we are that kind of person: to us, they are clearly that ignorant. Cold, hard observed fact is different. Gonna be hard to convince anyone the way it's going now, we'll just be repeating ourselves til kingdom come.


*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #177 on: October 03, 2015, 04:18:35 PM »
I can't believe you idiots have been arguing the same point with the same idiots for 9 pages now.
Updated.

Besides, we all know that sustained space flight is not possible on the FE.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 04:31:38 PM by TheEngineer »


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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #178 on: October 03, 2015, 04:44:58 PM »
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?

Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.
Your science handlers play with a stacked deck.
You people need to stop parroting the lies and start using your own naive brains instead of filling them full of garbage.

Make a claim. Then, make a justification. Most of the time, someone else can make up a contradiction.
I am new here, but I accept that the world is flat, and I have lurked long enough to admire you, Sceptimatic. Your open mindedness, and your intelligence, make you one of the best posters on this forum.
It is as you say, however. Theorizing is pointless, as you say, when faced with those who closed-mindedly accept only what they think to be true. This is why I suggested we stop. To them, we are that kind of person: to us, they are clearly that ignorant. Cold, hard observed fact is different. Gonna be hard to convince anyone the way it's going now, we'll just be repeating ourselves til kingdom come.
Yeah you make valid points on the whole. I mean, you're right in that nothing we say will prove or convince the people who have no desire to see anything different from their indoctrinated path of life...BUT, it's more about those who feel the need to at least get to view a potential truth of a lie, regardless of being able to do anything about it.


To put it plainly, it's more like sitting in a room with a known person who has an answer for everything and has top be louder than anyone in making their points.
Of course, we can sit there and simply nod our heads to their answers to life, knowing that it's potentially bullshit. The problem with this is, once people start seeing the nodding heads, they copy it rather than question what they heard.
This provides the ammunition and the confidence for the gob shite to carry on spewing their crap, knowing that peer pressure ensures they get their place on their soap box all the time.

It's just nice to know that a sly nudge to the person near you that clearly looks uncomfortable with the soap box prick's answers, can gain an ally into at least (at first) a whisper in the potential right direction rather than simply follow a set direction  that is a straight path and a mundane walk that shows nothing different with each step, nor any deviations to that path.

We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model but they cannot physically prove the opposite, except to use sleight of hand and mouth with gimmicks. Never once will someone grab your hand and take you to physically see what they tell you is reality...unless they take you and you don't come back.

It's a bit like looking out for your old neighbour. You can ask her carer how the neighbour is and can be told he/she is fine and comfy. You get shown photo's and video of the neighbour appearing fine.
One day you ask to see the neighbour physically for peace of mind, to be told that you can't because the nurse is there or he/she is in hospital for a check up...you know that sort of thing.

That's the type of crap that we deal with. Everything is shrouded in security or you're kept at ridiculous arms length that your eyes are viewing nothing that you can discern as what you're told you're viewing.
And so on.

I'd rather go to my grave knowing that I didn't swallow the bullshit in large spoonfull's and that a lot of what I swallowed as a youngster was digested and crapped out, never to be eaten again.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45157
  • +97/-136
Re: People on skateboards.
« Reply #179 on: October 03, 2015, 05:10:38 PM »
Besides, we all know that sustained space flight is not possible on the FE.
Who said anything about sustained space flight?  ???
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.