People on skateboards.

Read it, nothing bad

I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 12, 2016, 01:17:48 AM

Read it, nothing bad

Too bad...

Just deleted it without reading.

#SkepticMikelosesagain

Useful info here:


'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 01:32:26 AM

'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!

How do they work?  Link please.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2016, 03:40:27 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 11, 2016, 02:27:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2016, 12:27:13 PM

The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.

Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.

Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket.

Wow, so no force is acting on the rocket, so they don't even work in the atmosphere now. Lol.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114669/is-newtons-third-law-always-correct

Sometimes you just need to  sit back and  realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 01:01:39 AM

Sometimes you just need to  sit back and  realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.

Interesting observation,  how do you tell the truth from the lies?   

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 04:19:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 01:01:39 AM

Sometimes you just need to  sit back and  realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.

Interesting observation,  how do you tell the truth from the lies?   

Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.

You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.

Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.

Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 04:30:48 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 04:19:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 01:01:39 AM

Sometimes you just need to  sit back and  realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.

Interesting observation,  how do you tell the truth from the lies?   

Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.

You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.

Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.

Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.

I was hoping you would say "look at the evidence".

But you are working on questions of trust and think people are deliberately lying.   That's a socialization issue.

How do you rationalize ignoring the evidence?

What evidence are you talking about.
I'll give you a start.
You're watching the news. the news  states that a space rocket lifted off and a nuke was tested in another country.
A particle has been found that shows how the universe started.
A meteor is heading towards Earth and looks like it might strike us within 75 years.

I could go on and on but the issue it this: Tell me what evidence there is in all of that?

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 04:35:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 04:30:48 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 04:19:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 01:01:39 AM

Sometimes you just need to  sit back and  realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.

Interesting observation,  how do you tell the truth from the lies?   

Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.

You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.

Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.

Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.

I was hoping you would say "look at the evidence".

But you are working on questions of trust and think people are deliberately lying.   That's a socialization issue.

How do you rationalize ignoring the evidence?

What evidence are you talking about.
I'll give you a start.
You're watching the news. the news  states that a space rocket lifted off and a nuke was tested in another country.
A particle has been found that shows how the universe started.
A meteor is heading towards Earth and looks like it might strike us within 75 years.

I could go on and on but the issue it this: Tell me what evidence there is in all of that?

I was thinking more about evidence you can see with your own eyes.   Like proving combustion is a chemical reaction, not related to friction.

  Like different sized rocks falling at the same acceleration.

I don't believe most news reports either,  they nearly always spin a story to suit the agenda.   You always need the bullshit detector running at maximum sensitivity. 
Whenever I have had first hand knowledge of something reported in the press,  it's amazing how they get things wrong,  sometimes just details are wrong,  sometimes the whole story is wrong.

As far as things like shuttle launches,  if you've seen one for yourself,  you'd think different.

It's called source criticism. Are the news reliable? Do they refer to a source, or do they only provide the news? Have they been wrong before? Can you find details of their source, and can you get information directly from the source? A lot of people does this, especially rivaling news providers. If it was exposed that a news provider provided false information they would loose a lot of credit and reputation. Sadly, sometimes multiple big news providers all make roughly the same mistake, which sadly means that their faults are less likely to be exposed and corrected. But if you put some effort into it you could check the credibility of all the big news providers yourself.

Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 12, 2016, 05:11:20 AM

It's called source criticism. Are the news reliable? Do they refer to a source, or do they only provide the news? Have they been wrong before? Can you find details of their source, and can you get information directly from the source? A lot of people does this, especially rivaling news providers. If it was exposed that a news provider provided false information they would loose a lot of credit and reputation. Sadly, sometimes multiple big news providers all make roughly the same mistake, which sadly means that their faults are less likely to be exposed and corrected. But if you put some effort into it you could check the credibility of all the big news providers yourself.

The newspapers are just the parrots for the powers that be. They just print what they're told. Just like news readers reading a script. Most news READERS are most probably reading what they believe is the truth.
The paid dis-informants posing as news readers are the one's that require observation.
Whenever there's an agenda you can bet that only certain so called news reporters are employed to carry it off.
Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer to name two. All just less than convincing actors/actresses.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 05:11:04 AM

As far as things like shuttle launches,  if you've seen one for yourself,  you'd think different.

Have you see one live, not on TV but actually live and close up?
Tell me all about it as I'd like to grill you on this.

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:



Ooh - vacuum-proof!

I already did, in your rusty fuel tank thread.

Getting back to combustion. 

Light a candle,   now take a glass, put vinegar and baking soda in the glass,  it will fizz up producing carbon dioxide,  some will stay in the glass because it's heavier than air.
 Now carefully take the glass over to the burning candle,  and pour the carbon dioxide gas onto the flame.   The candle will immediately go out,  because you have removed the oxygen.

Ok,  same candle,   new glass,   light the candle and now put the glass upside down over the flame,  the flame will consume the oxygen and the flame goes out.

Where is friction involved in any of this?
Ha,   would you believe someone made a YT video

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

We already have an understanding of chemistry and it's not what you claim.

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 05:58:12 AM

We already have an understanding of chemistry and it's not what you claim.

Putting pills into bottles or mixing concentrated fruits to water is not understanding a lot.

Which powers are you talking about? The government? The more lies a news provider exposes, the more prestige they get, so wouldn't it be more worthwhile to do thorough investigations and expose lies than just believe everything? And what "paid dis-informants posing as news readers" are you talking about? Do they have power? How can a news READER spread more disinformation and need more observation than a news PROVIDER? And what about those two people? Your post lacks consistency and information.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 05:45:48 AM

Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.

It's all still friction by expansion and compression of matter/molecules.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 05:53:17 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 05:45:48 AM

Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.

It's all still friction by expansion and compression of matter/molecules.

No it's not, cesium only has one electron in its outer shell, it's th electron moving to a lower energy state, by moving to a oxygen atom, that releases energy.

So all of chemistry is now a conspiracy.