Poll

Does Papa Legba understand newtons third law?

No
67 (87%)
Yes
10 (13%)

Total Members Voted: 73

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 55   Go Down

Newtons third law

  • 1644 Replies
  • 213231 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #450 on: June 09, 2016, 04:37:21 AM »
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 09, 2016, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 04:32:13 AM
You shills have to get the last word in.

It's official protocol.

Enjoy having your time wasted.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
Are you getting angry because you're losing?

How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?

If you can't answer it's ok.

Quote from: ryanXMG on June 09, 2016, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:48:01 AM
You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?

You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...

YOU HAVE LOST.

IT IS OVER.

Read this then STFU & GTFO:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.

No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 09, 2016, 03:57:48 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
Are you getting angry because you're losing?

How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?

If you can't answer it's ok.

Quote from: ryanXMG on June 09, 2016, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:48:01 AM
You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?

You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...

YOU HAVE LOST.

IT IS OVER.

Read this then STFU & GTFO:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.

No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.

Uh... Wait, uh... I've lost the counting... Um... How many times have you posted this? It's not 100 yet, is it?

Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 03:57:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
If you can't answer it's ok.

Ooh, two at once!

Anyway, how much time do you think that wasted?
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #451 on: June 09, 2016, 05:10:35 AM »
You are throwing the biggest temper tantrum it's hilarious.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #452 on: June 09, 2016, 05:47:20 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 12:16:27 AM
The fact that you just made two unnecessary posts in order to turn the page on your humiliation proves you are not here for honest 'debate'.

And I have already shown how the notion of a gas-powered rocket working in a vacuum violates thermodynamics with the formulae W=p*v & F=PA; again, you are simply pretending I have not.

I am bored with your obvious shilling & psychotic personality, so please read this then stop wasting my time:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times >>>
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times[1] >>>
Since you haven't said who you're talking to (probably babbling to yourself really), I will grace you with an answer!

I note that you say "The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards)."
So now birds in your country only fly upwards (I wonder what happens when they reach the Kármán line (I don't think birds can fly in a vacuum!), in Australia they fly mainly forwards actually, how ever do the smart birds here manage to do that when yours can only fly upwards?[2]

You still keep forgetting one!
Consider the motion of a rocket on the way to the moon. A rocket is equipped with a combustion chamber and nozzle that ejects a huge mass of gas at very high velocity in the opposite direction to the rockets motion. The force required to accelerate this huge mass of gas drives the rocket forwards. For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for rocket to accelerate in space.
Yes, I know I didn't word this very well (in a hurry and all that!), so master wordsmith can undoubtedly express the same thought much better.

Thanks in advance for the help!

[1] If you wonder about the recurring decimal, I only read about 1/3 of each post!

[2] Yes, I know it's quite stupid. I know I haven't reached your pinnacle of idiocy yet, but really I am trying!
Logged
*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #453 on: June 09, 2016, 06:34:33 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 05:50:32 AM
Like moths to a flame...

You just HAVE to get the last word in don't you?

Under orders to do so in fact...

Off you go then!

Quote from: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 05:47:20 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 12:16:27 AM
The fact that you just made two unnecessary posts in order to turn the page on your humiliation proves you are not here for honest 'debate'.

And I have already shown how the notion of a gas-powered rocket working in a vacuum violates thermodynamics with the formulae W=p*v & F=PA; again, you are simply pretending I have not.

I am bored with your obvious shilling & psychotic personality, so please read this then stop wasting my time:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times >>>
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times[1] >>>
Since you haven't said who you're talking to (probably babbling to yourself really), I will grace you with an answer!

I note that you say "The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards)."
So now birds in your country only fly upwards (I wonder what happens when they reach the Kármán line (I don't think birds can fly in a vacuum!), in Australia they fly mainly forwards actually, how ever do the smart birds here manage to do that when yours can only fly upwards?[2]

You still keep forgetting one!
Consider the motion of a rocket on the way to the moon. A rocket is equipped with a combustion chamber and nozzle that ejects a huge mass of gas at very high velocity in the opposite direction to the rockets motion. The force required to accelerate this huge mass of gas drives the rocket forwards. For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for rocket to accelerate in space.
Yes, I know I didn't word this very well (in a hurry and all that!), so master wordsmith can undoubtedly express the same thought much better.

Thanks in advance for the help!

[1] If you wonder about the recurring decimal, I only read about 1/3 of each post!

[2] Yes, I know it's quite stupid. I know I haven't reached your pinnacle of idiocy yet, but really I am trying!
Quote from: ryanXMG on June 09, 2016, 05:23:17 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 04:32:13 AM
You shills have to get the last word in.

It's official protocol.

Enjoy having your time wasted.


Hilarious how much effort trolls put into trying to insult us. :)
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 05:10:35 AM
You are throwing the biggest temper tantrum it's hilarious.
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 04:37:21 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 09, 2016, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 04:32:13 AM
You shills have to get the last word in.

It's official protocol.

Enjoy having your time wasted.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
Are you getting angry because you're losing?

How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?

If you can't answer it's ok.

Quote from: ryanXMG on June 09, 2016, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:48:01 AM
You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?

You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...

YOU HAVE LOST.

IT IS OVER.

Read this then STFU & GTFO:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.

No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 09, 2016, 03:57:48 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
Are you getting angry because you're losing?

How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?

If you can't answer it's ok.

Quote from: ryanXMG on June 09, 2016, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:48:01 AM
You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?

You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...

YOU HAVE LOST.

IT IS OVER.

Read this then STFU & GTFO:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.

No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.

Uh... Wait, uh... I've lost the counting... Um... How many times have you posted this? It's not 100 yet, is it?

Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 03:57:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
If you can't answer it's ok.

Ooh, two at once!

Anyway, how much time do you think that wasted?

Enjoy having your time wasted.

By yourself.

You are pitiful.
Logged
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)
*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #454 on: June 09, 2016, 06:44:09 AM »
The last word? Yeah, because I paid SO much attention to you and your ramblings for the last month!
Logged
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #455 on: June 09, 2016, 06:57:18 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 10:53:59 PM
I said a gas can neither do work nor produce force in a vacuum, & that a finite amount of gas introduced into an infinite vacuum will effectively cease to be a gas.
Then it's a good thing that we are only interested in the gas doing work within the finite confines of a rocket engine.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 10:53:59 PM
I also provided the relevant gas laws to prove what I said is true.
Those gas laws only prove that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Logged
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.
*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #456 on: June 09, 2016, 10:12:51 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 09:06:18 AM
The only things you are 'interested' in are turning threads to shit, spying on the members here & getting the last word in, so spare me your bullshit.

You are the most obvious shill on the entire internet, markjo; I spotted you within TWO posts, that's how shit at your shit job you are.

Anyhoo; I just deleted all my earlier posts so you all look like mental cases arguing with yourselves...

And I also got the last word in again, thus forcing you to keep showing us what a massive bunch of shills you are.

Off you go, psycho; obey your shill-protocol & GET THE LAST WORD IN...

By saying 'NO U!!!' with a rolly-eye emoji, no doubt.

"All"? You deleted like 2 and then you got bored. And then you admitted doing so, which ruins the troll. Lol. You're not even good at trolling, try something else. Maybe your next life will be more successful.
Logged
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)
*

JoshPerplexed

  • 79
  • Strange creatures, these are...
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #457 on: June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM »
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #458 on: June 09, 2016, 02:21:32 PM »
Thank you for making your very 1st sock-shill post vague irrelevant bullshit attacking me.

You will now need to get the last word in, as is your shill-duty...

Off you go, shilly lad!
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #459 on: June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM »
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see. 
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #460 on: June 09, 2016, 04:09:40 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.

Quote from: Roger Darlington
MACH 7

The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.

In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).

The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.

In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.

In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10

[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
       Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
       Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.
Logged
*

JoshPerplexed

  • 79
  • Strange creatures, these are...
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #461 on: June 09, 2016, 04:13:14 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
Thank you for making your very 1st sock-shill post vague irrelevant bullshit attacking me.

You will now need to get the last word in, as is your shill-duty...

Off you go, shilly lad!

That's cute, Pepe is trying to patronize the new guy... Should I be honored? Seriously, though? "attacking" you? I didn't figure you'd be so sensitive...

Was it too complicated for you? Is that why you consider it irrelevant?
Logged
*

JoshPerplexed

  • 79
  • Strange creatures, these are...
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #462 on: June 09, 2016, 04:18:41 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Dishonesty is not how I operate. Maybe try fact checking me before assuming I'm lying. Or, you know, ask for a citation.

Thanks for the help, Rab! That's the aircraft I was referencing!
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #463 on: June 09, 2016, 06:20:48 PM »
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Dishonesty is not how I operate. Maybe try fact checking me before assuming I'm lying. Or, you know, ask for a citation.

Thanks for the help, Rab! That's the aircraft I was referencing!

If you don't want to sound like a liar, then you could post credible facts instead of expecting people to believe your lies.  I thought everyone knew this? 
Logged
*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17757
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #464 on: June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM »
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #465 on: June 09, 2016, 06:39:39 PM »
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?

You seem to be confused.  A citation is in fact verifiable.  Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head? 
Logged
*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17757
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #466 on: June 09, 2016, 06:46:26 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?

You seem to be confused.  A citation is in fact verifiable.  Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head?

The post was credible and easily verifiable. In fact, another poster was able to understand exactly what kind of flying apparatus JoshPerplexed was talking about with exactly the same amount of information you had available to you. Technology isn't perfect. I wasn't blaming you for your google wires misfiring. But if they are firing correctly, you can use them to find your own sources independently, without depending on a round-earther to tell you what to believe. That seems like a win-win, no?
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #467 on: June 09, 2016, 06:48:39 PM »
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?

You seem to be confused.  A citation is in fact verifiable.  Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head?

The post was credible and easily verifiable. In fact, another poster was able to understand exactly what kind of flying apparatus JoshPerplexed was talking about with exactly the same amount of information you had available to you. Technology isn't perfect. I wasn't blaming you for your google wires misfiring. But if they are firing correctly, you can use them to find your own sources independently, without depending on a round-earther to tell you what to believe. That seems like a win-win, no?

Why are you getting so defensive when I simply ask you for a citation?  Sounds very suspicious to me. 
Logged
*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17757
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #468 on: June 09, 2016, 07:07:50 PM »
Why would I cite a source for an argument I didn't make?  ??? That would be very presumptive of me. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

From what I read so far, it looks like this post might help you out:

Quote from: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.

Quote from: Roger Darlington
MACH 7

The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.

In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).

The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.

In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.

In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10

[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
       Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
       Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.

But maybe not. After all, I didn't bring up the air speed thing and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. But my google works and it seems like other independent sources support the fact that some super duper extra fast planes go up to about 100,000 ft as a part of their means for achieving their super duper extra fast speed. What does your google tell you?
Logged
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #469 on: June 09, 2016, 07:22:30 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?

You seem to be confused.  A citation is in fact verifiable.  Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head? 

Quote from: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.

Quote from: Roger Darlington
MACH 7

The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.

In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).

The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.

In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.

In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10

[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
       Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
       Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.

jroa stop spamming up my thread, you're as bad as Papa Smurf.

Back to the lower fora to peddle your wares please.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #470 on: June 09, 2016, 07:26:55 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 06:20:48 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Dishonesty is not how I operate. Maybe try fact checking me before assuming I'm lying. Or, you know, ask for a citation.

Thanks for the help, Rab! That's the aircraft I was referencing!

If you don't want to sound like a liar, then you could post credible facts instead of expecting people to believe your lies.  I thought everyone knew this?

You demand that "you could post credible facts". The facts he quoted seemed quite credible to me!

The bit that might have bamboozled you is the logic that if rockets and jet planes actually needed "air to push on" then they should perform better at a lower altitude where they have denser "air to push on". The fact is that they don't.

All else being equal the thrust of a jet or rocket actually (I can see Papa preparing his usual copy and post rubbish already!) increases as the air pressure falls. Of course with the jet being air-breathing it runs "out of puff" at too high an altitude, but the rocket has no such problem. On the right is the Goddard Rocket Equation showing this:		   

Goddard Rocket Thrust Equation

Sorry for the length of this, bit it is aimed at our favourite AI code named PL (Papa Lima I guess it stands for). Just to remind him of how real rockets work!
So, technically I am guilty of a "low content post"!
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #471 on: June 09, 2016, 07:49:22 PM »
Quote from: boydster on June 09, 2016, 07:07:50 PM
Why would I cite a source for an argument I didn't make?  ??? That would be very presumptive of me. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

From what I read so far, it looks like this post might help you out:

Quote from: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?

The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!

When did this happen?  Oh, are you lying?  I see.

Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.

Quote from: Roger Darlington
MACH 7

The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.

In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).

The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.

In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.

In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10

[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
       Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
       Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.

But maybe not. After all, I didn't bring up the air speed thing and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. But my google works and it seems like other independent sources support the fact that some super duper extra fast planes go up to about 100,000 ft as a part of their means for achieving their super duper extra fast speed. What does your google tell you?

You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon.  ::)
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #472 on: June 09, 2016, 07:54:23 PM »
Disinformation. When you have nothing else.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #473 on: June 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM »
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew.  Well, maybe no quite that wise. 
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #474 on: June 09, 2016, 08:03:42 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 07:49:22 PM
You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon.  ::)
And you sound like that idiot "reporter" who lured the astronaut to an interview under false pretenses and then proceeded to call him a liar, a coward and thief after demanding that he swear on a bible that he went to the moon.  Be careful that some old timer doesn't deck you too, jroa.
Logged
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.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #475 on: June 09, 2016, 08:05:19 PM »
Quote from: markjo on June 09, 2016, 08:03:42 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 07:49:22 PM
You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon.  ::)
And you sound like that idiot "reporter" who lured the astronaut to an interview under false pretenses and then proceeded to call him a liar, a coward and thief after demanding that he swear on a bible that he went to the moon.  Be careful that some old timer doesn't deck you too, jroa.

Yeah, I am pretty sure the reporter said, "punch me in the face, come on coward, you won't do it, you liar."  ::)
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #476 on: June 09, 2016, 08:06:42 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew.  Well, maybe no quite that wise.
Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17757
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #477 on: June 09, 2016, 08:12:15 PM »
I sound like an astronaut?  8)

I'm sorry if your google is broken, jroa. I swear I didn't do it. But that's why I quoted that one post that had all sorts of important stuff in it, though. There was even a link! And I prefaced everything with the fact that it was coming from a source that likely thinks the Earth is round, which you may or may not agree with. But if you don't like where the information is coming from, then it's probably best for you to independently find your way around to source the info yourself instead of asking me to source it for you. I mean, it wasn't even my argument that you wanted me to give citations for, but here I am trying to help you out. Sheesh. A thank you would have been nice.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #478 on: June 09, 2016, 08:13:01 PM »
Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew.  Well, maybe no quite that wise.
Not my fault you have to make up arguments.

I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom.  I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot.  However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so. 
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #479 on: June 09, 2016, 08:14:09 PM »
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 08:13:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Quote from: jroa on June 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew.  Well, maybe no quite that wise.
Not my fault you have to make up arguments.

I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom.  I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot.  However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 55   Go Up
« previous next »