Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:55:34 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 23, 2017, 11:47:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:34:03 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2017, 04:12:07 AM

I do not believe that you would do an experiment like this without some video evidence, so just post the video.

It's that simple. If you didn't record it, I suggest that you repeat it and record it.

Thought experiments are fine, but are meaningless till performed in real life.

The supposed scientist that is Rabinoz does not have any equipment to do any tests for himself and worries about what I do or don't do.

Try the stuff yourself if you are a honest person and want to find out truth from fiction.
Physically try out the stuff that your text books say doesn't happen.

I'm happy to admit that I do not have the so-called equipment to do this so-called test.

You claim to have it, so by all means do demonstrate to us what happens.

Unless you lied. Which is dishonest.

How come nobody has a bell jar or something similar?
You're all genius scientists aren't you?

You lot apparently know everything about everything and yet know nothing when it comes down to the physical aspects.

I'm giving you experiments on a plate. I'm trying to help you people. I'm trying to show you the truth by asking you to do the tests as I explain them.
It's up to you lot to do something for yourselves. You do not need to let me know about it if you don't want to. Just do the tests for yourselves and stop asking me for proof.

I know what I know. Try and know what you know instead of a reliance of equations that equate fantasy models.

Scepti. You claim that some experiments will work in some weird ways, you are 100% certain that they do so, yet you have not performed a single of those experiments. Now answer me:

Who lives in a fairy world?

Fairies?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:50:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 23, 2017, 06:37:48 AM

I give up.  If you don't understand the difference between mass and weight, then I don't suppose that you'll be able to understand that gravity/denpressure/ua/whatever doesn't stop acting on you just because you aren't moving.

I've told you many times about mass and weight. I've told you my thoughts on it all, so don't be coming that just because it doesn't fit your unicorn stories told to you by half millenia ago story tellers.

Now all you have to do is be honest. Just say that you have no clue why in the hell a person is said to be accelerating at 1g. Just admit you do not know.

I didn't say that the person was accelerating at 1g.  I said that the person is under 1g of acceleration.  It really is a subtle difference in wording, but the difference is significant.

Really?
Ok then tell me about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:55:34 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 23, 2017, 11:47:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:34:03 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2017, 04:12:07 AM

I do not believe that you would do an experiment like this without some video evidence, so just post the video.

It's that simple. If you didn't record it, I suggest that you repeat it and record it.

Thought experiments are fine, but are meaningless till performed in real life.

The supposed scientist that is Rabinoz does not have any equipment to do any tests for himself and worries about what I do or don't do.

Try the stuff yourself if you are a honest person and want to find out truth from fiction.
Physically try out the stuff that your text books say doesn't happen.

I'm happy to admit that I do not have the so-called equipment to do this so-called test.

You claim to have it, so by all means do demonstrate to us what happens.

Unless you lied. Which is dishonest.

How come nobody has a bell jar or something similar?
You're all genius scientists aren't you?

You lot apparently know everything about everything and yet know nothing when it comes down to the physical aspects.

I'm giving you experiments on a plate. I'm trying to help you people. I'm trying to show you the truth by asking you to do the tests as I explain them.
It's up to you lot to do something for yourselves. You do not need to let me know about it if you don't want to. Just do the tests for yourselves and stop asking me for proof.

I know what I know. Try and know what you know instead of a reliance of equations that equate fantasy models.

So you lied.

Use some of your pocket money to prove it to yourself that I'm far from lying.

Quote from: markjo on March 23, 2017, 01:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:50:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 23, 2017, 06:37:48 AM

I give up.  If you don't understand the difference between mass and weight, then I don't suppose that you'll be able to understand that gravity/denpressure/ua/whatever doesn't stop acting on you just because you aren't moving.

I've told you many times about mass and weight. I've told you my thoughts on it all, so don't be coming that just because it doesn't fit your unicorn stories told to you by half millenia ago story tellers.

Now all you have to do is be honest. Just say that you have no clue why in the hell a person is said to be accelerating at 1g. Just admit you do not know.

I didn't say that the person was accelerating at 1g.  I said that the person is under 1g of acceleration.  It really is a subtle difference in wording, but the difference is significant.

Really?
Ok then tell me about it.

Not that I expect you to believe or accept it, but it's basically the difference between proper acceleration and coordinate acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration

For example, when a car starts from a standstill (zero relative velocity) and travels in a straight line at increasing speeds, it is accelerating in the direction of travel. If the car turns, there is an acceleration toward the new direction. In this example, we can call the forward acceleration of the car a "linear acceleration", which passengers in the car might experience as a force pushing them back into their seats. When changing direction, we might call this "non-linear acceleration", which passengers might experience as a sideways force. If the speed of the car decreases, this is an acceleration in the opposite direction from the direction of the vehicle, sometimes called deceleration.[4] Passengers may experience deceleration as a force lifting them forwards. Mathematically, there is no separate formula for deceleration: both are changes in velocity. Each of these accelerations (linear, non-linear, deceleration) might be felt by passengers until their velocity (speed and direction) matches that of the car.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2017, 12:32:14 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 23, 2017, 01:32:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 11:50:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 23, 2017, 06:37:48 AM

I give up.  If you don't understand the difference between mass and weight, then I don't suppose that you'll be able to understand that gravity/denpressure/ua/whatever doesn't stop acting on you just because you aren't moving.

I've told you many times about mass and weight. I've told you my thoughts on it all, so don't be coming that just because it doesn't fit your unicorn stories told to you by half millenia ago story tellers.

Now all you have to do is be honest. Just say that you have no clue why in the hell a person is said to be accelerating at 1g. Just admit you do not know.

I didn't say that the person was accelerating at 1g.  I said that the person is under 1g of acceleration.  It really is a subtle difference in wording, but the difference is significant.

Really?
Ok then tell me about it.

Not that I expect you to believe or accept it, but it's basically the difference between proper acceleration and coordinate acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration

Expecting me to believe that would be a step too far, as you know.
Why do you people believe all this utter tosh?
It's senseless. It makes no rational sense other than to just appear a complicated play on words.

Explain it to me in the absolute simplest terms imaginable to make me understand it as a definitive reality.

For example, when a car starts from a standstill (zero relative velocity) and travels in a straight line at increasing speeds, it is accelerating in the direction of travel. If the car turns, there is an acceleration toward the new direction. In this example, we can call the forward acceleration of the car a "linear acceleration", which passengers in the car might experience as a force pushing them back into their seats. When changing direction, we might call this "non-linear acceleration", which passengers might experience as a sideways force. If the speed of the car decreases, this is an acceleration in the opposite direction from the direction of the vehicle, sometimes called deceleration.[4] Passengers may experience deceleration as a force lifting them forwards. Mathematically, there is no separate formula for deceleration: both are changes in velocity. Each of these accelerations (linear, non-linear, deceleration) might be felt by passengers until their velocity (speed and direction) matches that of the car.

What the hell are you actually talking about?

Use some of your pocket money to prove it to yourself that I'm far from lying.

You criticise people for being dishonest but lie about this?

Hypocrite.

How can you pretend you're leading people down a path of enlightenment when it's all built on your lies?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2017, 12:33:13 AM

Use some of your pocket money to prove it to yourself that I'm far from lying.

You criticise people for being dishonest but lie about this?

Hypocrite.

How can you pretend you're leading people down a path of enlightenment when it's all built on your lies?

Use some of your pocket money to prove it to yourself that I'm far from lying.

I will be trying to get a first-generation copy of an Apollo 12 70mm film roll. The estimated auction price is 2000 dollars. Is that enough money for you?

I can scan the images with my high-end flatbed scanner, the image will be several times larger than the ones on Flickr.

Since NASA can not have photoshopped a film roll from the 70's, it will show if there are differences in modern Flickr scans and my own scans.

I might even let someone have the roll for some time to scan it, with a reasonable deposit first of course.

That should lay claims to rest that NASA photoshopped flickr images, right?

Cheers.

Quote from: Gumby on March 23, 2017, 12:06:30 PM

I tried it and the behaviour doesn't change as pressure goes down. The little spheres always moved towards the exterior of the spinning container. Sorry but your claim was not confirmed. I checked the vacuum pump and it was working fine, it's used every day to build vacuum capacitors. The motor spinned at around 100 rpm remotely controlled.

I'm very sorry. Perhaps you tried in a different setup.

No need to apologise. You're only cheating yourself by coming out with this bullshit.
When you manage to get a bell jar and pump or similar to evacuate atmosphere from it and do the test I explained, then you can see for yourself that I'm telloing you the truth.
Do that for you, not for me. Personally I don't give a flying falook about your forum appeal that I'm wrong.

There's genuine people on here and at some stage some will do the tests I put forward.
Even the stead fast anti flat Earth globalists will see the truth in some cases.
People like you will probably still prefer to be blind and deaf to anything that is put forward to you, unless it's told to you by the man/woman in the lab coat or the book of fiction that is placed on the real science shelves.

If you tried this experiment and got different results we have two possibilities.
One - we did different experiments.
Two - one of us is lying.

I tried and got the results I told you.
Did you make any attempt or you just imagined all this?
I doubt you have access to any tech equipment.
Did you tried or you just make up stuff?

Explain it to me in the absolute simplest terms imaginable to make me understand it as a definitive reality.

What makes you think that I haven't already tried to explain it as simply as I can?  About the only way that I can think of to make it any simpler is to say "because that's just the way it is, deal with it".

Quote from: Gumby on March 23, 2017, 12:06:30 PM

I tried it and the behaviour doesn't change as pressure goes down. The little spheres always moved towards the exterior of the spinning container. Sorry but your claim was not confirmed. I checked the vacuum pump and it was working fine, it's used every day to build vacuum capacitors. The motor spinned at around 100 rpm remotely controlled.

I'm very sorry. Perhaps you tried in a different setup.

No need to apologise. You're only cheating yourself by coming out with this bullshit.

So anybody that disagrees with you are being deceptive.

Please present at the very least video evidence of your "experiment" and we'll take it from there.

Sceppy, this might help you get through the day.
I'm sure you must find it so hard living with someone so perfect - yourself!
I do hope it helps.

Bye, have a nice day.

I will be trying to get a first-generation copy of an Apollo 12 70mm film roll. The estimated auction price is 2000 dollars. Is that enough money for you?

I can scan the images with my high-end flatbed scanner, the image will be several times larger than the ones on Flickr.

Since NASA can not have photoshopped a film roll from the 70's, it will show if there are differences in modern Flickr scans and my own scans.

I might even let someone have the roll for some time to scan it, with a reasonable deposit first of course.

That should lay claims to rest that NASA photoshopped flickr images, right?

Cheers.

I'm sure you'll get a legitimate film roll from your beloved NASA for your $2000. Good luck and don't forget to get pictures of you receiving it from NASA.
I'm patient. I'll wait 500 years for you to do this and then I'll have to give it up as a bad joke. Fair enough?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2017, 12:30:29 AM

Quote from: Gumby on March 23, 2017, 12:06:30 PM

I tried it and the behaviour doesn't change as pressure goes down. The little spheres always moved towards the exterior of the spinning container. Sorry but your claim was not confirmed. I checked the vacuum pump and it was working fine, it's used every day to build vacuum capacitors. The motor spinned at around 100 rpm remotely controlled.

I'm very sorry. Perhaps you tried in a different setup.

No need to apologise. You're only cheating yourself by coming out with this bullshit.
When you manage to get a bell jar and pump or similar to evacuate atmosphere from it and do the test I explained, then you can see for yourself that I'm telloing you the truth.
Do that for you, not for me. Personally I don't give a flying falook about your forum appeal that I'm wrong.

There's genuine people on here and at some stage some will do the tests I put forward.
Even the stead fast anti flat Earth globalists will see the truth in some cases.
People like you will probably still prefer to be blind and deaf to anything that is put forward to you, unless it's told to you by the man/woman in the lab coat or the book of fiction that is placed on the real science shelves.

If you tried this experiment and got different results we have two possibilities.
One - we did different experiments.
Two - one of us is lying.

I tried and got the results I told you.
Did you make any attempt or you just imagined all this?
I doubt you have access to any tech equipment.
Did you tried or you just make up stuff?

Tell me exactly what you did in the experiment. Tell me how you set it up from start to finish.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2017, 10:11:30 AM

Explain it to me in the absolute simplest terms imaginable to make me understand it as a definitive reality.

What makes you think that I haven't already tried to explain it as simply as I can?  About the only way that I can think of to make it any simpler is to say "because that's just the way it is, deal with it".

That's fair enough and I will deal with it. I'll give it the contempt it deserves by calling it complete and utter bullshit.
You follow stinking bullshit and believe it smells of expensive cologne.

So anybody that disagrees with you are being deceptive.

Nope. Anyone that pretends they did an experiment that I have done and calls a different scenario, is a liar. Simple as that.

Please present at the very least video evidence of your "experiment" and we'll take it from there.

I present nothing as such to people like you. You're lucky you get answers to your posts from me.

Head in the cloud parrot.

Quote from: Denspressure on March 24, 2017, 01:03:57 PM

I will be trying to get a first-generation copy of an Apollo 12 70mm film roll. The estimated auction price is 2000 dollars. Is that enough money for you?

I can scan the images with my high-end flatbed scanner, the image will be several times larger than the ones on Flickr.

Since NASA can not have photoshopped a film roll from the 70's, it will show if there are differences in modern Flickr scans and my own scans.

I might even let someone have the roll for some time to scan it, with a reasonable deposit first of course.

That should lay claims to rest that NASA photoshopped flickr images, right?

Cheers.

I'm sure you'll get a legitimate film roll from your beloved NASA for your $2000. Good luck and don't forget to get pictures of you receiving it from NASA.
I'm patient. I'll wait 500 years for you to do this and then I'll have to give it up as a bad joke. Fair enough?

It is not from NASA, it is from someone's private collection.

I guess if my scans do not show any modern Photoshop artifacts like hoaxers claim, it still won't change your mind huh?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 12:39:00 AM

Quote from: Denspressure on March 24, 2017, 01:03:57 PM

I will be trying to get a first-generation copy of an Apollo 12 70mm film roll. The estimated auction price is 2000 dollars. Is that enough money for you?

I can scan the images with my high-end flatbed scanner, the image will be several times larger than the ones on Flickr.

Since NASA can not have photoshopped a film roll from the 70's, it will show if there are differences in modern Flickr scans and my own scans.

I might even let someone have the roll for some time to scan it, with a reasonable deposit first of course.

That should lay claims to rest that NASA photoshopped flickr images, right?

Cheers.

I'm sure you'll get a legitimate film roll from your beloved NASA for your $2000. Good luck and don't forget to get pictures of you receiving it from NASA.
I'm patient. I'll wait 500 years for you to do this and then I'll have to give it up as a bad joke. Fair enough?

It is not from NASA, it is from someone's private collection.

I guess if my scans do not show any modern Photoshop artifacts like hoaxers claim, it still won't change your mind huh?

Go and live in your little fantasy world and try not to waste too much of your time trying to convince someone who thinks you're a total prick.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2017, 12:30:29 AM

Quote from: Gumby on March 23, 2017, 12:06:30 PM

I tried it and the behaviour doesn't change as pressure goes down. The little spheres always moved towards the exterior of the spinning container. Sorry but your claim was not confirmed. I checked the vacuum pump and it was working fine, it's used every day to build vacuum capacitors. The motor spinned at around 100 rpm remotely controlled.

I'm very sorry. Perhaps you tried in a different setup.

No need to apologise. You're only cheating yourself by coming out with this bullshit.
When you manage to get a bell jar and pump or similar to evacuate atmosphere from it and do the test I explained, then you can see for yourself that I'm telloing you the truth.
Do that for you, not for me. Personally I don't give a flying falook about your forum appeal that I'm wrong.

There's genuine people on here and at some stage some will do the tests I put forward.
Even the stead fast anti flat Earth globalists will see the truth in some cases.
People like you will probably still prefer to be blind and deaf to anything that is put forward to you, unless it's told to you by the man/woman in the lab coat or the book of fiction that is placed on the real science shelves.

If you tried this experiment and got different results we have two possibilities.
One - we did different experiments.
Two - one of us is lying.

I tried and got the results I told you.
Did you make any attempt or you just imagined all this?
I doubt you have access to any tech equipment.
Did you tried or you just make up stuff?

Video gumby?

Video gumby?

What is the experiment? I scanned a few pages back and didn't see. I read what Gumby said he did, however, that is not very detailed.

I have some free time, so would like to play. It sounds simple and quick at least from what Dumby posted. Though would like to see a complete explanation of the experiment.

Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 02:12:11 AM

Video gumby?

What is the experiment? I scanned a few pages back and didn't see. I read what Gumby said he did, however, that is not very detailed.

I have some free time, so would like to play. It sounds simple and quick at least from what Dumby posted. Though would like to see a complete explanation of the experiment.

A bell jar or sufficient chamber (see through) for evacuation of most pressure of atmosphere.

A small motor with a small round carton attached to the stem in a solid enough way as to not fly off under rotation. A cut down butter carton as long as it's circular. Maybe cut the sides to around 2 inches high.
Secure the motor onto the bottom of the chamber and place a few plastic beads inside of the carton.

Let the motor spin inside the chamber under normal atmospheric conditions and you will obviously see the beads adhere to the sides of the carton.

Now evacuate the chamber to its full potential or as close as and then set the motor in motion again.
This time you will notice that the beads do not adhere to the sides of the carton and instead, they bounce about and eventually jump out of the carton, depending on the steadiness of the rotation.

I've done the experiment and I've seen the results.
I have no need to prove it because people can actually prove it to themselves with those few items required.
You must easily possess this stuff, so will you do this experiment?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 02:26:25 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 02:12:11 AM

Video gumby?

What is the experiment? I scanned a few pages back and didn't see. I read what Gumby said he did, however, that is not very detailed.

I have some free time, so would like to play. It sounds simple and quick at least from what Dumby posted. Though would like to see a complete explanation of the experiment.

A bell jar or sufficient chamber (see through) for evacuation of most pressure of atmosphere.

A small motor with a small round carton attached to the stem in a solid enough way as to not fly off under rotation. A cut down butter carton as long as it's circular. Maybe cut the sides to around 2 inches high.
Secure the motor onto the bottom of the chamber and place a few plastic beads inside of the carton.

Let the motor spin inside the chamber under normal atmospheric conditions and you will obviously see the beads adhere to the sides of the carton.

Now evacuate the chamber to its full potential or as close as and then set the motor in motion again.
This time you will notice that the beads do not adhere to the sides of the carton and instead, they bounce about and eventually jump out of the carton, depending on the steadiness of the rotation.

I've done the experiment and I've seen the results.
I have no need to prove it because people can actually prove it to themselves with those few items required.
You must easily possess this stuff, so will you do this experiment?

Yes I do have everything needed to do this. I just want to clarify a few things. So the carton and motor go inside the bell jar? You want to spin this inside of it correct?

Ok..I reread, sounds simple enough, I have the perfect pump and motor for this. I will need to get a bigger jar (jars are not something I use often). I can fab up an aluminum or steel "basket" for the beads. Is that ok? Or does it need to be cardboard? You said 2 inches high would be ideal?

As for the beads...Can they be ball bearings? Or do they need to be plastic? How many? Also, the motor, what rpm does it need to turn?

Ok..I reread, sounds simple enough, I have the perfect pump and motor for this. I will need to get a bigger jar (jars are not something I use often). I can fab up an aluminum or steel "basket" for the beads. Is that ok? Or does it need to be cardboard? You said 2 inches high would be ideal?

As for the beads...Can they be ball bearings? Or do they need to be plastic? How many? Also, the motor, what rpm does it need to turn?

The reason why I mention plastic beads is so they do not damager the chamber.
Ball bearings jumping out could implode the chamber by creating a weaker point.
You can use any container. Even a petri type dish as long as you can adhere it to the motor shaft.

This is cool.

Ok. I can make the basket in a few, the motor I am thinking of should be just fine. (You did not specify rpm though) the pump will work well.

The only thing is the clear jar, I am going to run to this place that might have one when they open later (5am here right now). I also saw a few online as well that would work (would just need to do a quick modification to run power to the motor).. would like to find one today though, I am impatient and don't want to wait to order one lol.

I have zero equipment to work with glass unfortunately...So when it comes to that, I am dependent on others.

Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 01:39:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 12:39:00 AM

Quote from: Denspressure on March 24, 2017, 01:03:57 PM

I will be trying to get a first-generation copy of an Apollo 12 70mm film roll. The estimated auction price is 2000 dollars. Is that enough money for you?

I can scan the images with my high-end flatbed scanner, the image will be several times larger than the ones on Flickr.

Since NASA can not have photoshopped a film roll from the 70's, it will show if there are differences in modern Flickr scans and my own scans.

I might even let someone have the roll for some time to scan it, with a reasonable deposit first of course.

That should lay claims to rest that NASA photoshopped flickr images, right?

Cheers.

I'm sure you'll get a legitimate film roll from your beloved NASA for your $2000. Good luck and don't forget to get pictures of you receiving it from NASA.
I'm patient. I'll wait 500 years for you to do this and then I'll have to give it up as a bad joke. Fair enough?

It is not from NASA, it is from someone's private collection.

I guess if my scans do not show any modern Photoshop artifacts like hoaxers claim, it still won't change your mind huh?

Go and live in your little fantasy world and try not to waste too much of your time trying to convince someone who thinks you're a total prick.

Hoaxers claim NASA photoshopped online pictures.

If I scan an old physical roll and it doesn't show any manipulation artifacts, won't that undermine their photoshop argument?

Ok..I reread, sounds simple enough, I have the perfect pump and motor for this. I will need to get a bigger jar (jars are not something I use often). I can fab up an aluminum or steel "basket" for the beads. Is that ok? Or does it need to be cardboard? You said 2 inches high would be ideal?

As for the beads...Can they be ball bearings? Or do they need to be plastic? How many? Also, the motor, what rpm does it need to turn?

Can I suggest putting something like a marshmallow inside the bell jar at the bottom. A video of an empty gauge would have the accusation levelled at it that the gauge is rigged somehow. A marshmallow expands in a vacuum, so it would serve as an indicator that pressure is indeed reducing inside the jar. They can expand to quite a size though.

Can I suggest putting something like a marshmallow inside the bell jar at the bottom. A video of an empty gauge would have the accusation levelled at it that the gauge is rigged somehow. A marshmallow expands in a vacuum, so it would serve as an indicator that pressure is indeed reducing inside the jar. They can expand to quite a size though.

I have thrown countless things in different vacuum chambers on alcohol motivated nights, and some items can get a bit out of hand lol. Typically, especially if I am going to do something inside a bell chamber with limited room, I will just put in a clear shot glass full of water to prove it is under vacuum.