Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

What was the weirdest reaction you ever got when putting someone random inside?

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.

I have a much simpler suggestion.

You stay in your little fantasy world, where you've been all along anyway,
and we'll remain in the real world, where we've been all along.

See, nothing need change, just keep the status quo.

What was the weirdest reaction you ever got when putting someone random inside?

Lol...Well, if I put someone inside, I don't think I would openly admit it lol.

Assuming you meant something...Nothing too "weird" I suppose.. just things expanding, compressing or exploding depending on what it was. Just sometimes surprised on how big or small an object or material would get.

Bubble wrap is fun...

Did try to pop a cold beer once..

Also a ni-cad battery pack that had a flaw in its protection, that was a nasty and pain in the ass surprise...

Fun to extinguish fires...

Now put a rocket inside it and fire the rocket!

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.

Well, when you can, do the experiment. It will show you that centrifugal force, or centripetal, whichever way it wants to be construed, is reliant solely on atmosphere and nothing more than that. No fictional extras or anything.
The proof is right there in that experiment.
Any genuine person who does this experiment will see for themselves that a strong evacuations of atmosphere from the jar will render the centrifugal force on those beads as useless.

All they will do is lose their force of atmosphere pushing them against the rim and they will start to bounce about until eventually they actually bounce out of the dish.
This is dependent on the dish having a roughish surface.
A smoother surface will have the beads randomly moving about but not adhered to the rim as they should be.

Anyone can try this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 01:50:02 AM

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.

I have a much simpler suggestion.

You stay in your little fantasy world, where you've been all along anyway,
and we'll remain in the real world, where we've been all along.

See, nothing need change, just keep the status quo.

Try 5 packs and get back to me.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 25, 2017, 04:38:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 01:50:02 AM

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.

I have a much simpler suggestion.

You stay in your little fantasy world, where you've been all along anyway,
and we'll remain in the real world, where we've been all along.

See, nothing need change, just keep the status quo.

Try 5 packs and get back to me.

Don't think I'll bother.

Well, when you can, do the experiment. It will show you that centrifugal force, or centripetal, whichever way it wants to be construed, is reliant solely on atmosphere and nothing more than that. No fictional extras or anything.
The proof is right there in that experiment.
Any genuine person who does this experiment will see for themselves that a strong evacuations of atmosphere from the jar will render the centrifugal force on those beads as useless.

All they will do is lose their force of atmosphere pushing them against the rim and they will start to bounce about until eventually they actually bounce out of the dish.
This is dependent on the dish having a roughish surface.
A smoother surface will have the beads randomly moving about but not adhered to the rim as they should be.

Anyone can try this.

This is interesting...Now I am interested in seeing the results.

Now put a rocket inside it and fire the rocket!

Things have changed since that thread...Perhaps now would be the time. Instead of spending the time and money making something I will never use again. Just do the camera setup I have wanted to do in an already existing chamber (no glass).

If the experiment was performed with a video feed, would it remove believability to anyone? I could do sceptis experiment in there as well. Kill two birds for the price of one.

Thoughts? (Mainly on the video feed)

Nobody has even seen a picture of the chamber, a video of any sort will help your cause greatly.

Nobody has even seen a picture of the chamber, a video of any sort will help your cause greatly.

As I said..Things have changed with certain people since then. I was being a dick because they were.

Anyways, of course the chamber will be seen, that wasn't the question though.

 

If the experiment was performed with a video feed, would it remove believability to anyone? I could do sceptis experiment in there as well. Kill two birds for the price of one.

Thoughts? (Mainly on the video feed)

Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:00:04 AM

Nobody has even seen a picture of the chamber, a video of any sort will help your cause greatly.

As I said..Things have changed with certain people since then. I was being a dick because they were.

Anyways, of course the chamber will be seen, that wasn't the question though.

 

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 04:57:12 AM

If the experiment was performed with a video feed, would it remove believability to anyone? I could do sceptis experiment in there as well. Kill two birds for the price of one.

Thoughts? (Mainly on the video feed)

Do you mean a wireless live video feed? I don't care...

Do you mean a wireless live video feed? I don't care...

Ok... I would like to get others view as well so I don't waste my time.

If everything is agreed on, I will do both scepti (I am interested to see the result) and the rocket experiment.

Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:05:27 AM

Do you mean a wireless live video feed? I don't care...

Ok... I would like to get others view as well so I don't waste my time.

If everything is agreed on, I will do both scepti (I am interested to see the result) and the rocket experiment.

Your efforts will be greatly appreciated!

Ok, I will wait for scepti to chime in and get his opinion, since one is his project, the other I believe he will be interested in as well.

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in I am all ears.

Ok, I will wait for scepti to chime in and get his opinion, since one is his project, the other I believe he will be interested in as well.

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in I am all ears.

I'm not really interested in the rocket experiment because, unless the chamber was really huge, it would sort of still produce an argument.
The reason being is the actual rocket itself that will, for all intents and purposes, be working in a small environment close to a chamber wall, as well as being in a small amount of atmosphere, even when evacuated and not to mention the rocket expelling its fuel and filling the chamber, meaning it basically nullifies the experiment.

The only way to make it a little bit more fair would be for the pump to be running inside this chamber if a rocket was to be used on a tiny scale in a small chamber and that way it can near nullify the effects from a rocket thrust.
It's your choice but I think there's many more little experiments that are much easier to do and are much more to the point, which includes the one I diagrammed.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:24:56 AM

Ok, I will wait for scepti to chime in and get his opinion, since one is his project, the other I believe he will be interested in as well.

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in I am all ears.

I'm not really interested in the rocket experiment because, unless the chamber was really huge, it would sort of still produce an argument.
The reason being is the actual rocket itself that will, for all intents and purposes, be working in a small environment close to a chamber wall, as well as being in a small amount of atmosphere, even when evacuated and not to mention the rocket expelling its fuel and filling the chamber, meaning it basically nullifies the experiment.

The only way to make it a little bit more fair would be for the pump to be running inside this chamber if a rocket was to be used on a tiny scale in a small chamber and that way it can near nullify the effects from a rocket thrust.
It's your choice but I think there's many more little experiments that are much easier to do and are much more to the point, which includes the one I diagrammed.

Oh, consider your experiment already done. However, with denspressure's comment, it got me thinking, since alot of things have changed since the rocket experiment thread, perhaps this would actually be a good time to do that as well. Then I could just do a camera system as I wanted to instead of build a separate vacuum for a one time use.

Leaving the pump (or pumps depending on which unit I use) running, no big deal. I think mine would be big enough I imagine to nullify any gas a little solid rocket would expend. We could do the math in how much gas it would release, make sure the pump can flow more, as well as consider the total cubic feet of space. Can do both, one with full atmosphere, other under vacuum. If we see any slowing of speed, then we can determine it could be "making its own atmosphere". Also watch the gauges, can keep a little thing of water inside to make sure it is still boiling.

I think it would be fun to kill two birds with one stone. 

Let me know what you think.

I have been looking at YouTube comments of other similar experiments (on the rocket stuff) and reading all the objects. Seems the most common is not knowing if it is still a vacuum when the rocket goes off.

I also don't mind making a very long but skinny chamber just for the rocket. As long as it isn't glass, I can make anything from metal.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 05:59:18 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:24:56 AM

Ok, I will wait for scepti to chime in and get his opinion, since one is his project, the other I believe he will be interested in as well.

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in I am all ears.

I'm not really interested in the rocket experiment because, unless the chamber was really huge, it would sort of still produce an argument.
The reason being is the actual rocket itself that will, for all intents and purposes, be working in a small environment close to a chamber wall, as well as being in a small amount of atmosphere, even when evacuated and not to mention the rocket expelling its fuel and filling the chamber, meaning it basically nullifies the experiment.

The only way to make it a little bit more fair would be for the pump to be running inside this chamber if a rocket was to be used on a tiny scale in a small chamber and that way it can near nullify the effects from a rocket thrust.
It's your choice but I think there's many more little experiments that are much easier to do and are much more to the point, which includes the one I diagrammed.

Oh, consider your experiment already done. However, with denspressure's comment, it got me thinking, since alot of things have changed since the rocket experiment thread, perhaps this would actually be a good time to do that as well. Then I could just do a camera system as I wanted to instead of build a separate vacuum for a one time use.

Leaving the pump (or pumps depending on which unit I use) running, no big deal. I think mine would be big enough I imagine to nullify any gas a little solid rocket would expend. We could do the math in how much gas it would release, make sure the pump can flow more, as well as consider the total cubic feet of space. Can do both, one with full atmosphere, other under vacuum. If we see any slowing of speed, then we can determine it could be "making its own atmosphere". Also watch the gauges, can keep a little thing of water inside to make sure it is still boiling.

I think it would be fun to kill two birds with one stone. 

Let me know what you think.

I have been looking at YouTube comments of other similar experiments (on the rocket stuff) and reading all the objects. Seems the most common is not knowing if it is still a vacuum when the rocket goes off.

I also don't mind making a very long but skinny chamber just for the rocket. As long as it isn't glass, I can make anything from metal.

Whatever you think is easier for you to do then go ahead with whatever you can achieve.
There's a few more experiments that can be done as well but let's see what you get up to whenever you get round to it and then we'll see where it takes us.

Does that sound ok?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 05:59:18 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:24:56 AM

Ok, I will wait for scepti to chime in and get his opinion, since one is his project, the other I believe he will be interested in as well.

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in I am all ears.

I'm not really interested in the rocket experiment because, unless the chamber was really huge, it would sort of still produce an argument.
The reason being is the actual rocket itself that will, for all intents and purposes, be working in a small environment close to a chamber wall, as well as being in a small amount of atmosphere, even when evacuated and not to mention the rocket expelling its fuel and filling the chamber, meaning it basically nullifies the experiment.

The only way to make it a little bit more fair would be for the pump to be running inside this chamber if a rocket was to be used on a tiny scale in a small chamber and that way it can near nullify the effects from a rocket thrust.
It's your choice but I think there's many more little experiments that are much easier to do and are much more to the point, which includes the one I diagrammed.

Oh, consider your experiment already done. However, with denspressure's comment, it got me thinking, since alot of things have changed since the rocket experiment thread, perhaps this would actually be a good time to do that as well. Then I could just do a camera system as I wanted to instead of build a separate vacuum for a one time use.

Leaving the pump (or pumps depending on which unit I use) running, no big deal. I think mine would be big enough I imagine to nullify any gas a little solid rocket would expend. We could do the math in how much gas it would release, make sure the pump can flow more, as well as consider the total cubic feet of space. Can do both, one with full atmosphere, other under vacuum. If we see any slowing of speed, then we can determine it could be "making its own atmosphere". Also watch the gauges, can keep a little thing of water inside to make sure it is still boiling.

I think it would be fun to kill two birds with one stone. 

Let me know what you think.

I have been looking at YouTube comments of other similar experiments (on the rocket stuff) and reading all the objects. Seems the most common is not knowing if it is still a vacuum when the rocket goes off.

I also don't mind making a very long but skinny chamber just for the rocket. As long as it isn't glass, I can make anything from metal.

You just have to prove that forward thrust works in a vacuum, right?

Well, what if you make the 'thrust' visible by using a water rocket? so nobody can claim the exhaust nullifies the initial vacuum.

Or use gas with a colour, so you can see if the rocket moves before the chamber fills completely with the gass.

PS: The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not a vacuum, it is under very high pressure.

You just have to prove that forward thrust works in a vacuum, right?

Well, what if you make the 'thrust' visible by using a water rocket? so nobody can claim the exhaust nullifies the initial vacuum.

Hmm...This is interesting... Only issue is, the water will be boiling.. would have to think on that.

We have already determined to run the pumps full time, to monitor the gauges full time, to keep a physical marker such as boiling water at all times...

Whatever you think is easier for you to do then go ahead with whatever you can achieve.
There's a few more experiments that can be done as well but let's see what you get up to whenever you get round to it and then we'll see where it takes us.

Does that sound ok?

That sounds fine...I won't mind doing more once these are complete. My biggest concern, is I don't want to be called a shill or dishonest by missing something on your experiment or a rocket.

I know you didn't ask for a rocket, however, denspressure kinda reignited my drive to do that, since that nonsensical thread has been dead for some time.

Also, since you are one of the most sceptical people here, I am asking yours (and everyone's) opinion on the best way to do it so the results, whatever they may be will be accepted.

I would enjoy doing the experiment, however, I will be very pissed if I do it and everyone screams fraud or liar afterwards. So I am asking all who is involved to basically design this so they can only yell at themselves, and not me if they are displeased.

Or use gas with a colour, so you can see if the rocket moves before the chamber fills completely with the gas.

This is interesting...That might solve the issue right there

Well for starters, post all uncut video's online. Make a video from the very start to the beginning without a single cut.

Hoaxers love to claim cuts = fake.

It doesn't have to be with all camera's, just have one general camera somewhere that records everything without a cut, so they can't say anything happened.

Quote from: Gumby on March 24, 2017, 02:44:12 PM

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.

Already told you.
It's your turn to describe your experiment.
Do it or I will declare you a liar.

BHS, I have an idea for your rocket. Pretty simple really, but I'll let you decide if it's practical. To determine if the rocket does any work, have it standing up on, or pointed toward a digital scale, the nose end, not the business end. It will verify your thrust. If you don't have one, I have one I can send you for this experiment. Or drop $20 or less on Amazon for a .1g scale. Mine is more accurate .01g, but either will demonstrate just fine.
I don't know how accurate the thrust on one of those little Estes motors are other than A B C D, but if it can be found out, then you could measure thrust under normal atmospheric conditions, and then under vacuum. Compare the two.
What do ya think?

BHS, I have an idea for your rocket. Pretty simple really, but I'll let you decide if it's practical. To determine if the rocket does any work, have it standing up on, or pointed toward a digital scale, the nose end, not the business end. It will verify your thrust. If you don't have one, I have one I can send you for this experiment. Or drop $20 or less on Amazon for a .1g scale. Mine is more accurate .01g, but either will demonstrate just fine.
I don't know how accurate the thrust on one of those little Estes motors are other than A B C D, but if it can be found out, then you could measure thrust under normal atmospheric conditions, and then under vacuum. Compare the two.
What do ya think?

I like the idea of comparing thrust both ways.

That would mean I would actually need to design something that is fairy consistent in its output.

Already told you.
It's your turn to describe your experiment.
Do it or I will declare you a liar.

The liar is you but feel free to call me anything you feel gets you off. 

It's not me it's you!

It's not me it's you!

That's what she said.

I'd still like to know how a g works on acceleration and how it becomes 2 g or 3g or 4g, etc, etc,.
If someone can explain it by using a rocket acceleration, then explain it nice and simply as if you were explaining to a child.

Of course I could look it up but I know some of you people like to dive in, so here's your chance.

Oh G force as acceleration is easy.

Lets just forget about gravity for a second.

1g is an acceleration (change of direction or velocity) of 9.8m/s².

2g is an acceleration of 19.6m/s².

3g is an acceleration of 29.4m/s².

Etc.

This is easily measured and tested.

Oh G force as acceleration is easy.

Lets just forget about gravity for a second.

1g is an acceleration (change of direction or velocity) of 9.8m/s².

2g is an acceleration of 19.6m/s².

3g is an acceleration of 29.4m/s².

Etc.

This is easily measured and tested.

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html

This means that it's doing 300 miles per minute, or 5 miles per second.

Or to make it in metres, we have it accelerating at 8045 metres per second.

or around 83 g when you factor in the 9.8m/s/s.

Is this correct?
Am I missing something here?