Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2017, 03:33:56 AM

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.

It has everything to do with the flat-earthers claim is hiding the "true shape of the earth"!

If it weren't for that, evidence, like this, of a rotating Globe would be readily accepted.

From EPIC during August 21 Eclipse.

But that would destroy your little pancake planet in one fell swoop, so have to declare it a fake - you can't allow yourself any other option.

Quote from: sceptimatic

It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

Utter garbage, like everything you say.

You have a bagful of fantasies that explain nothing expect others to believe you.

It's tough for you that all the things designed by "so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth" from motor vehicles through to the most sophisticated supersonic aircraft work!

And your fantasies have never lead to anything useful. "By their fruits, ye shall know them" and your theories have nothing!

So, do you know who I'd believe? Sure, I'd believe those whose theories work.

I know who you believe, Rabinoz. I'm 99.9% sure you'll never believe anything other than what the feeders feed you. You're ravenous in readiness for it, so i'm under no illusions whatsoever about your stance.

And do you know something?
There are a lot of similarities in the theory of jet engines and the theory of rockets. They both develop their thrust by action-reaction.
A rocket engine works best in a vacuum and, apart from the need for oxygen as an oxidiser a jet engine would work in a vacuum.

The mere fact that you think a rocket engine can work better or work at all in a vacuum tells me more about your inability to actually think for yourself or even dare to.
You will not deviate from your set selection of books and stuff you class as your comfort blankets.

The mere fact you believe there's a vacuum that people can go in when it's been shown quite clearly the distress it causes a person who simply gets put under low pressure in a suit in a chamber at some facility.

The fact that you could strip down a rocket and wonder just where this kick arse reaction to burning action could possibly come from inside of it.
Absolutely crazy but here you are happily spewing it out.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2017, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: sovietchild on November 21, 2017, 05:51:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

Dude...

You are seriously brain injured. Get help immediately!

I will  happily except a flat earth if he crashes into the sky dome.

Cannot be unseen

I will  happily accept a flat earth if he crashes into the sky dome.

I was getting worried that he might collide with the sun, which sandokhan claims is only about 10-15 km high.

Some even say the the sun is just a few kilometers distant from earth. Proof:

Quote from: Sandokhan

Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « on: February 10, 2008, 12:28:26 AM »
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.

But he's safe enough, 1800 ft is only about 550 m.

Saw a video of his supposed first flight.
Shows him being interviewed.
Cut to rocket taking off and flying.
Cut to parachute deploying.
Cut to rocket and chute falling.
Cut to his team pulling him out.

Probably fake, but like big foot and ghosts
It's fun to think what if...

BTW tomorrows flight is canceled.

BTW tomorrows flight is canceled.

Hughes claimed the Bureau of Land Management said he couldn't launch his rocket as planned Saturday in Amboy. He claimed the federal agency had given him verbal permission more than a year ago, pending approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Dang! Claiming something is true doesn't mean it's true? Who expected that?

Try

Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?

That seems the obvious answer.

An Oxrymoron is described as "two words of opposite meaning."
"Flat Earth" and "Scientist" are just that.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2017, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: sovietchild on November 21, 2017, 05:51:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.

It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".

How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?

**UPDATE**

A man who believes Earth is flat, and was ready to launch himself from a rocket in California on Saturday afternoon to prove it, has canceled his plans. At least for now.

Not having the required federal permits plus mechanical problems with his "motorhome/rocket launcher" forced self-taught rocket scientist "Mad" Mike Hughes to put his experiment on hold.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) "told me they would not allow me to do the event ... at least not at that location," Hughes said in a YouTube announcement, amid international attention over his plans to launch into the 'atmosflat.'

The conspiracy strikes again.

From a different thread:

How can one prove the earth is not a globe by going 1,800 feet high? Planes fly 30,000 feet high, why can't he just go and buy himself a plane ticket instead of building a $20,000 dollar rocket.

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/24/a-flat-earthers-plan-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-just-hit-a-speed-bump/?utm_term=.7dcb4ef0bd46

You have to crawl before you walk.

He has bigger ideas, but has to get the basics working before proceeding. It's almost like doing science...

Let's try this experiment and see if the results are what we expect.

Did they match?
 - Yes.
 -- Cool!
 -- Next step.
 - No.
 -- Bummer!
 -- What didn't match? Why? Make changes to the part of the [idea|mechanism] that didn't work.
 -- Did it work now?
 --- Etc.

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

I don't think he really is a flat earther. He's just using the lunacy to promote the attempt and raise funds from gullible people who believe him to be their saviour. From an article in the Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/a-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-20171122-gzqrgr.html

Hughes only recently converted to flat-Eartherism, after struggling for months to raise funds for his follow-up flight over the Mojave.
It was originally scheduled for early 2016 in a Kickstarter campaign - "From Garage to Outer Space!" - that mentioned nothing about illuminati astronauts, and was themed after a NASCAR event.

"We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this," Hughes said, standing in his Apple Valley, California, living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.

"They have not put a man in space yet," Hughes said. "There are 20 different space agencies here in America, and I'm the last person that's put a man in a rocket and launched it."
 
He compared himself to Evel Knievel, as he promised to launch himself from a California racetrack - the first step on his steam-powered leap toward space.

The Kickstarter [link in article] raised $US310 of its $US150,000 goal.

Hughes made other pitches, including a plan to fly over Texas in a "SkyLimo." But he complained to Ars Technica last year about the difficulty of funding his dreams on a chauffeur's meager salary.

A year later, he called into a flat-earth community web show to announce he had become a recent convert.

"We were kind of looking for a new sponsors for this. And I'm a believer in the flat Earth," Hughes said. "I researched it for several months."

The host sounded impressed. Hughes had actually flown in a rocket, he noted, whereas astronauts were merely paid actors performing in front of a CGI globe.

"John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons," Hughes agreed. "Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception."

The host talked of "Elon Musk's fake reality," and Hughes talked of "anti-Christ, Illuminati stuff." After half an hour of this, the host told his 300-some listeners to back Hughes' exploration of space.

"We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this," Hughes said, standing in his Apple Valley, California, living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.

"They have not put a man in space yet," Hughes said.

Actually, Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne did put 2 men into space (100,000+ meters), although just briefly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2017, 03:33:56 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2017, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: sovietchild on November 21, 2017, 05:51:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.

It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".

How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?

It's very very simple for me.

This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.

To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.

The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.

This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.

I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.

The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.

The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.


All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.

Quote from: Theo Theardrun on November 25, 2017, 02:45:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2017, 03:33:56 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2017, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: sovietchild on November 21, 2017, 05:51:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.

It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".

How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?

It's very very simple for me.

This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.

To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.

The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.

This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.

I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.

The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.

The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.


All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.

Much as I think your way off beam, your really come over as quite honest and likeable with it. What you refer to as your logic is not very logical as you have a tendency to ignore obvious simple truths when they don't fit with your world view. I'm honestly not trying to be nasty or poke fun, but some of what you say is just not correct, nor how the world works.

Most FEers claim to have an open mind, but my observations of you don't really hold this out. Your beliefs on the laws of motion,which really are be beyond dispute, do not square with reality. The world is full on millions of vehicles and mechanisms which were all designed in line with these laws. Yet you have an issue with them, why? What evidence has convinced you that all the cars, planes, ships and other moving mechanisms have all been designed In error?
 

Much as I think your way off beam, your really come over as quite honest and likeable with it. What you refer to as your logic is not very logical as you have a tendency to ignore obvious simple truths when they don't fit with your world view. I'm honestly not trying to be nasty or poke fun, but some of what you say is just not correct, nor how the world works.

You've spent enough time trying to poke fun but you can carry on as long as you need, or you can throw in some relevant posts. It's your choice and it's not as if I'm new to this.
You think my logic is skewed because your logic is set out for you in how your world supposedly works.

Most FEers claim to have an open mind, but my observations of you don't really hold this out.

I used to believe in a spinning globe and then a stationary one and then looked into all versions of flat Earth and alternate Earth's. I'm currently at my own right now, so if that's closed minded then fair enough.
You stick to a globe (pun intended) and you have no mind to alter that thought, regardless.
So who's really closed minded?

Your beliefs on the laws of motion,which really are be beyond dispute, do not square with reality. The world is full on millions of vehicles and mechanisms which were all designed in line with these laws.

Tell me how they build vehicles using laws that I go against?
If it gravity then show me the gravity measure appliances they use and tell me what's happening for them to build the stuff.
Also apply the laws that you think I don't follow and let's see how they work against what I believe.

Yet you have an issue with them, why? What evidence has convinced you that all the cars, planes, ships and other moving mechanisms have all been designed In error?

I don't believe any real life vehicle is designed in error, on the whole, apart from bad designs which has no relevance to what we're talking about.

Why would I believe stuff is designed in error?

Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?

They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.

What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.

You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics  and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?

Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?

They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.

What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.

You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics  and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

Quote from: Nightsky on November 27, 2017, 04:01:52 AM

Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?

They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.

What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.

You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics  and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Every calculation that uses one of the following terms.
V as in velocity
A as in acceleration
G as in gravity.

And that's for starters....

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on November 27, 2017, 04:01:52 AM

Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?

They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.

What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.

You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics  and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Every calculation that uses one of the following terms.
V as in velocity
A as in acceleration
G as in gravity.

And that's for starters....

Ok then, start building the stuff that you say I deny by using what you've shown me.

What tools do you need, or gauges or  whatever?

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

No, that's inertia and is a different concept.  Conservation of momentum simply means that, in an isolated system, the amount of energy in 2 or more objects before a collision is equal to the amount of energy after the collision. 

It's like when the cue ball hits another ball on the pool table, the amount of energy in the cue ball before the collision is the same as the amount of energy in the cue ball plus the energy in the target ball after the collision.  Depending on the type of collision, the cue ball can transfer all of its energy to the target ball, in which case the cue ball stops dead and the target ball zooms away at the same speed as the cue ball just before it hit.  Another possibility is the cue ball will hit the target and and only transfer part of its energy, in which case both will move away but slower than the cue ball just before it hit.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on November 27, 2017, 08:31:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

No, that's inertia and is a different concept.  Conservation of momentum simply means that, in an isolated system, the amount of energy in 2 or more objects before a collision is equal to the amount of energy after the collision. 

It's like when the cue ball hits another ball on the pool table, the amount of energy in the cue ball before the collision is the same as the amount of energy in the cue ball plus the energy in the target ball after the collision.  Depending on the type of collision, the cue ball can transfer all of its energy to the target ball, in which case the cue ball stops dead and the target ball zooms away at the same speed as the cue ball just before it hit.  Another possibility is the cue ball will hit the target and and only transfer part of its energy, in which case both will move away but slower than the cue ball just before it hit.

Oops, my mistake.  Scepti doesn't like inertia either, in my defense.  Perhaps he can address your very straightforward explanation for conservation of momentum and also my explanation of inertia.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.

No object will ever stay in motion or gain motion unless it is acted upon by a force.
An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.

However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.

So we get back to it being nonsense.
I'll change that to inertia seeing as I saw markjo's post.
Anyway that's inertia wiped out.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

The momentum of an object is defined as the product of inertia x velocity.

For linear motion: The inertia is simply the mass of the object and the velocity is simply its linear velocity.

So conservation of momentum means that in a closed system, containing a number of objects,
A Simple!

A closed system is a number of objects with no external forces applied.
Sometimes negligibly small external forces or forces that cannot affect the motion are ignored to get a good approximation to what heppens.

Conservation of momentum applies to objects colliding or to a single object splitting apart, for example by a spring or an explosion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.

Ok fair enough.

The conservation bit is a bit puzzling.
What exactly is the meaning behind it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

The momentum of an object is defined as the product of inertia x velocity.

For linear motion: The inertia is simply the mass of the object and the velocity is simply its linear velocity.

So conservation of momentum means that in a closed system, containing a number of objects,

the sum of the momenta of the individual objects remains constant.

A Simple!

A closed system is a number of objects with no external forces applied.
Sometimes negligibly small external forces or forces that cannot affect the motion are ignored to get a good approximation to what heppens.

Conservation of momentum applies to objects colliding or to a single object splitting apart, for example by a spring or an explosion.

Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?