Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 24057 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #390 on: February 17, 2018, 02:48:19 AM »
Incorrect.

Here is where I answered your mad AI question:
No. That is where you avoided it yet again and provided more evidence that you are wrong.
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.

The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #391 on: February 17, 2018, 03:08:53 AM »
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
The only one you are showing to be a mental lying machine is yourself.

I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.
Now leave your ignorance regarding how rockets work to the other thread and answer the question:

What causes the curve?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #392 on: February 17, 2018, 03:49:22 AM »
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 03:54:51 AM by Empirical »

*

sokarul

  • 16104
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #393 on: February 17, 2018, 07:45:22 AM »
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.

Your assertion has been debunked right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418
Actually no. You called your version gravity a pressure, not just a force but a pressure.

Quote
Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.
Once again, people aren't trolling because they disagree with you.

Quote
“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.
Yes, in RE science this is true. In RE science aether plays no part in gravity and it's now understood that gravity is not a force. 

Quote
Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.
See above

Quote
Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.
Forcing out ether like that will not lead to one single down direction. No accepted theory uses this.

Quote
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

How much ether is forced out of light?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #394 on: February 17, 2018, 08:00:03 AM »
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.

Yes you did.

Which is why you cut it out of your post.

Here it is again:

The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.

And if the exhaust is not producing a force, then do please tell us what is?

Because I can think of no other means for a rocket to create force than via its exhaust.

You really are a mental lying machine, aren't you?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #395 on: February 17, 2018, 08:12:44 AM »
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #396 on: February 17, 2018, 11:33:58 AM »
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #397 on: February 17, 2018, 11:43:22 AM »
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

Wtf?

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 16104
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #398 on: February 17, 2018, 12:15:27 PM »
No air necessary.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #399 on: February 17, 2018, 12:20:43 PM »
Quote
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Quote
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

I think you are referring to Newtons first law

Quote
Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force


And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic


?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #400 on: February 17, 2018, 12:33:15 PM »
And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic

Wtf?

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1447
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #401 on: February 17, 2018, 12:33:22 PM »
To piggy back on on sokarul's video on the reaction mass


If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw


a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball

 --- vs ---

a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow






which one would push you further back?


If the a small heavy object pushes you further back further, it shows that the mass itself is throwing you back


if the object with a large surface area pushes you back further, it shows that reaction against air is throwing you back


Just felt like adding this to the mix of arguements


If your still think you can change Papa's view point then you have officially been trolled and should declare yourself an idiot, get up, leave your chair, go have a drink at the closest pub, and rethink your life. . .


Maybe meet a girl or something while your at it
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 12:35:30 PM by MaNaeSWolf »

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #402 on: February 17, 2018, 12:46:41 PM »
To piggy back on on sokarul's video on the reaction mass
If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw
a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball
--- vs ---
a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow
which one would push you further back?
If the a small heavy object pushes you further back further, it shows that the mass itself is throwing you back
if the object with a large surface area pushes you back further, it shows that reaction against air is throwing you back
Just felt like adding this to the mix of arguements
If your still think you can change Papa's view point then you have officially been trolled and should declare yourself an idiot, get up, leave your chair, go have a drink at the closest pub, and rethink your life. . .
Maybe meet a girl or something while your at it

A gas is not a solid.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html

Only mad AI algorithms compare the two.

AI algorithms cannot get laid btw.

kek
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1447
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #403 on: February 17, 2018, 12:55:50 PM »
Quote
A gas is not a solid.

Gas does not have mass??? You should write a book about that

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #404 on: February 17, 2018, 01:04:10 PM »
I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.
Yes you did.
Here it is again:
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.
No I didn't.
Notice how that is nothing like what you claim I said.
I said the rocket is continually generating new exhaust to replace the exhaust which leaves the rocket.
That is why the "stay" was in quote marks, because it isn't actually staying with the rocket, instead it just superficially appears to be.

And if the exhaust is not producing a force, then do please tell us what is?
And there you go changing your question/claim.
I said the exhaust exerts a force on the rocket.

Now can you address the image in the OP?
WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #406 on: February 17, 2018, 01:44:28 PM »
Gas does not have mass
Wtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html

There you go blatantly misrepresenting people yet again.

He had lots of question marks, indicating it was a question.

Do you think gas has mass? Yes or no?
If yes, then his simple test shows if it is the mass of the exhaust or the air pushing causing the thrust.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 22561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #408 on: February 17, 2018, 03:26:32 PM »
<< Irrelevant and off-topic >>
The topic is the curvature that is shown in  Soundly's powerline videos and photos:

Lake Pontchartrain Transmission Lines Nikon P900
The powerlines are shown on Google Earth, so anyone can easily find out exactly where they are.
Look up the YouTube channel Soundly, YouTube for details.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #409 on: February 17, 2018, 03:42:49 PM »
The topic is...

The topic is you having your mad AI algorithm ass kicked six ways from  Sunday, and you know it.

Hence the desperate backpedaling.

Trying to claim a gas doesn't have mass...

Pathetic.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #410 on: February 17, 2018, 03:53:19 PM »
I've got a cheap project for you that can answer your questions. Wal-Mart's online store sells a little rocket that can reach over 1000 feet. It has an ejectable camera that will parachute down the rocket will just fall and need to be replaced. It runs about 120 bucks and through the images you get from the camera if you can find it again will clearly show the curve of the earth. This method doesn't prove the earth is a speher but will clearly show you the earth is not flat. Now unless you think that this camera somehow gets tampered with magically during flight or somehow developed a Wi-Fi transponder to download a faked video and pics of your area then it is rather hard to say the earth is flat after you see what you see. Good luck and have fun, those rockets are rather wild.
Sorry, 1000 feet does not cut the mustard.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #411 on: February 17, 2018, 04:58:47 PM »
I'm probably the most respected of the RET posters here and I must admit this is damning evidence against any and all FET models.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #412 on: February 17, 2018, 05:19:26 PM »
Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
No, I am quite correct.
That is what he was indicating.
Meanwhile you act like he is indicating the opposite.

Now quit with the bullshit and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?

*

rabinoz

  • 22561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #413 on: February 17, 2018, 06:20:31 PM »
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Are you totally ignorant of all the "Laws of Motion"?
Just look at the illustration from your own reference (you did read it?).
Between the first and third diagram, the gas clearly moved, as shown by the arrows in the middle diagram.

Now, as you have asserted, gas has mass, so the centre-of-mass of the gas moved to the right, from the centre of the left box to the centre of the pair of boxes.

Hence, to keep the centre-of-mass of the whole system unchanged, the centre-of-mass of the pair of boxes has to move left.

Therefore Joule-Expansion or free-expansion can cause motion.

Now here, the whole system was just the isolated boxes but for a rocket the system can include as much of your infinite-vacuum-of-space as you like. As in this previous post:
Quote
Joule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Let’s apply the first law.

We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.
     
Fig 1 Expansion into box
from reference below

From: Joule Thomson



Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space?
For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean?  It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion.  But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space.  The right half of this should be replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2.

Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion.  The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space".
There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.

As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion.
     
Fig 2 Expansion into space
modified from reference
The gas in these illustrations would have very little mass, but the Saturn V exhaust flow rate averaged over 12,800 kg/s at a velocity of about 2400 m/s.

Now this might be impossible for one like Poor Pathetic Puppet Papa to comprehend, but real people might cotton onto the
;D fact that rockets really do work in the infinite vacuum of space. ;D

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1447
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #414 on: February 17, 2018, 08:45:35 PM »
For anyone wondering how much of a Troll Papa is, this is what he does to conversations

Gas does not have mass??? You should write a book about that

to

Gas does not have mass

Wtf?

http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html

I am not sure he is worth engaging with.
He can answer
Quote

If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw

          a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball

                                 --- vs ---

          a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow

which one would push you further back?

he just wont, because he is a troll

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #415 on: February 18, 2018, 01:13:58 AM »
Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
No, I am quite correct.

Do you think a gas has mass or not?

You are all being very obscure on this simple matter.

Maybe you shouldn't lie about what people say in the first place, then you wouldn't get yourselves in these pickles...

Of course, if the jackblack AI algorithm was not programmed to begin every sentence with the word 'no' it would be less likely to happen as well.

But it is, so it does, and it's pretty amusing too.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #416 on: February 18, 2018, 01:48:29 AM »
Do you think a gas has mass or not?
Yes. I know gas has mass.
As I have indicated before, with the conservation of momentum equation I used, which used the mass of the burnt fuel (i.e. exhaust).
The only one pretending anyone doesn't think gas has a mass is you.

Maybe you shouldn't lie about what people say in the first place, then you wouldn't get yourselves in these pickles...
Good advice, you should follow it.
It seems the only way you can even come close to making an argument is either by lying about reality or lying about what people say.

Now how about you answer the question:
WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE IN THE IMAGE IN THE OP?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #417 on: February 18, 2018, 01:52:43 AM »
As I have indicated before, with the conservation of momentum equation I used

The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?

Yeah, that was real convincing.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #418 on: February 18, 2018, 02:17:18 AM »
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?
No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #419 on: February 18, 2018, 02:56:34 AM »
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?
No.

Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!