Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 22881 Views
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #330 on: February 15, 2018, 08:02:30 AM »
Try to read this  https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html and understand it, then we can talk about how rockets work.


?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #331 on: February 15, 2018, 09:07:10 AM »
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust.
F1=-F1

Fixed that for you.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #332 on: February 15, 2018, 09:10:46 AM »
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust.
F1=-F1

Fixed that for you.
So the issue here is that you are under the mistaken impression that a rocket and its exhaust, moving in 2 different directions, are somehow the exact same object?  That would certainly complicate things if it were remotely accurate...

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #333 on: February 15, 2018, 09:18:30 AM »
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.

This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #334 on: February 15, 2018, 10:21:25 AM »
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects. Because both the rocket an exhaust are clearly both gasses

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards. Wait no, the rocket would diffuse in all directions because it's a gas

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. everything is a gas

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that the rocket is a gas



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
My visual evidence is that the rocket in the video is not a gas.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #335 on: February 15, 2018, 10:28:19 AM »
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.

This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
So if a handheld sink sprayer was being held up by the water it is pushing out, I say it is the force of the water leaving the nozzle pushing it upward.  You would believe that the water is pushing off the bottom of the sink and holding the sprayer up.

So if someone put another solid object halfway between the sprayer and the sink, I believe nothing would happen, because the force is applied when the water exits and everything else is irrelevant.  If you are correct, the sprayer would jump up because what it's pushing off of is so much closer.

Let's see what happens...

Okay then...and we're done here.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #336 on: February 15, 2018, 10:41:57 AM »
A rocket is not a tap.

And water is an incompressible fluid.

So much fail it would be hard for a human to bear...

Good thing you're an AI algorithm then, eh?

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

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #337 on: February 15, 2018, 11:25:42 AM »
A rocket is not a tap.
But they are both being influenced by Newton's 3rd law, the relevant part of the problem.  It's called an analogy.  Look it up if you're not sure how it works.

And water is an incompressible fluid.
Mostly incompressible, which should make the sprayer go even higher without any ability of the water to flex, so you're losing even more ground with that observation...

So much fail it would be hard for a human to bear...
That is painfully true, just not the way you think.


?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #338 on: February 15, 2018, 12:08:06 PM »
A rocket is not a tap.
It's called an analogy.

I'd prefer it to be called physics.

Sadly you are not programmed to understand that, so your silly clown-dance false analogy fest continues...

Interesting double spacing between your sentences btw...

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

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #339 on: February 15, 2018, 12:34:42 PM »
Water is an incompressible fluid.
So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #340 on: February 15, 2018, 12:58:54 PM »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #341 on: February 15, 2018, 01:01:17 PM »
Lately, this image:

Has been presented quite a bit in support of RE.

Time to discuss this particular image and a couple questions follow:

RE-tards, what is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?

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.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #342 on: February 15, 2018, 04:14:34 PM »

Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.
Good job providing a quote which shows the problem with yourself.
Forget all the math.
There is plenty of evidence that NASA has sent a rocket into space, such as the funcitoning GPS system, based upon satellites in space, sat phones, and numerous satellite photos of Earth.

It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.
Yet you have been completely unable to do so.


it shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rockets cannot work in full vacuum:

It shows no such thing.
The ring shaped exhaust will use only ETHER WAVES to propel the rocket: without the ether, no thrust is possible.
No. The exhaust is leaving the rocket. This requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket, even in a vacuum. This needs to be balanced by an equal and opposite force which is pushing the rocket forwards.

For rockets to not work in a vacuum you need to be capable of magically having gasses trapped with nothing holding them in place.

The Nasa equation has never been tested in real life experiments in the assumed outer space vacuum: each and every space mission was faked.
No, all the evidence indicates it is real, and you are substituting math and nonsense in the place of experiment.

Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif
The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton’s 2nd law of motion):
No it doesn't.
Perhaps you should try reading again.
The first term in the force equation is mass flow rate times velocity.

There are numerous relations linking force to other variables, not just Newton's second law.
Impulse is force times time, which equates to a momentum change.
The exhaust needs a certain impulse to reach a certain velocity.
Each unit of time, a certain amount of exhaust is reaching this velocity.
This is why they use the mass flow rate.

The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the “free expansion” effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done.
No it doesn't.
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
What this is actually looking at is the pressure of the exhaust and the pressure at the front of the rocket.
If the 2 are equal, there is no pressure differential across the rocket and thus no force due to the pressure differential.
However, if the pressure is not equal, then the pressure of the exhaust exerts a force on the rocket while the pressure of the "atmosphere" exerts a different force. This results in a net force which is proportional to the pressure differential times the area of the rocket exhaust  (specifically the area it is pressing against the rocket, in a direction parallel to the rocket/not cancelled out by the exhaust).

The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."
No, as per usual, both terms are correct and you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is being described as the mass flow rate, but the terms in the m dot expression are: mass and velocity.
Stop lying.
You have clearly indicated you know it is saying MASS FLOW RATE!!
This means the terms are not mass and velocity, they are mass flow rate (i.e. mass per unit time) and velocity.

A clear contradiction.
Yes, by you.
You clearly accept it says mass flow rate, but then claim it says mass.

As for Nasa having faked all of its space missions, it is very simply to prove this: the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect show that there is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation, supposedly used by Nasa to compute the trajectories.
So you have nothing showing that NASA faked anything. Got it.

Please explain how the Nasa space missions took place without using the law of universal gravitation.
Who cares how they took place? You provided quote complaining about using math instead of experiment.
We have plenty of experiments which show that space travel is real.

Now perhaps you can address the OP and explain what causes the curve in the image?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #343 on: February 15, 2018, 04:19:09 PM »
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...
You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.
I meant cutting out all the mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience that violates both Newton's laws of motion and the laws of Thermodynamics, Negatron:
Which is not what you did at all.
Instead you cut out the rational arguments which clearly showed you to be wrong.

A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.
Your visual evidence proves this beyond any sane doubt
At the start, you see the rocket blowing outwards, taking a bunch of dust with it, rather than staying with the rocket.
The rocket, during the ascent stage, continually generates exhaust, yet only a fairly constant amount stays with the rocket.
This shows that the rocket is generating exhaust and throwing it behind it with the exhaust no longer with the rocket.

Now then, answer one of these 2 questions:
What causes the exhaust to move backwards?
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 #344 on: February 15, 2018, 04:26:42 PM »
More gish gallop Pseudoscience and NO U from blatant AI algorithm jackblack...

It says the exhaust requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket.

Nonsense.

The combusting gas of the exhaust is the force.

And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.

No pushing required.

It is a physics illiterate.

And its posts are physically repulsive to read.

Which is its entire point.

To disgust people into silence.

Therefore giving the impression it won.

Mental sickness personified in AI form.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #345 on: February 15, 2018, 04:31:30 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?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #346 on: February 15, 2018, 04:56:42 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?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22360
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #347 on: February 15, 2018, 05:02:10 PM »
I do find it amusing that you and so many other flat earthers treat Nikola Tesla as some sort of Flat Earth Folk Hero but Tesla certainly did not believe the earth to be either flat or stationary!


Read:
                      HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla also in
— How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915  in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
Sure, Nikola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

Then look at,
Quote from: Frank G. Carpenter
INVENTIONS OF TESLA

Mother Earth Put to Work.
“By this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."

Transmission of Intelligence.

One of the most important features of this invention,” said Mr. Tesla, “will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.

From: tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA

No, Tesla most certainly did not believe that the earth was stationary and flat.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #348 on: February 15, 2018, 05:08:59 PM »
A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.

The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.

The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself and moves with the rocket at all times.

The simplest of observations proves this.

Look:



No further communication is possible with the mad lying AI algorithm.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #349 on: February 15, 2018, 05:42:55 PM »
More gish gallop Pseudoscience and NO U from blatant AI algorithm [Papa Legba]
You keep mistyping names for some reason.

It says the exhaust requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket.
Yes, because it does.
If it didn't, it would stay inside the rocket rather than leave the rocket.

The combusting gas of the exhaust is the force.
But as per Newton's third law, you can't have a force in isolation.
Combusting gas would expand outwards, equally in all directions.
This is where it acts as a multitude of objects, all pushing against each other, providing force pairings pushing them all outwards.
But to have a controlled direction of the flow, i.e. out the exhaust nozzle, you need to provide a force to push it out.
The only entity capable of providing that force (and thus having the other side of the force pair apply to it) is the rocket itself.

As such, the rocket forces the exhaust backwards while the exhaust forces the rocket forwards.

And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.

No pushing required.
I don't think you understand pressure.
Pressure is force per unit area.
The body of the rocket exerts a force on the gas. If it didn't, that would be a region of 0 pressure and the gas would flow to it.

It is a physics illiterate.
You certainly are.

The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.
Yes, you do lie blatantly don't you.

Look:

Yes, look.
While the rocket is continually burning its fuel generating more exhaust, the exhaust remains relatively constant, indicating that the exhaust is being thrown away (backwards) as new exhaust is made; clearly showing you to be wrong.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #350 on: February 15, 2018, 10:12:10 PM »
The rocket and satellite equations of motion are much more complex than the thrust formula.

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3Kisinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

Ki = (Ixx - Izz)/Iyy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε2), we obtain


ψ" + 3Kisinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μKisinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε2)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.


Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.


It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.

ve = − √[2GM/(r + h)]

Rocket science tells us that the gravitational potential energy between two objects is:

PEi = −GMm/Ri



Therefore, the general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of attractive gravity.



It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.

There is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation: it follows that the gravitational escape velocity equation is completely false.

The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The Biefeld-Brown effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

E.T. Whittaker has proven that the potential is represented by pairs of longitudinal bidirectional scalar waves (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

The ether is a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive.


*

sokarul

  • 16045
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #351 on: February 15, 2018, 10:21:02 PM »
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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sokarul

  • 16045
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #352 on: February 15, 2018, 10:24:38 PM »
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at work: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity. One is a force of pressure, the other one a force of rotation.

As such, you need some kind of barrier/shield between the two: that is the dome.

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'



I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”


Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.


Ionic

Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:





The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.

VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)


Do you actually know anything about thrust? Why would you look at one atom or electron? It's a combination of all of them. Please note this before you claim air cannot be responsible.


...

You incorrectly claimed Biefeld-Brown does not rely on air by providing the force created by one molecule, rather than the actual mass flow.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #353 on: February 15, 2018, 10:28:19 PM »
Here is Newton proving you wrong:

http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

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.

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.

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.”



*

sokarul

  • 16045
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #354 on: February 15, 2018, 10:31:33 PM »
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #355 on: February 15, 2018, 10:34:42 PM »
The Biefeld-Brown effect has been tested in VACUUM:

VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).



BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: NEW VIDEO

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909


Then, you are going to have to explain the fact that the output energy for the Tesla bifilar coil is much greater than the input energy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #356 on: February 15, 2018, 10:36:19 PM »
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.

The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412

*

sokarul

  • 16045
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #357 on: February 15, 2018, 10:46:35 PM »
When the experiment is preformed in air, it's super easy to do. You don't need that massive setup. Do you wonder why?



Quote
Then, you are going to have to explain the fact that the output energy for the Tesla bifilar coil is much greater than the input energy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999

"There is no free energy."


It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.

The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412

AND?
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.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #358 on: February 15, 2018, 11:06:12 PM »
Thanks for the good information. Introduce new knowledge with me. สมัครufabet


ufabet

ทางเข้าufabet

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #359 on: February 15, 2018, 11:56:59 PM »
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

Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.


“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

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.

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.

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.”