Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 232944 Views
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1230 on: February 01, 2019, 10:55:11 AM »
Here ya go Sceptimatic


Local news channel zoomed in enough to see the booster separation then the fairing separation.  It isn’t perfectly clear as expected of something miles away...  That took 5 minutes to find, want to see more?


Amateur zooming in, near shuttle launch

This one is obviously fake as it has NASA on it

LISTEN... 3 miles away...  vertical blimp...  right...
More amateur booster separation zooming in..

These are easy to find, how many more would you like to see?

dont fall for troll bot.
He has yet to reciprocate anything.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1231 on: February 01, 2019, 01:20:59 PM »

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1232 on: February 01, 2019, 01:23:21 PM »
You would have no piston compression to create it. No recoil.
Nope, the spring itself is enough to provide recoil.

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.
In that case the rocket cannot possibly be generating more and more gas as it burns. Yet simple experiment shows that is wrong.
It also means the rocket and gas must move as one, but again, simple experiment shows that is wrong.
It is effectively claiming that if you blow air out, it will magically stay attached to you.

Back in reality the rocket and gas are 2 separate objects.
You have the gas at very high pressure which is acting on the rocket to move it.

Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released
If it was just released, it would sit there doing nothing.
You need a force to have the gas come out of the rocket.
But this requires and equal and opposite force acting on the rocket.

There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally.
That requires the gas to be at 0 pressure.
That would mean no gas coming out of the rocket.


Seeing it in the basic manner is too hard for those that wish to follow a narrative of rockets hoofing themselves into their own guts.
Yes, it does seem hard for you to see it in the basic manner.

Again, the rocket is kicking itself. The pressurised gas is "kicking" the rocket.

I still can't believe people fall for this who actually have time to think on it.
We don't fall for you nonsense. We accept reality.

As soon as you post a diagram showing me how your space rockets work with a full description of everything that happens inside of it and what happens outside of it (or doesn't, according to you people).
You have been provided with one and you have completely ignored it.
Stop asking for things when you have no intention of doing anything with it.

You have even been provided with an experiment you can easily do to test your claims, but you ignore it. Why?

If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
And that barrier can include your hand, with only one side of the spring having a barrier.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1233 on: February 01, 2019, 01:27:59 PM »
Here ya go Sceptimatic


Local news channel zoomed in enough to see the booster separation then the fairing separation.  It isn’t perfectly clear as expected of something miles away...  That took 5 minutes to find, want to see more?


Amateur zooming in, near shuttle launch

This one is obviously fake as it has NASA on it

LISTEN... 3 miles away...  vertical blimp...  right...
More amateur booster separation zooming in..

These are easy to find, how many more would you like to see?
You clearly read what I asked of you and you've clearly not provided what I asked of you.
I'm not commenting on those videos. They're ridiculous to be fair. Especially the one with rentacrowd on near the countdown clock.
What an absolute joke.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1234 on: February 01, 2019, 01:40:08 PM »
I'm not commenting on those videos.
You clearly have no rational response so you need to dismiss them.

Now, I have provided a diagram of how a rocket works, complete with an explanation according to real physics.
The pressurised gas inside the rocket will expand, and in doing so push the rocket upwards while the gas is ejected out the bottom at high velocity.
Now how about you try providing a diagram or explaining what is wrong with that explanation?
In doing so, be sure to explain how the gas comes out the bottom, without any force acting upon it which would require a reactionary force pushing the rocket upwards.

And no more nonsense of claiming that you need air to provide resistance. That has been refuted multiple times.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1235 on: February 01, 2019, 01:41:13 PM »
TO translate Sceptimatic...   find me an amateur video where they zoom in to see the rockets, but not against any space background.  I show him some, but then the quality is too poor and are laughable.  How about professional video? Well, those are all fake.... 

Oh wait, they have to zoom in on the rocket from an airplane, through the windows...   is that your demand now? When I find that video, what will be your excuse for that one?

Don’t you see a problem with your demands Sceptimatic?  They are impossible.

Why don’t you take an 8 inch telephoto lens like this person and catch them in their fakery?  Show us all up how fake it all is?  Surely all it would take would be your filming of it with a powerful telephoto lens right?  It is so obviously fake!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1236 on: February 01, 2019, 01:41:25 PM »
Are you saying that there is no propellant burning and expanding inside the rocket engine?
That's exactly what I'm saying, bearing in mind we are talking about your liquid and oxy fuel in so called pressurised tanks..

Quote from: markjo
All that's happening is stacking. The rocket is basically stacking and sitting on the burning fuel against the compressed atmosphere.
How can a heavy rocket stack on top of light exhaust gasses?
Because it's a one potato two potato job all the way up. Thrust against squeeze, thrust against squeeze.

Quote from: markjo
The atmosphere is doing the reactionary work to the action of the expanded fuel into it.
It's compressing by super expansion of gases which create a massive low pressure in the middle of the flame, leaving the outer atmosphere compressed to hell, as well as into the stack.
Huh?  Compressed by super expansion?  How does that make any sense?  Why doesn't the heavy rocket fall into the massive low pressure in the middle?
Because it's immediately filled with the high pressure spring back of the atmosphere as it thrusts into it.


Quote from: markjo
It all springs back onto that thrust and squeezes that rocket up on that thrusting burn alone.
So the thrust is pushing the rocket up after all?
Of course but not inside the rocket. It's creating the push back onto it by releasing it's burning fuel into the atmosphere and this is where all the work is done.

Quote from: markjo
I still can't believe people fall for this who actually have time to think on it.
Maybe people "fall for it" because simple experiments show that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation.
I don't disagree. It's a good dupe but that's all it is and many can be fooled with it, clearly.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1237 on: February 01, 2019, 01:42:58 PM »

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
Hmm. Only earlier you were saying that barrier was air.
The same as the barrier for a rocket exhaust is air, allegedly.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1238 on: February 01, 2019, 01:49:28 PM »
Spend a day, a week, a month, a year away and the stupidest flat Earth ideas are still put forth without a single shread of verifiable evidence.  We try to inform you of how to do testing, you complain that it costs money, you don't have time, the makers of the sensors and equipment are in on the conspiracy, etc.  Never once trying to test your own theories, just insulting others for questioning your clearly idiotic statements.  Flat Earth is a mental illness, it has to be.
It's strange that because I provide you with the means to test and it doesn't cost a fortune and in fact costs about a £1 $1 or whatever if the so called scientists have an evacuation chamber.
But guess what?
Nobody wants to do any tests. It all goes quiet and instead people argue against my tests saying they don't prove anything. That is absolute dishonesty, so don't be coming that nonsense.

The only test I've seen you mention involves a vacuum chamber, coffee can lid, some necklace beads and a motor to spin the lid. Are there other tests you've performed? If so, describe them. What were the results? Can we see any of these tests you performed on YT by you or someone else? Are there any papers by others out there about the tests that are similar to the ones you have performed we can look at?

You keep on saying things like, I paraphrase, "the tests I have performed destroy gravity, rockets, etc." Yet you never tell us what those tests/experiments were let alone what the results were. It's like you're hiding something.

If you don't want to perform the tests then don't. It's no skin off my nose and I'm not the one that needs to prove anything to the likes of you. No offence but you are not important to me to care whether you do the experiment.
The people that I do have time for are those that are willing to see what the tests prove against what you people push.

Wow, you really are trying to hide something. When asked for a description of the tests/experiments you claimed to have performed and their results that prove your claims you answer with "If you don't want to perform the tests then don't."

It's pretty hard to determine if I want to do the tests or not considering I don't know what they are b/c you won't tell anyone what they are even when asked repeatedly what they are.

What are you so afraid of in revealing what your tests are?
The experiments are all there for you to do. They are all there for you to do....or don't do. I have nothing to hide. Why should I?

Where? Where are the experiments? Which one of your experiments shows ICBM's can't work as commonly described? You still, after being asked many, many times, won't reveal anything about the experiments you have done. Why is that?

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1239 on: February 01, 2019, 01:53:03 PM »
That's exactly what I'm saying, bearing in mind we are talking about your liquid and oxy fuel in so called pressurised tanks.
And with that you show that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and contradicted yourself yet again.

Of course but not inside the rocket. It's creating the push back onto it by releasing it's burning fuel into the atmosphere and this is where all the work is done.
If it is happening there, then it isn't doing anything to the rocket.
The only way to transfer the energy to the rocket, is with that hot pressurised gas pushing the rocket up.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1240 on: February 01, 2019, 02:02:55 PM »
Could we all agree that sceptimatic will never "get it" and never change so further discussion on this and the related denpressure is quite pointless?

Sceptimatic gets all his ideas out of his imagination and "proves them" by his own thought experiments where he imagines what would happen thus verifying his hypothesis.

Here is (a slightly amended) post I hade earlier in this very thread. I put 'a person like Sceppy' in place of something less complimentary ;):
To Sceppy: I do sympathise with one of your brilliance having to interact with us mere mortals:
     
“People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.”
                                                                                  ― Bill Watterson, The Calvin And Hobbes: Tenth Anniversary Book

To myself and others: Sometimes it's hard to resist responding but:
     

“Never argue with 'a person like Sceppy'. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
                                                                                  ― Mark Twain

How to argue with 'a person like Sceppy': Don't
      Arguing with 'a person like Sceppy' can be time consuming and mentally draining.
Arguing with 'a person like Sceppy' is a lot like a saying my dad used to tell me,
"Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it."
In other words, don't argue with 'a person like Sceppy', you both look stupid and the 'person like Sceppy'enjoys it!”
                                                                                  ― Possibly George Bernard Shaw
But we'll all probably ignore this and carry on especially as exactly the same thing can be said about debating with any flat-earther: The Conversation, How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though).

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1241 on: February 01, 2019, 02:14:39 PM »
Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released
If it was just released, it would sit there doing nothing.
You need a force to have the gas come out of the rocket.
But this requires and equal and opposite force acting on the rocket.
There is a force.
Once you open a valve to allow fuel and oxy to escape, it does so by expanding into atmosphere.
This expansion from a tank is what's known as a molecular expansion against molecular resistance. Basically each set of molecules uses a leverage to push off of.
I'll make it easier.
It's like having a tank full of sponges and opening it to allow those sponges to decompress (expand).
The only force in the tank is molecule on molecules, unless you create that resistance of sponges  to it as it comes out which will push it back.
This can only be achieved by hitting atmosphere. It cannot be achieved inside the rocket alone.

Quote from: JackBlack
There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally.
That requires the gas to be at 0 pressure.
That would mean no gas coming out of the rocket.
Inside the pressurised tank the gas will be at enormous pressure.
If you were to open that valve to allow that pressure to expand and you had no resistance to it coming out, as in atmospheric resistance, then you would expand into nothing. It's impossible.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, the rocket is kicking itself. The pressurised gas is "kicking" the rocket.
No it's not.
The rocket is running away from it's thrust and is able to do do because the atmosphere provides the chase.

Quote from: JackBlack
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
And that barrier can include your hand, with only one side of the spring having a barrier.
All your hand is, is a foundation to the end of the spring.
The force on the end of that spring is negligible to any recoil.
A recoil can only happen if there's a decent resistance to the uncoil.
Mr Jack in the box will explain this.






*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1242 on: February 01, 2019, 02:19:18 PM »
I'm not commenting on those videos.
You clearly have no rational response so you need to dismiss them.

Now, I have provided a diagram of how a rocket works, complete with an explanation according to real physics.
The pressurised gas inside the rocket will expand, and in doing so push the rocket upwards while the gas is ejected out the bottom at high velocity.
Now how about you try providing a diagram or explaining what is wrong with that explanation?
In doing so, be sure to explain how the gas comes out the bottom, without any force acting upon it which would require a reactionary force pushing the rocket upwards.

And no more nonsense of claiming that you need air to provide resistance. That has been refuted multiple times.


 I'll respond to your diagram when you draw one explaining exactly what you believe is happening. Sticking up two arrows one saying action and another saying reaction means nothing.
Explain it in atmosphere and your space.
Let's see what you've got and I'll be happy to put a diagram up explaining my side quite clearly.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1243 on: February 01, 2019, 02:22:32 PM »
TO translate Sceptimatic...   find me an amateur video where they zoom in to see the rockets, but not against any space background.  I show him some, but then the quality is too poor and are laughable.  How about professional video? Well, those are all fake.... 

Oh wait, they have to zoom in on the rocket from an airplane, through the windows...   is that your demand now? When I find that video, what will be your excuse for that one?

Don’t you see a problem with your demands Sceptimatic?  They are impossible.

Why don’t you take an 8 inch telephoto lens like this person and catch them in their fakery?  Show us all up how fake it all is?  Surely all it would take would be your filming of it with a powerful telephoto lens right?  It is so obviously fake!
Jumping about doesn't aid you at all.
Just provide what I asked for. It's not a case of " oh scepti you're asking for a plane shot zoom in of the shuttle through the clouds, now?"

I was asking that anyway, not just deciding to.
I know why you've went into raptures. It's because you can't find one and it's irritating you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1244 on: February 01, 2019, 02:30:01 PM »

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
Hmm. Only earlier you were saying that barrier was air.
The same as the barrier for a rocket exhaust is air, allegedly.
The barrier is always air. Always, no matter what. It just depends on the how it impacts.
A spring in your hand held by your fingers  and released will hit air above but it will create marginal effect against your hand. Enough to dismiss.
All you hand will be is a foundation.
The uncoil of the spring is by it's own expansion from the compression that you created with your hand in the first place.
Your hand did it's work in holding it after compression.
Releasing it allows the spring to do it's work but it will only waste it against the atmosphere if you don't add something as a decent resistance.
This would be a piston in a gun that would compress air and propel the pellet.
Put a cushing near the spring and let loose and you'll feel recoil a little as it hits the cushion which arrests the decompression by resisting it, creating that push back.

It's not hard to see how it works.
The rocket explanation is absolute nonsense but a definite good dupe of those that don't think on it.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1245 on: February 01, 2019, 02:31:23 PM »
Great!  Now link the conversation on how to test your claims.  Prove you were not lying, then we will proceed.  Also, strong armour...  Hilarious.  I'm STILL waiting, you are STILL blowing smoke.
Test my claims for what?
How about you test your claims against what you think my claims are.

First let's start with this lie... err, claim.
Where have you EVER given me a $1 test for your lunacy?   
Spend a day, a week, a month, a year away and the stupidest flat Earth ideas are still put forth without a single shread of verifiable evidence.  We try to inform you of how to do testing, you complain that it costs money, you don't have time, the makers of the sensors and equipment are in on the conspiracy, etc.  Never once trying to test your own theories, just insulting others for questioning your clearly idiotic statements.  Flat Earth is a mental illness, it has to be.
It's strange that because I provide you with the means to test and it doesn't cost a fortune and in fact costs about a £1 $1 or whatever if the so called scientists have an evacuation chamber.
But guess what?
Nobody wants to do any tests. It all goes quiet and instead people argue against my tests saying they don't prove anything. That is absolute dishonesty, so don't be coming that nonsense.
Then we can move on to denpressure and how a simple vacuum chamber that can reduce the pressure pretty far down yet zero change in weight happens.  That makes your "claims" laughable.  Again, I get it, you need something to make yourself feel more important, you aren't, but I see why you need that. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1246 on: February 01, 2019, 02:36:15 PM »
That's exactly what I'm saying, bearing in mind we are talking about your liquid and oxy fuel in so called pressurised tanks.
And with that you show that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and contradicted yourself yet again.

Of course but not inside the rocket. It's creating the push back onto it by releasing it's burning fuel into the atmosphere and this is where all the work is done.
If it is happening there, then it isn't doing anything to the rocket.
The only way to transfer the energy to the rocket, is with that hot pressurised gas pushing the rocket up.
It is....from outside of the rocket.

If you want to change to solid fuel rockets like fireworks then we can start to see what happens inside the rocket where it does actually burn.

Do you want to go through this or are you dodgy about it?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1247 on: February 01, 2019, 02:45:03 PM »
Could we all agree that sceptimatic will never "get it" and never change so further discussion on this and the related denpressure is quite pointless?

Sceptimatic gets all his ideas out of his imagination and "proves them" by his own thought experiments where he imagines what would happen thus verifying his hypothesis.

Here is (a slightly amended) post I hade earlier in this very thread. I put 'a person like Sceppy' in place of something less complimentary ;):
To Sceppy: I do sympathise with one of your brilliance having to interact with us mere mortals:
     
“People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.”
                                                                                  ― Bill Watterson, The Calvin And Hobbes: Tenth Anniversary Book

To myself and others: Sometimes it's hard to resist responding but:
     

“Never argue with 'a person like Sceppy'. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
                                                                                  ― Mark Twain

How to argue with 'a person like Sceppy': Don't
      Arguing with 'a person like Sceppy' can be time consuming and mentally draining.
Arguing with 'a person like Sceppy' is a lot like a saying my dad used to tell me,
"Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it."
In other words, don't argue with 'a person like Sceppy', you both look stupid and the 'person like Sceppy'enjoys it!”
                                                                                  ― Possibly George Bernard Shaw
But we'll all probably ignore this and carry on especially as exactly the same thing can be said about debating with any flat-earther: The Conversation, How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though).
One thing that certainly won't beat me is your reliance on using the stuff above to supposedly gain some kind of one-upmanship.
This shows extreme weakness on your part.

Don't tell everyone not to take me on. You buck that trend and let other follow if they wish to. It's no skin off my nose. I still stand by what I say and will continue to go through it all over and over again regardless of whether it irritates.

Just remember that different minds come here all of the time. What's old to you is new to them. remember that.



Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1248 on: February 01, 2019, 02:46:52 PM »
TO translate Sceptimatic...   find me an amateur video where they zoom in to see the rockets, but not against any space background.  I show him some, but then the quality is too poor and are laughable.  How about professional video? Well, those are all fake.... 

Oh wait, they have to zoom in on the rocket from an airplane, through the windows...   is that your demand now? When I find that video, what will be your excuse for that one?

Don’t you see a problem with your demands Sceptimatic?  They are impossible.

Why don’t you take an 8 inch telephoto lens like this person and catch them in their fakery?  Show us all up how fake it all is?  Surely all it would take would be your filming of it with a powerful telephoto lens right?  It is so obviously fake!

Like i said JCM, don't fall for his royal trollness.
goal posts keep moving.
You will never find his version of "evidence".

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1249 on: February 01, 2019, 02:53:39 PM »
There is a force.
Glad you agree. That means no need for the atmosphere, as that force requires a reactionary force on the rocket.
Done.

Otherwise, i.e. if there is no force, there is nothing to cause the expansion and thus the gas would not expand.

This expansion from a tank is what's known as
No. It is what is known as a pressure differential.
You have high pressure in one environment and low or no pressure in another.
This pressure differential forces the molecules out.

The only force in the tank is molecule on molecules
aka pressure, and unless it is balanced in all directions it will generate a net force on the tank.

This can only be achieved by hitting atmosphere. It cannot be achieved inside the rocket alone.
No, there is absolutely no requirement for the atmosphere.
You have pressurised gas.
This will exert a force on the container.

If you were to open that valve to allow that pressure to expand and you had no resistance to it coming out, as in atmospheric resistance, then you would expand into nothing. It's impossible.
Just what magically makes this impossible?
If there is nothing in its way, just what is there to stop it?

The rocket is running away from it's thrust
No, its "thrust" i.e. the hot gasses escaping, are pushing the rocket away.
The atmosphere can't magically push it.

All your hand is, is a foundation to the end of the spring.
No, it is a barrier.

The force on the end of that spring is negligible to any recoil.
That depends entirely upon the spring. If you have a tiny spring then the recoil from it will be tiny.
Like I said, I have provided a nice simple experiment you can do to test this.

I'll respond to your diagram when you draw one explaining exactly what you believe is happening.
I have explained.
You ignoring it doesn't magically change it.

Explain it in atmosphere and your space.
The explanation is the same.
You have high pressure gas inside the rocket forcing it up.

I'll be happy to put a diagram up explaining my side quite clearly.
Then hurry up and put one up.

The barrier is always air.
Which should mean that it doesn't matter if you release the spring into the air or into a solid brick.
But it does matter.

waste it against the atmosphere if you don't add something as a decent resistance.
Again, you claim the atmosphere is magically the only thing providing the resistance.

The rocket explanation is absolute nonsense but a definite good dupe of those that don't think on it.
If it was nonsense you would easily be able to show it as such, as we have shown your magic air resistance as such.
But instead all you can do is ridicule it and dismiss it.

It is....from outside of the rocket.
So you accept it is the hot pressurised gas pushing the rocket up now? No need for your magic atmosphere?

If you want to change to solid fuel rockets like fireworks then we can start to see what happens inside the rocket where it does actually burn.
As they operate via fundamentally the same principles we are discussing both.
Both have fuel. Both burn the fuel. Both fuels result in hot, pressurised gas being produced. The pressurised gas pushes the rocket up from inside, without needing the atmosphere.

Do you want to go through this or are you dodgy about it?
You are the one refusing to go through it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1250 on: February 01, 2019, 02:55:00 PM »
TO translate Sceptimatic...   find me an amateur video where they zoom in to see the rockets, but not against any space background.  I show him some, but then the quality is too poor and are laughable.  How about professional video? Well, those are all fake.... 

Oh wait, they have to zoom in on the rocket from an airplane, through the windows...   is that your demand now? When I find that video, what will be your excuse for that one?

Don’t you see a problem with your demands Sceptimatic?  They are impossible.

Why don’t you take an 8 inch telephoto lens like this person and catch them in their fakery?  Show us all up how fake it all is?  Surely all it would take would be your filming of it with a powerful telephoto lens right?  It is so obviously fake!

Like i said JCM, don't fall for his royal trollness.
goal posts keep moving.
You will never find his version of "evidence".
Correct, no one will until they ensure the foundation is built before the walls and the roof, etc.
Too many try to build their own wall on limited foundation and end up having to start all over again.

Does anyone have the patience to actually build this up from my points of view?
I don't know.

It is what it is and will be what it will be over time as I keep adding a piece to the puzzle.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1251 on: February 01, 2019, 02:56:26 PM »
Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released
If it was just released, it would sit there doing nothing.
You need a force to have the gas come out of the rocket.
But this requires and equal and opposite force acting on the rocket.
There is a force.
Once you open a valve to allow fuel and oxy to escape, it does so by expanding into atmosphere.
This expansion from a tank is what's known as a molecular expansion against molecular resistance. Basically each set of molecules uses a leverage to push off of.
I'll make it easier.
It's like having a tank full of sponges and opening it to allow those sponges to decompress (expand).
The only force in the tank is molecule on molecules, unless you create that resistance of sponges  to it as it comes out which will push it back.
This can only be achieved by hitting atmosphere. It cannot be achieved inside the rocket alone.

Quote from: JackBlack
There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally.
That requires the gas to be at 0 pressure.
That would mean no gas coming out of the rocket.
Inside the pressurised tank the gas will be at enormous pressure.
If you were to open that valve to allow that pressure to expand and you had no resistance to it coming out, as in atmospheric resistance, then you would expand into nothing. It's impossible.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, the rocket is kicking itself. The pressurised gas is "kicking" the rocket.
No it's not.
The rocket is running away from it's thrust and is able to do do because the atmosphere provides the chase.

Quote from: JackBlack
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
And that barrier can include your hand, with only one side of the spring having a barrier.
All your hand is, is a foundation to the end of the spring.
The force on the end of that spring is negligible to any recoil.
A recoil can only happen if there's a decent resistance to the uncoil.
Mr Jack in the box will explain this.

how scepti sees the world:




or that he must be 5yrs old and watches too many cartoons:


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1252 on: February 01, 2019, 02:59:27 PM »
I'm not commenting on those videos.
You clearly have no rational response so you need to dismiss them.

Now, I have provided a diagram of how a rocket works, complete with an explanation according to real physics.
The pressurised gas inside the rocket will expand, and in doing so push the rocket upwards while the gas is ejected out the bottom at high velocity.
Now how about you try providing a diagram or explaining what is wrong with that explanation?
In doing so, be sure to explain how the gas comes out the bottom, without any force acting upon it which would require a reactionary force pushing the rocket upwards.

And no more nonsense of claiming that you need air to provide resistance. That has been refuted multiple times.


 I'll respond to your diagram when you draw one explaining exactly what you believe is happening. Sticking up two arrows one saying action and another saying reaction means nothing.
Explain it in atmosphere and your space.
Let's see what you've got and I'll be happy to put a diagram up explaining my side quite clearly.

everyone else understood it.
everyone else is confused when you misuse words.
everyone else didn't understand your stupidass house with windows.
everyone else is telling you to provide a diagram or youtube your experiment.

guess where the commonality lies?
think
basically.

and simply.


where.


the.



issue.




lies.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1253 on: February 01, 2019, 03:03:24 PM »
Does anyone have the patience to actually build this up from my points of view?
Plenty have tried, but you wish to avoid explanations with flawed analogies and rush ahead to avoid the problems.

If you want to appeal to denpressure to try and explain it then you need to go to the denpressure thread and show the basics of denpressure.

See if you can actually explain why the current model is nonsense, without ridiculing it or misrepresenting it.

Perhaps we can even start with some of the basics of that.
Do you accept how pressure works? i.e. a gas under pressure tries to push things?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1254 on: February 01, 2019, 03:03:52 PM »

As they operate via fundamentally the same principles we are discussing both.
Both have fuel. Both burn the fuel. Both fuels result in hot, pressurised gas being produced. The pressurised gas pushes the rocket up from inside, without needing the atmosphere.

No, the pressurised gas does not push the rocket up from the inside, at all.
Let me put this to you.
Do you agree that a rocket must thrust enough to lift it's own mass and fuel?
Now lets take the so called saturn V at supposedly 3000 tonnes.

Tell me where enough force can be created inside that rocket to supposedly push that 3000 tonne rocket up.
Where is that pressure coming from?

And also tell me why it wouldn't blow that rocket to smithereens if it was having to hold that mass against thrust.

It's pure nonsense.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1255 on: February 01, 2019, 03:04:47 PM »
TO translate Sceptimatic...   find me an amateur video where they zoom in to see the rockets, but not against any space background.  I show him some, but then the quality is too poor and are laughable.  How about professional video? Well, those are all fake.... 

Oh wait, they have to zoom in on the rocket from an airplane, through the windows...   is that your demand now? When I find that video, what will be your excuse for that one?

Don’t you see a problem with your demands Sceptimatic?  They are impossible.

Why don’t you take an 8 inch telephoto lens like this person and catch them in their fakery?  Show us all up how fake it all is?  Surely all it would take would be your filming of it with a powerful telephoto lens right?  It is so obviously fake!

Like i said JCM, don't fall for his royal trollness.
goal posts keep moving.
You will never find his version of "evidence".
Correct, no one will until they ensure the foundation is built before the walls and the roof, etc.
Too many try to build their own wall on limited foundation and end up having to start all over again.

Does anyone have the patience to actually build this up from my points of view?
I don't know.

It is what it is and will be what it will be over time as I keep adding a piece to the puzzle.

patience yes.
we got your point of view.
we are smart people.
we have shown you your theory has holes and contradicts itself with itself and with reality.
what are you not comprehending.
re read this aloud.

we have shown you your theory has holes and contradicts itself with itself and with reality.

and one more time for fun.

we have shown you your theory has holes and contradicts itself with itself and with reality.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1256 on: February 01, 2019, 03:05:31 PM »

As they operate via fundamentally the same principles we are discussing both.
Both have fuel. Both burn the fuel. Both fuels result in hot, pressurised gas being produced. The pressurised gas pushes the rocket up from inside, without needing the atmosphere.

No, the pressurised gas does not push the rocket up from the inside, at all.
Let me put this to you.
Do you agree that a rocket must thrust enough to lift it's own mass and fuel?
Now lets take the so called saturn V at supposedly 3000 tonnes.

Tell me where enough force can be created inside that rocket to supposedly push that 3000 tonne rocket up.
Where is that pressure coming from?

And also tell me why it wouldn't blow that rocket to smithereens if it was having to hold that mass against thrust.

It's pure nonsense.
Learn about science and engineering.

End of discussion.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1257 on: February 01, 2019, 03:05:43 PM »
Does anyone have the patience to actually build this up from my points of view?
Plenty have tried, but you wish to avoid explanations with flawed analogies and rush ahead to avoid the problems.

If you want to appeal to denpressure to try and explain it then you need to go to the denpressure thread and show the basics of denpressure.

See if you can actually explain why the current model is nonsense, without ridiculing it or misrepresenting it.

Perhaps we can even start with some of the basics of that.
Do you accept how pressure works? i.e. a gas under pressure tries to push things?

proper drawing and youtube experiments!

thanks!

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1258 on: February 01, 2019, 04:03:21 PM »
No, the pressurised gas does not push the rocket up from the inside, at all.
The only way for that to happen is if it isn't pressurised, or if it is entirely contained.

Let me put this to you.
Do you agree that a rocket must thrust enough to lift it's own mass and fuel?
Yes.

Tell me where enough force can be created inside that rocket to supposedly push that 3000 tonne rocket up.
Where is that pressure coming from?
The pressure is coming from the gas.

And also tell me why it wouldn't blow that rocket to smithereens if it was having to hold that mass against thrust.
It isn't magically holding the mass. The mass is being moved by that thrust.
Why should it blow the rocket to smithereens?
It is made out of materials which can handle the pressure.

Have you actually done any of the math?

Remember, in the context of rocket engines, until you are below the bottom of the nozzle, you are still inside the rocket, and the hot expanding gas pushing on the nozzles is still pushing the rocket up.
The Saturn V has a mass of roughly 3 million kg. To lift it against Earth's gravity it would need to provide roughly 10 (from the 9.8 m/s^2) time that but in N, i.e. 30 million Newtons.
It has 5 engines for its first stage. That means each must be able to produce roughly 6 million Newtons.
Each has a radius of roughly 1.86 m (for the effective area to push the rocket up), giving an area of roughly 10 m^2.
This means Each must be able to handle a pressure of roughly 600 000 Pa, which is roughly 6 bar.

Even if you have the pressure inside the chamber in crease by a factor of 10 (it does expand as it comes out into the nozzle), that is still only 60 bar. (The listed is 70 bar)

Are you really going to suggest that would be enough to blow it apart, even though we can easily make containers capable of withstanding 200 bar?

As for where the pressure can be created, well they take liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, with basically 0 volume (compared to the gas), and turn it into a hot gas (water) which wants to take up a lot more volume.

It's pure nonsense.
Then why are you completely unable to show it to be nonsense and instead need to repeatedly ridicule it?

Now, like I said:
Do you accept that pressure results in a push, i.e. gas under pressure will push things?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1259 on: February 01, 2019, 07:32:13 PM »
Are you saying that there is no propellant burning and expanding inside the rocket engine?
That's exactly what I'm saying, bearing in mind we are talking about your liquid and oxy fuel in so called pressurised tanks..
Actually, the oxygen and fuel are usually pumped into the engine, but whatever.

So if the oxygen and fuel aren't burning inside the rocket engine, then what's going on here?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.