Intercontinental ballistic missile

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2019, 06:23:59 AM

It's funny because people actually overlooked a massive massive error in an experiment  to prove rockets work in so called space or a so called near vacuum.

The one they couldn't get to ignite but then managed to do it in the big long so called vacuum chamber.
Anyone remember this?

Eventually they showed that a rocket could work in space by using a scale measuring inside the chamber.
Anyone any wiser?

The rocket, once ignited after a few goes exerted pressure onto the scale.

Anyone remember now?

Can any genuine person see where the massive error was made in trying to fool us into believing rockets work in space?

I'll let people ponder on this. Come of alternative thinkers to the mainstream ideals, don't let the globalists have their own way to try and get out of this one because it's a beauty.

I'll be back in a short while to see if anyone has sussed the major error.

You only think there is an error because you don’t understand basic physics and chemistry.

You don't have to be any super tefal head to see what massive mistake was made.
You know which experiment I'm talking about, right?

I suppose I'll have to explain the major mess up that was to supposedly prove rockets work in a so called vacuum of space or so called super low pressure and yet it ended up proving the opposite and proving rockets require atmosphere to create that equal reaction to its action. Thrust against atmospheric resistance.



Anyone see the problem?

You see, he used the nose of the firework pressed against the scale plate. Now even though you can clearly see it acting against atmosphere with the massive flame build, This isn't really the issue worth arguing because it becomes a " no it isn't, it's in a vacuum" nonsense and a yes it is pushing against atmosphere and that's why it builds as the compression becomes more intense."


However, the telling point is when he does the next experiment and takes the rocket away from the scale plate to supposedly show the atmosphere is not what pushes onto it.
Problem?
He does not turn the rocket around to face away from the scale plate to show the actual rocket thrust pushing against it whilst resisting the opposite movement of that rocket.

Instead he keeps the rocket's arse end facing away from the scale plate as he removes the rocket nose from the touch of that scale plate.
Does anyone see how dishonest this is?

I dont expect globalists to come in and agree so let's get that straight before you all dive it.

I would like a few alternate thinkers/free thinkers/flat Earth theorists to come in and put their point across if they so wish.
Most likely they won't because poor old scepti is basically despised on here. 

Quote from: Mainframes on February 17, 2019, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2019, 06:23:59 AM

It's funny because people actually overlooked a massive massive error in an experiment  to prove rockets work in so called space or a so called near vacuum.

The one they couldn't get to ignite but then managed to do it in the big long so called vacuum chamber.
Anyone remember this?

Eventually they showed that a rocket could work in space by using a scale measuring inside the chamber.
Anyone any wiser?

The rocket, once ignited after a few goes exerted pressure onto the scale.

Anyone remember now?

Can any genuine person see where the massive error was made in trying to fool us into believing rockets work in space?

I'll let people ponder on this. Come of alternative thinkers to the mainstream ideals, don't let the globalists have their own way to try and get out of this one because it's a beauty.

I'll be back in a short while to see if anyone has sussed the major error.

You only think there is an error because you don’t understand basic physics and chemistry.

You don't have to be any super tefal head to see what massive mistake was made.
You know which experiment I'm talking about, right?

I suppose I'll have to explain the major mess up that was to supposedly prove rockets work in a so called vacuum of space or so called super low pressure and yet it ended up proving the opposite and proving rockets require atmosphere to create that equal reaction to its action. Thrust against atmospheric resistance.



Anyone see the problem?

You see, he used the nose of the firework pressed against the scale plate. Now even though you can clearly see it acting against atmosphere with the massive flame build, This isn't really the issue worth arguing because it becomes a " no it isn't, it's in a vacuum" nonsense and a yes it is pushing against atmosphere and that's why it builds as the compression becomes more intense."

Of course "he used the nose of the firework pressed against the scale plate"! How else would you measure the thrust generated by the rocket?

The weakness I do see is that the pressure in such a small chamber might build up from the exhaust from the rocket.
I would like to have seen a much larger chamber and/or a measure of the pressure in the chamber before and after.

However, the telling point is when he does the next experiment and takes the rocket away from the scale plate to supposedly show the atmosphere is not what pushes onto it.
Problem?
He does not turn the rocket around to face away from the scale plate to show the actual rocket thrust pushing against it whilst resisting the opposite movement of that rocket.

Why would he? He is measuring the force on the rocket from the rocket motor and nothing else.

Instead, he keeps the rocket's arse end facing away from the scale plate as he removes the rocket nose from the touch of that scale plate.
Does anyone see how dishonest this is?

No, it is not dishonest! He is measuring exactly what he intending to measure. When a rocket if far above the ground there is nothing solid to "push against".

I dont expect globalists to come in and agree so let's get that straight before you all dive it.

I would like a few alternate thinkers/free thinkers/flat Earth theorists to come in and put their point across if they so wish.
Most likely they won't because poor old scepti is basically despised on here. 

And I wonder why that is Sceppy? Let's wait and see what these "few alternate thinkers/free thinkers/flat Earth theorists" have to say.

Inertia isn't a thing so using it is a massive duping cop out.

No, you dismissing it, when you have in fact used it is a massive cop out.
It is summed in the first law, which you have agreed to. If it wasn't a thing, objects would just fly around with absolutely no reason to.
It would mean that objects can accelerate without any force applied or regardless of what force is applied. You could be sitting in your car then all of a sudden, for no reason at all it just flies into the air and spins wildly. You are driving along a freeway at 100 km/hr and then all of a sudden the car just stops for no reason at all, while the car behind magically jumps up to 500 km/hr. That is the kind of insanity you would need to accept to reject inertia.

So do you accept that insanity, that objects magically move around, accelerating for no reason at all?
If not, stop saying it isn't a thing.

It is a fundamentally part of how reality works.
You dismissing it in some cases because it shows your arguments to be garbage is a massive cop out.

It's nonsensical but one hell of a dupe for those unwilling to question it.

If it was nonsense, you would be able to explain why rather than repeatedly asserting the same nonsense.
Again, the rocket (bottle in this case) has pressurised air inside.
This means a pressure gradient exists against the wall of the rocket.
This will result in a force on the wall of the container.
If this is not balanced all around the container, such as due to a region of the wall being missing, while the corresponding wall in the opposite direction is intact, the object will experience a net force from this pressure.
The air the water interacts with once it is out of the rocket is almost entirely irrelevant. It is not needed for rocket to move.

Repeatedly dismissing reality as nonsense doesn't magically make it so.
You need to provide a reason why it is nonsense.

Newtons cradle answers a lot of questions if people actually look at it in simple terms.
You clearly know that it works on compression

Yes, and it shows your claims to be garbage.
You can call it compression if you really want, but notice how that isn't friction, and it doesn't use friction?
The only way for a force to not be applied in this case is for the balls to move through each other.
Otherwise the moving ball can't pass the stationary one and thus imparts a force to move it. This is done by electrostatic interactions which prevent the balls from occupying the same space. There is no friction involved.

So you can't do it then. No problem.

I have done it, multiple times, and did it again in that post.
Why do you need to lie so much?
Why do you need to continually make such pathetic demands which are easily met?
Why do you need to continually ignore it when those demands are met?
Why are you completely incapable of justifying your own claims and instead need to resort to such pathetic distractions?

Now how about you quit the pathetic BS and start justifying your claims?

You assert that everything needs to air to move. Prove it or stop claiming it.

it becomes a " no it isn't, it's in a vacuum" nonsense

Which means the only kind of experiment of a rocket in a vacuum that you would accept is NONE!
You reject any done on Earth, because it is impossible to maintain the vacuum with a rocket engine which is producing gas, and you reject it in space, because you reject space.
As such, any request by you to ask for evidence for a rocket working in a vacuum is extremely dishonest and is not an attempt to find the truth.

No, it is not dishonest! He is measuring exactly what he intending to measure. When a rocket if far above the ground there is nothing solid to "push against".

No Rab there isn't but there is a build up of pressure that becomes a resistant bed for the thrusting rocket.
Pushing into the scale is one thing but proving the so called exhaust does the job we know it really does would be to turn that rocket around and have it thrust its so called exhaust against that scale plate.
There's a reason why it was never done because it would show what is being hidden. And that is, rockets need external atmosphere to work/thrust against just like everything else.

You don't require solid to push against you just need the pressure of the resistance to thrust.
The atmosphere provides that exceptionally well.

You can call it compression if you really want, but notice how that isn't friction, and it doesn't use friction?

You can't have compression without friction. You're just arguing for the sake of it.

You don't require solid to push against you just need the pressure of the resistance to thrust.
The atmosphere provides that exceptionally well.

So wait, then rockets do work as advertised as long as they are within the atmosphere? Because the atmosphere provides resistance for the rocket to push against exceptionally well?

So after all this time, all the rocket footage shown that is within our atmosphere is totally legit, no problems, because they would work just fine, according to you, because they are pushing against the atmosphere? It's only when we get to rockets in space that you have a problem?

I'm confused.

Pushing into the scale is one thing but proving the so called exhaust does the job we know it really does would be to turn that rocket around and have it thrust its so called exhaust against that scale plate.

No, that wouldn't prove it at all.
Proving it would require doing it in a vacuum and not getting any force on the rocket. Not by sucking air the other way or by having it push into a piece of paper, actually having it in a vacuum.

You can't have compression without friction. You're just arguing for the sake of it.

No, you are just baselessly asserting crap for the sake of it.
Compression does not require friction.
Stop just asserting crap and start justifying it.

Explain why everything needs the air to move, or stop asserting it does.

Quick question scepti: have you ever fired a model rocket, firecracker, or anything similar?

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

So all of the V2 rockets used in WW2 to cause extensive damage across multiple countries just don't exist, and the literal thousands of ICBMs we put into silos across America and other parts of the world were all fake? I think not. To blatantly disregard evidence such as this shows how flawed your argument is.

Quick question scepti: have you ever fired a model rocket, firecracker, or anything similar?

He says he has, or at least has watched them, but he only watches the initial launch.

Quick question scepti: have you ever fired a model rocket, firecracker, or anything similar?

Yep. all of them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

So it can't be simply explained for anyone to understand?
Pretty convenient isn't it?
How about you just tell me what it is as a force then.

If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.

Well here's something for you to ponder.
When you exhaust something you get rid of spent fuel.
This is the nonsense with the rocket.
The trouble is everyone can plainly see that the fuel is absolutely not spent as it exist the rocket, it's actually doing a job right at that nozzle and so far out into the atmosphere.
What is it doing?
It's expanding that atmosphere by rushing the atmosphere away from it's burn, which compresses the atmosphere massively against the massive expansion of the fuel burn.

It's a mutual action and equal and opposite reaction as the end product of the first action and reaction of the fuel being expelled to be mixed for that burn.

Two things going on as far as fuel is concerned.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

So all of the V2 rockets used in WW2 to cause extensive damage across multiple countries just don't exist, and the literal thousands of ICBMs we put into silos across America and other parts of the world were all fake? I think not. To blatantly disregard evidence such as this shows how flawed your argument is.

Yep, basically, in terms of the way we were all told they worked.
In my opinion of course. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 19, 2019, 06:14:41 AM

If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.

Well here's something for you to ponder.
When you exhaust something you get rid of spent fuel.
This is the nonsense with the rocket.
The trouble is everyone can plainly see that the fuel is absolutely not spent as it exist the rocket, it's actually doing a job right at that nozzle and so far out into the atmosphere.
What is it doing?
It's expanding that atmosphere by rushing the atmosphere away from it's burn, which compresses the atmosphere massively against the massive expansion of the fuel burn.

It's a mutual action and equal and opposite reaction as the end product of the first action and reaction of the fuel being expelled to be mixed for that burn.

Two things going on as far as fuel is concerned.

Does anyone have a Gibberish to English translator...?

Quote from: The_Heeter on February 19, 2019, 07:58:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

So all of the V2 rockets used in WW2 to cause extensive damage across multiple countries just don't exist, and the literal thousands of ICBMs we put into silos across America and other parts of the world were all fake? I think not. To blatantly disregard evidence such as this shows how flawed your argument is.

Yep, basically, in terms of the way we were all told they worked.
In my opinion of course. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

So your argument is not that they don't exist, rather that you don't agree with how they work. Is this because you don't believe the sources, or because you believe the science itself is flawed? I get the sense that your not a rocket scientist (Neither am I) but I think we can both agree from the mountains of evidence that whether you like it or not, they do work.

Let me try to explain it in simpler, non-science terms. lets say the rocket is coming from a U.S. silo, and going to Europe. The missile would be launched from the silo and go essentially straight up for 5 minutes. Then, the main rocket body will disconnect. Then the rocket will then begin to arc, going to roughly 3,500 miles into the air before descending to the target which will take around 2 minutes.

What about this explanation which can be easily proven by math and just watching it happen makes you believe them to be false? I do believe I have "logically looked into this" by watching footage, reading articles and stat sheets, and forming my own opinions.

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2019, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

So it can't be simply explained for anyone to understand?
Pretty convenient isn't it?

No, actually it's quite frustrating when trying to explain it to someone like you.

How about you just tell me what it is as a force then.

According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force. 

When you exhaust something you get rid of spent fuel.

No you don't.
Stop trying to equate exhaust as a verb to describe exhaust as a noun, the mixture of gas expelled by a vehicle.
It doesn't need to be completely exhausted of energy, and no form of exhaust is. In order to be completely exhausted of energy it would need to be iron or nickle, the end products of nuclear fusion/fission, at 0 K.

Even the exhaust from your car isn't spent according to your nonsense. Go feel it. Is it cold, or is it still hot?

It makes no sense for the exhaust to magically move the rocket once it has left it and started interacting with the atmosphere. There is no method of transferring the force to the rocket other than as pressure in the exhaust.
But if the pressure of the exhaust gas is capable of moving the rocket, then there is no need for air in the first place.

It's a mutual action and equal and opposite reaction

Yes, that's right. No air is required, just simple action and reaction.
The exhaust goes backwards while the rocket goes forwards.

Now again:
You have fully accepted the first law.
You have almost accepted the second but continue to assert that you magically need air.
If you want to assert you magically need air, explain why.
You are yet to do so.

Now again:
You have fully accepted the first law.
You have almost accepted the second but continue to assert that you magically need air.
If you want to assert you magically need air, explain why.
You are yet to do so.

Not quite.  He wants to assert that you magically need a resistance, which atmosphere (air) provides.
It seems to me that the metal combustion chamber and engine bell of a rocket engine provide plenty of resistance for the exhaust gasses to push against.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:53:15 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on February 19, 2019, 06:14:41 AM

If the rocket exhaust was using the air to push against to provide thrust then you would expect the exhaust gases to simply stop as they exit the rocket engine. What we clearly see is they travel away from the rocket at point of exit. Clearly show that the exhaust gases are not pushing against anything.

Well here's something for you to ponder.
When you exhaust something you get rid of spent fuel.
This is the nonsense with the rocket.
The trouble is everyone can plainly see that the fuel is absolutely not spent as it exist exits the rocket, it's actually doing a job right at that nozzle and so far out into the atmosphere.
What is it doing?
It's expanding that atmosphere by rushing pushing the atmosphere away from it's burn, which compresses the atmosphere massively against the massive expansion of the fuel burn.

It's a mutual action and equal and opposite reaction as the end product of the first action and reaction of the fuel being expelled to be mixed for that burn.

Two things going on as far as fuel is concerned.

Does anyone have a Gibberish to English translator...?

I've changed a few things. Errors by mistype but I feel that's not what your whining about gibberish is. It's because you have no clue what I've told you so you mention gibberish because it's just simpler when you don't understand the reality.

I can't blame you for that when you obviously believe a rocket works like a big old machine gun that recoils back into itself as it shoots out that exhaust. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:54:05 AM

Quote from: The_Heeter on February 19, 2019, 07:58:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

So all of the V2 rockets used in WW2 to cause extensive damage across multiple countries just don't exist, and the literal thousands of ICBMs we put into silos across America and other parts of the world were all fake? I think not. To blatantly disregard evidence such as this shows how flawed your argument is.

Yep, basically, in terms of the way we were all told they worked.
In my opinion of course. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

So your argument is not that they don't exist, rather that you don't agree with how they work. Is this because you don't believe the sources, or because you believe the science itself is flawed? I get the sense that your not a rocket scientist (Neither am I) but I think we can both agree from the mountains of evidence that whether you like it or not, they do work.

Let me try to explain it in simpler, non-science terms. lets say the rocket is coming from a U.S. silo, and going to Europe. The missile would be launched from the silo and go essentially straight up for 5 minutes. Then, the main rocket body will disconnect. Then the rocket will then begin to arc, going to roughly 3,500 miles into the air before descending to the target which will take around 2 minutes.

What about this explanation which can be easily proven by math and just watching it happen makes you believe them to be false? I do believe I have "logically looked into this" by watching footage, reading articles and stat sheets, and forming my own opinions.

The big silo's are nothing of the sort for big rockets, In my opinion.
Just another load of stories.
If you think a rocket launched from underground from a silo of the size we are told and can vent as well as rise into so called space and then onto a target, then go right ahead.

It works well for a sci-fi film. That's about all the credit it gets from me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:40:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2019, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

So it can't be simply explained for anyone to understand?
Pretty convenient isn't it?

No, actually it's quite frustrating when trying to explain it to someone like you.

I don't doubt it. It's much easier to explain it to a gullible person who will not question it. The thing is, mass attracts mass is not really any explanation....is it?

The real reason you won't explain it to me is quite simply, you have no explanation for it.
You are told what it does but you are not told what it is and why it does what it supposedly does.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:40:29 AM

How about you just tell me what it is as a force then.

According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force.

Of course. It's not a force because it's sci-fi. It's something made up inorder to create the magic of space and what not.
It's clever because it allows people to massively appeal to authority in argument against a questioning sceptic. That appeal to authority is worn like a smart little badge that implies mainstream rights to sell/portray hypotheticals as facts.

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2019, 10:11:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:40:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2019, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

So it can't be simply explained for anyone to understand?
Pretty convenient isn't it?

No, actually it's quite frustrating when trying to explain it to someone like you.

I don't doubt it. It's much easier to explain it to a gullible person who will not question it. The thing is, mass attracts mass is not really any explanation....is it?

The thing is, air molecules 'stack' and somehow have sentient cognition to know which direction to push an object based upon it's 'foundation', whether that be up, down, or side to side is not really any explanation....is it?

Back to my earlier question, do rockets work as advertised as long as they are within the atmosphere? You wrote:

You don't require solid to push against you just need the pressure of the resistance to thrust.
The atmosphere provides that exceptionally well.

All the rocket footage shown that is within our atmosphere is totally legit, no problems, because they would work just fine, according to you, because they are pushing against the atmosphere? It's only when we get to rockets in space that you have a problem?

The thing is, mass attracts mass is not really any explanation....is it?

It is as much as an explanation as any of the other fundamental forces.
There is also more, with several  related options.
One is that mass effects the gravitational field, akin to how charges effect the electrostatic field.
Another more widely accepted one is that the gravitational field is really just space time, and mass (and other energy) distorts space-time.

You also seem to love avoiding very simple questions, as if you can't rationally answer them.

Again, on what basis do you claim air is needed for movement?
I have provided plenty of examples where that isn't the case.

On what basis do you claim that the exhaust needs to interact with the atmosphere and that that interaction magically propels the rocket without contacting it, rather than merely the pressure of the exhaust pushing the rocket?

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2019, 10:11:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:40:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2019, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Still swept under the carpet.
None of you can explain what you're arguing for unless you simply stick up a copy and paste that covers nothing of what I ask.

Nice and simple. I'm 7.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't expect a 7 year old to understand how gravity works.  Maybe you should come back when you grow up.

So it can't be simply explained for anyone to understand?
Pretty convenient isn't it?

No, actually it's quite frustrating when trying to explain it to someone like you.

I don't doubt it. It's much easier to explain it to a gullible person who will not question it. The thing is, mass attracts mass is not really any explanation....is it?

It's a better explanation than molecules stacking on top of each other.  At least we have formulas to describe the attraction that mass causes.

The real reason you won't explain it to me is quite simply, you have no explanation for it.
You are told what it does but you are not told what it is and why it does what it supposedly does.

"What it is", "what it does" and "why it does it" are 3 different questions.  We already have answers for the first two.  The third is the real bugger and scientists are still trying to figure that one out.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 05:40:29 AM

How about you just tell me what it is as a force then.

According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force.

Of course. It's not a force because it's sci-fi. It's something made up inorder to create the magic of space and what not.
It's clever because it allows people to massively appeal to authority in argument against a questioning sceptic. That appeal to authority is worn like a smart little badge that implies mainstream rights to sell/portray hypotheticals as facts.

Appeal to a recognized authority is quite appropriate such discussions.  It's hard to prove the experts wrong when you don't even understand what it is that you're trying to prove wrong.

All the rocket footage shown that is within our atmosphere is totally legit, no problems, because they would work just fine, according to you, because they are pushing against the atmosphere? It's only when we get to rockets in space that you have a problem?

Nice try but no cigar.

Your so called space rockets are not portrayed to work by using external atmosphere as a resistance to thrust.
Remember?
They kick their own arses according to those so called space rocket scientists.

So my issue is firmly with them not being what we are told they are on a launch pad.
What we are shown and what we actually get are two entirely different things, in my opinion.

No 3000 tonne rockets lifting off with a large number of massive engines. It's counter productive for a start.
No vertical rocket requires an engine. It's like you might as well stick a big propeller on the top and bottom of it.

No need for throttles on vertical rockets.

You're getting trolled marko.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2019, 03:27:01 PM

The thing is, mass attracts mass is not really any explanation....is it?

It is as much as an explanation as any of the other fundamental forces.

It's an explanation that has no meaning in reality unless you use a force.
You say Einstein says it's not a force, so we can discard gravity being a force, which means it's a nonsense.

There is also more, with several  related options.
One is that mass effects the gravitational field, akin to how charges effect the electrostatic field.

But gravity is not a force you said. So no.
Atmosphere is always required.

Another more widely accepted one is that the gravitational field is really just space time, and mass (and other energy) distorts space-time.

Space time and mass means zilch and you know it, unless you equate the space and each set time to be atmospheric distortion at any given point.
Remember, gravity is not a force to distort anything because it's fictional.

You also seem to love avoiding very simple questions, as if you can't rationally answer them.

I don't avoid anything unless I know I've already answered previous and many times previous.

Again, on what basis do you claim air is needed for movement?

On the basis that we survive in this cell as needing it for everything that occurs. It's a cycle and us using the energy within is using it as the simple basic or energy equalling friction equalling resistance equalling vibration equalling frequency equalling movement.

I have provided plenty of examples where that isn't the case.

You have provided zero evidence.

On what basis do you claim that the exhaust needs to interact with the atmosphere and that that interaction magically propels the rocket without contacting it, rather than merely the pressure of the exhaust pushing the rocket?

I didn't.
You said the exhaust was of no consequence. I said it wasn't exhaust. I said it was the actual action of the thrust. The burn. The energy to expand into the atmosphere to create the massive compression of it to create the reactionary squeeze back to create that resistant layer/stack to push on push to enable that rocket to advance into the atmosphere  on each cushion of super compressed air build.