HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 16, 2020, 05:37:36 AM

Draw the arrows.

If I may interject (and help push this to 100 pages), I don't think he actually can do this - it doesn't seem he really understands what you and others are asking for.  He seems to have a wonderful imagination,  but his comprehension skills don't shine very bright in these threads.

I expect better.

Show us "reality".
Draw the arrows or explain why they arent needed.


Side note
100!!!

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 16, 2020, 05:37:36 AM

Ues
The end result would be the same as the denp thread and the ballistic thread.
You ask questions and string people along with no intention of listening or producing your own counter points.
Merely waving it away witha "dupe" or a "nu-uh".

Draw the arrows.

I seem to see all that with you people.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.

Plenty of information available online, please find and comment.

It's not just some sort of game with others on an internet forum that you play, it's about actual science and engineering facts.

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2020, 10:47:01 AM

So you're saying that your kitchen table is not at rest?  How do you keep it from moving around the room?  Did you need to nail it to the floor?

It's not about nailing it to the floor. It's about contraction and expansion. It's always under external force, is what I'm saying, which means it's never at rest in reality....only to the naked, immediate eye view..

Contraction and expansion aren't considered motion in the classical mechanics sense.  Motion is moving from point A to point B.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

However, the next one is the clincher.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.

Yes, that's what the law says.  An external force (usually friction) pretty much always acts on an object in motion.  However, there are ways of reducing friction and keeping the motion relatively constant.  A car sliding on ice is a good example.

It's not a case of ways to reduce friction. It's about having to totally rid the object of any friction. Any external force.
It cannot be done, so admit that.
And if that's the case then it makes the law a nothing. It's a fiction.
There's simply no reality about what is said.
By all means argue it but it's hard to deny.

No one, not even Newton, is denying that external forces exist and can't be completely removed.  That's why he put in the "unless acted upon by an external force" bit in his first law.  I don't know why you think that external forces invalidate the first law.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.

Or, you could learn the delicate art of abstraction which allows you to break events down into simpler terms.  Yes, friction always exists in the real world.  No one is saying anything different.  However, it's often preferred to think of an imaginary idealized environment doesn't exist so you can get a clearer idea of a concept.  Once you grasp the concept (in this case, the notion that an object in motion will stay in motion), then you can bring the problem into the real world and add various external forces (friction, inclines, etc.) to get a better understanding of how an object moves.

No....no....no.
Either it is something or it's not, in terms of reality.

If you want to say the laws are imaginary and would work in that imaginary scenario then I'll happily go along with that.
If you want the scenario to be a real life law then it has to have real life implications.
These so called laws do not in terms of explanations as to showing a bonafide reality..

Reality can get complicated, so sometimes it's easier to use a simplified imaginary scenario to explain what's going on.  That doesn't mean that the first law doesn't work in real, complex scenarios.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

It becomes a nonsense.
This is why the law is not a law at all. It's made up nonsense.

No, it isn't nonsense.  It's simply a starting point, not a final destination.  After all, you have to learn to stand on your feet before you can run.

By all means use sayings but standing on your own two feet before running is something of a reality that can be shown.
What is postured with the so called laws, cannot be shown to be real.

Of course it can.  You're just overthinking things.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

Quote from: markjo

If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

"Atmospheric slosh"?   Never heard of such a thing.  How does it work?

The best way to understand it is to sit in a bath and swish the water away from you.
What happens?

Or, this.




The only difference is in pressure build of air and the immediate release of it.

Granted air and water are both fluids and share some similar properties, but air is far less dense than water and can't push nearly as hard as water can.  In fact, Newton's second law can help you figure out how hard water and air can push based on their mass and how fast they're moving.  You should look into that some time.

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Quote from: bright on January 16, 2020, 06:47:43 AM

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?

Well done guys, another triple digit scepti thread   

You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.

No, he explained issues with your "analogy" because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Meanwhile, all you seem to be is dodge, because you can see what the end result would be. If you don't dodge, you would be admitting rockets work in a vacuum.

I seem to see all that with you people.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.

Again, you are projecting your own inadequacies onto others. It is the only way for you to cling to your fantasy.
We have provided you with plenty of diagrams, which can actually explain what is being discussed and which you have been unable to find a single issue with.

Meanwhile, you have repeatedly refused to draw a diagram which can actually explain it.
Stop telling us to draw a diagram and draw your own.


Again, stop with the pathetic distractions.
Clearly explain how the gas accelerates from the rocket, including in a vacuum.
This is easiest to do by drawing a diagram showing the forces acting on the gas and the reactionary forces.
Clearly identify what the gas is pushing against.

Then once you have done that, do the same for the rocket (unless doing it for the gas did it for the rocket...).

Again, until you do that, you have literally nothing to back up your fantasy and the rational conclusion remains that rockets work in a vacuum as it has been clearly explained how they do, with you being completely unable to show any problem with it, nor provide an alternative.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 11:56:17 PM

No! I don't agree and I've already dented it and explained why.

Quote from: sceptimatic

<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>

Try again.
But you can't change the facts: Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level - get used to reality for a change!

You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.

No, I dodged nothing and carefully explained to you when would happen in reality.
I've no idea what you might dream up in that weird mind of yours but that's quite irrelevant and seems quite unrelated to reality!

If you don't believe me read this:

How does the freezing temperature of water vary with respect to pressure?
Q:
I know when the pressure is reduced, the boiling temperature of water is reduced as well. But how does the pressure affect the freezing point of water?

In a low-pressure environment, is water's freezing temperature higher or lower than 0^oC?

A1:
If you decrease the pressure, the freezing point of water will increase ever so slightly. From 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm. This is the tripple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation). The temperature for this phase change, the sublimation point, will decrease as the pressure is further decreased. To learn more details, image google "water phase diagram" and study the pictures.

You can have a look at this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water:

Phase diagram taken from Martin Chaplin's webpage, under license CC-BY-NC-ND. This webpage is highly recommended, with tons of useful links and articles.

For reference, the diagram shows a point labeled ‘‘E" for fairly standard human conditions, around 25^oC (∼77^oF) and normal atmospheric pressure.

Read the link for further information.

Hope you like it !

Hi

I already posted this elsewhere but would like your opinion on it

If the moon landing was faked and all world governments, space agencies etc are on board with this lie, Why?  Why are they throwing money at something that if it was announced tomorrow the world is flat nothing would change.  Why throw that money at space agencies when it can be thrown at something else and if we did announce it was flat today the people who are rich and in power, today still would be tomorrow.  99.99999999% of the lives of the world's population would not change if the world is flat compared to a globe, they still go to work get paid, pay bills and taxes, eat food, care for loved ones.  Actually, it probably would as they money going to the 72 yes 72 space agencies around the world, not just NASA can then be diverted to something that would better them like healthcare, lower taxes, better education etc etc.  Why no single world leader hasn't revealed the truth to f**K over another like the Russians screwing over the Americans to prove the landings were faked.  The Russians spent $5.6bn on their space program I'm sure there are better things they could have spent it on whilst screwing the Americans over.  Everyone forgets the Russians were in space first.  Both with a dog that didn't come back and a cosmonaut later that did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-man-in-space


So why is everyone keeping up this lie that the earth is flat?  If someone can actually give me a convincing argument as to why then I might stop being a glober.

Quote from: markjo

If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all I can say really. 

Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

Quote from: markjo

If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all I can say really. 

Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.

Gems like 'atmospheric sloshing' hopefully can keep it going.   Whats the record?

Quote from: bright on January 16, 2020, 06:47:43 AM

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

If this is the case then they will not going higher then 1 or 2 inches from the ground. While in practice these rockets are going much higher then the 1 or 2 inches. So again, how can these tiny rockets compress the atmosphere so much that they can go that high in the sky.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

Quote from: markjo

If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all I can say really. 

Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.

That's worthy of inclusive in my signature. Will Sceppy demand royalty fees?

That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2020, 08:11:30 AM

Quote from: bright on January 16, 2020, 06:47:43 AM

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?

Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.

Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2020, 05:15:37 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 15, 2020, 11:56:17 PM

No! I don't agree and I've already dented it and explained why.

Quote from: sceptimatic

<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>

Try again.
But you can't change the facts: Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level - get used to reality for a change!

You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.

No, I dodged nothing and carefully explained to you when would happen in reality.
I've no idea what you might dream up in that weird mind of yours but that's quite irrelevant and seems quite unrelated to reality!

If you don't believe me read this:

Quote

How does the freezing temperature of water vary with respect to pressure?
Q:
I know when the pressure is reduced, the boiling temperature of water is reduced as well. But how does the pressure affect the freezing point of water?

In a low-pressure environment, is water's freezing temperature higher or lower than 0^oC?

A1:
If you decrease the pressure, the freezing point of water will increase ever so slightly. From 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm. This is the tripple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation). The temperature for this phase change, the sublimation point, will decrease as the pressure is further decreased. To learn more details, image google "water phase diagram" and study the pictures.

You can have a look at this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water:

Phase diagram taken from Martin Chaplin's webpage, under license CC-BY-NC-ND. This webpage is highly recommended, with tons of useful links and articles.

For reference, the diagram shows a point labeled ‘‘E" for fairly standard human conditions, around 25^oC (∼77^oF) and normal atmospheric pressure.

Read the link for further information.

Hope you like it !

What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2020, 08:11:30 AM

Quote from: bright on January 16, 2020, 06:47:43 AM

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

If this is the case then they will not going higher then 1 or 2 inches from the ground. While in practice these rockets are going much higher then the 1 or 2 inches. So again, how can these tiny rockets compress the atmosphere so much that they can go that high in the sky.

How do you manage to work that out?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 16, 2020, 09:23:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

Quote from: markjo

If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all I can say really. 

Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.

That's worthy of inclusive in my signature. Will Sceppy demand royalty fees?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:02 AM

That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Have it for free, on me.
You're welcome. 

Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.

In your own words explain what inertia is or does.

Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.

You were shown many many years ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2229988-strange-particles-found-in-antarctica-cannot-be-explained-by-physics/

Maybe sceptimatic, too, has found something new with his sloshing!

Quote from: markjo on January 17, 2020, 07:07:28 AM

Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.

In your own words explain what inertia is or does.

*sigh* 
How many time does it need to be explained before you get it?  Seriously, is there a number?  Are we getting close?  Well, let's increment that counter by one.

Do you know how when you put a book on a table and the book doesn't move if you leave it alone?  That's because inertia says that objects at rest stays at rest unless you do something to move it.

Do you know how when you roll a ball down the sidewalk and it keeps going after you let it go?  That's because inertia says that objects in motion stay in motion unless something happens to make it slow down or stop.

I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that.

Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.

Huh?   What do you mean?  What do names have to do with reality?  Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something.  It's like asking why they named a certain color green.

*sigh* 
How many time does it need to be explained before you get it?  Seriously, is there a number?  Are we getting close?  Well, let's increment that counter by one.

Do you know how when you put a book on a table and the book doesn't move if you leave it alone?  That's because inertia says that objects at rest stays at rest unless you do something to move it.

So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?
You know something is always moving any object by expansion and contraction, right?
It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.

So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.

Do you know how when you roll a ball down the sidewalk and it keeps going after you let it go?  That's because inertia says that objects in motion stay in motion unless something happens to make it slow down or stop.

Something will never stay in motion, because something will always be acting upon it, so that explanation is also void.
You see, what's being said is, an object will simply go on forever at the same rate of energy applied to it. Then the key reality kicks in to say, " unless it's acted upon by an external force."

An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.

I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that.

You don't need to. It's simple enough to understand it's nonsense...seriously.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 17, 2020, 08:40:39 AM

Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.

Huh?   What do you mean?  What do names have to do with reality?  Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something.  It's like asking why they named a certain color green.

They key word is in bold.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.

Quote from: markjo on January 17, 2020, 07:07:28 AM

Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.

In your own words explain what inertia is or does.

Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.

If you what to know look it up, this will save a lot of your time.

Quote from: markjo

Huh?   What do you mean?  What do names have to do with reality?  Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something.  It's like asking why they named a certain color green.

They key word is in bold.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.

Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?

Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.

Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.

Again, stop lying and stop stalling.
You have been provided with plenty of diagrams, and have failed to provide any diagram to show what really happens. Every diagram you have provided has lacked a force acting on the rocket and thus is incapable of explaining how the rocket moves. They also lack action-reaction pairs and thus failed to address what the gas is pushing off/using as leverage and instead just had it magically obtain a force from nowhere.
Now provide your own or otherwise actually address the issues.

Tell us what the gas is pushing in in order to accelerate and leave the rocket.
No more pathetic distractions. Just answer the extremely simple question.

So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?

No, inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to change an object's velocity.

We call the rate of change of velocity acceleration so inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to accelerate an object.

If the change in an object's velocity is in a straight line we call the acceleration linear.
In this case of linear acceleration the inertia of object is simply it's called it's mass and that is the quantitative definition of mass.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 16, 2020, 08:55:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2020, 08:11:30 AM

Quote from: bright on January 16, 2020, 06:47:43 AM

Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?

They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?

Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.

Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.

Bullshit
I have more chance of winning heiwas moin challenge.
You did this already in the ballistic thread.
Or is your memory short?

You were given a diagram and asked to mark it up.
And clearly by our 40pg of requests, your marked up diagram was lacking a key feature which youve yet to provide.
Keep dodging.
Keep hiding your superior intelect from the rest of us duped sheeple.