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

  • 3180 Replies
  • 94149 Views
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3120 on: January 21, 2020, 01:59:02 PM »
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
I think Sceppy has given up:

Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world.  Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket works by making it clear and obvious as to what is happening to get it from atmosphere into space, as we're told space is supposed to  be.

I donít really care if you understand or not the mainstream principles and designs of rocket propulsion. You are free to learn about it or choose not to.  Itís a free world and you can believe whatever you want, and as long as you are well in body and mind Iím happy for you. 

But I do like your stories, so if you donít mind, I would appreciate if you could work more on this one and try to describe the actual force that pushes the rocket in the world you have built in your mind.

(One last thing - if you could try to tie it back to the Magic Crystal, it would be even better.  Thanks)

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3121 on: January 21, 2020, 02:08:34 PM »
I think Sceppy has given up.
No you didn't.
It sure seemed like it.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:

Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.

The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3122 on: January 21, 2020, 04:54:00 PM »
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.
The whole world knows they work in the atmosphere. Sceppy can think on his own, stooges can't.

Wow!  How condescending.

All the worldís physicists and engineers who put in the work to understand how things work, and used that to design, build and test the technology we take for granted canít think for themselves?

Yet you praise Sceppy for just saying whatever pops into his head?

I remember when people who fundamentally rejected science would just stand on street corners with a sandwich board shouting at passing shoppers.  Now theyíre all happy to use the technology it gives us like the internet to spread their ridiculous ideas.

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3123 on: January 21, 2020, 08:30:06 PM »
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating  a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.

Again, what causes the gas to accelerate out of the rocket?
If you cannot answer this question you have no case at all.

The gas expanding, in only one direction? The crux of the biscuit:

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?

Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.

Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.

Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3124 on: January 21, 2020, 11:35:29 PM »
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.
He knows how they work.  He has his game to play.
I have no clue how a space rocket works. There's no diagram that shows how it works. Just nonsensical stuff that tells us to accept that it does when it goes against the grain of reality.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3125 on: January 21, 2020, 11:40:43 PM »
I think Sceppy has given up.
No you didn't.
It sure seemed like it.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:

Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.

The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
What the hell is all that nonsense.
Do I have to spell this all out in bigger letters?

Show me a diagram of how a space rocket works. Show me exactly what's going on and why,
 so I can understand what you and other push out as your reality.


None of you seem to know but rely on finding obscure diagrams that show nothing.
I'm willing to show how my gases work to propel a rocket but I need to see how your gases actually propel your rocket in atmosphere and in your vacuum of your space.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3126 on: January 21, 2020, 11:48:30 PM »

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?
By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.

Quote from: Stash
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
I have and better than what's been shown to me.

Quote from: Stash
Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.
Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3127 on: January 21, 2020, 11:59:39 PM »
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating  a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.

Ok Scepti. So you think that the exhaust of a firework rocket has the same pressure as from a spare rocket? Got that. Another question. What amount of force is needed to compress the air beneath the exhaust of a rocket? I bet that you are not able to tell this us.

BTW: A firework rocket don't have an arse  ;D

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3128 on: January 22, 2020, 12:00:11 AM »

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.

The 'sponge' would only be compressed in one direction, from the top, in this instance. That wouldn't make the 'sponge' rigid enough to provide a suitable resistance. There's nothing underneath the 'sponge' for it to compress against. How might the levitating 'sponge' float there under the rocket thrust with nothing beneath it?

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.

See above.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?
By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.

Huh? Makes no sense. See above.

Quote from: Stash
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.

I have and better than what's been shown to me.

What's the hold up? Show it.

Quote from: Stash
Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.
Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.

Lame deflection. Super lame. A debate losing deflection at that. Rockets in space just won. Sorry.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3129 on: January 22, 2020, 12:13:27 AM »
I think Sceppy has given up.
No you didn't.
It sure seemed like it.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:

Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.

The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
What the hell is all that nonsense.
Can't  you read? It shows the "pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine."

Quote from: sceptimatic
Do I have to spell this all out in bigger letters?

Show me a diagram of how a space rocket works. Show me exactly what's going on and why,
I did and have explained "exactly what's going on and why" numerous times!

Quote from: sceptimatic
so I can understand what you and other push out as your reality.
That doesn't seem possible as long as you insist that the stuff you dream up is "reality".
You cannot "dream up" reality. What you must to is investigate how "nature" behaves - that's research.

Quote from: sceptimatic
None of you seem to know but rely on finding obscure diagrams that show nothing.
Maybe they seem obscure to because you haven't the slightest understanding of the the most basic ideas of physics.
Have you ever thought that there might be others who might know more than you?

Quote from: sceptimatic
I'm willing to show how my gases work to propel a rocket but I need to see how your gases actually propel your rocket in atmosphere and in your vacuum of your space.
I've explained it numerous times!
A rocket's thrust is simply the force required to accelerate an enormous mass of burnt propellant (hundreds of kilograms per second) from zero to the version high exhaust velocity (thousands of metres per second).

What happens to the exhaust gas after it leaves the rocket engine is neither here nor there.

If you cannot understand that there's little that I can do.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3130 on: January 22, 2020, 12:53:06 AM »
I have no clue how a space rocket works.
So why claim they can't?
And again, that is entirely due to your wilful ignorance. You have been provided with plenty of diagrams and explanations of how they work, which you just dismiss as nonsense.
You have no intention of ever accepting any explanation of how they work, because if you do your entire fantasy comes crashing down.

So instead of repeatedly expecting people to provide you with what has already been provided, why don't you start doing what has been asked.

Tell us what the gas pushes against to accelerate out of the rocket.
Then tell us what actually pushes on the rocket.

Quote from: Stash
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
I have and better than what's been shown to me.
Your diagrams have all been complete failures with no hope of ever matching reality.
You had no force on the rocket, and thus no way for the rocket to move.
You had completely unbalanced forces, where the gas just has a force acting on it from nothing with no reactionary force.

Any diagram with any hope of matching reality would need to include 2 important things:
A force acting on the rocket to accelerate it forwards.
Balanced action-reaction pairs.

By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.
Again, we know this isn't the case.
If it was, the gas would be thrown forwards, in front of the rocket instead of continuing to blast back into the air.
It would also mean motion would be basically impossible.
Any motion would likewise compress the air until it crushed back and pushed you back.

Now again, what does the gas push off in order to leave the rocket?
We know it can't be the atmosphere as that is in the wrong direction.
In fact the only thing in the right direction is the rocket.
Do you have an alternative? Without one, the only conclusion is that the gas pushes on the rocket and thus rockets work in space.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3131 on: January 22, 2020, 12:54:08 AM »
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.
He knows how they work.  He has his game to play.
I have no clue how a space rocket works. There's no diagram that shows how it works. Just nonsensical stuff that tells us to accept that it does when it goes against the grain of reality.

Great
Thanks for coming out.
60pg later.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3132 on: January 22, 2020, 12:55:39 AM »
I think Sceppy has given up.
No you didn't.
It sure seemed like it.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:

Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.

The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
What the hell is all that nonsense.
Do I have to spell this all out in bigger letters?

Show me a diagram of how a space rocket works. Show me exactly what's going on and why,
 so I can understand what you and other push out as your reality.


None of you seem to know but rely on finding obscure diagrams that show nothing.
I'm willing to show how my gases work to propel a rocket but I need to see how your gases actually propel your rocket in atmosphere and in your vacuum of your space.

Why
Why do you need to know the "false" information first?
What bearing does it have in anyway when youve tine and tjne agin call it fake news.
If its wrong then it has no revelance and should MUST! be replaced with the truth
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 12:57:15 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3133 on: January 22, 2020, 12:58:51 AM »

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?
By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.

Quote from: Stash
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
I have and better than what's been shown to me.

Quote from: Stash
Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.
Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.

You reallty love reprating the same string of words.

I do too.

"Draw the damn arrows"

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3134 on: January 22, 2020, 01:03:53 AM »
Fine
Heres anothrr challenge
Nasa actually has a water rocket website with equations and such to allow a person to accurately estimate how high the rocket would go.

Since scoeti unwilling or unabke to draw a simple arrow and nasa is incorrect, please provide us withalternate equation so that we can reproduce and test "reality"

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3135 on: January 22, 2020, 03:33:23 AM »
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating  a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.

Ok Scepti. So you think that the exhaust of a firework rocket has the same pressure as from a spare rocket?
Nope. I don't argue for the exhaust, I argue the point before exhaustion which is the burn, which is far from exhaust.
And I presume you mentioned space rocket instead of spare rocket, right?
If so, I can't think the exhaust of a firework is the same as a space rocket if I do not believe in space rockets.
You won;t get far putting words into mouths.


Quote from: bright
Another question. What amount of force is needed to compress the air beneath the exhaust of a rocket?
 I bet that you are not able to tell this us.
You want to play with figures?
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.

Quote from: bright
BTW: A firework rocket don't have an arse  ;D
Where is that burn coming from?

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3136 on: January 22, 2020, 04:01:05 AM »
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.
Already done! So maybe you could answer these simple questions:
  • Does it require a force to increase the velocity of a mass Y/N?

  • Does gas have mass Y/N?

  • Therefore does it require a force to accelerate a mass Y/N?

  • Is the propellant accelerated in the rocket engine Y/N?

  • Does gas pressure on a surface cause a force on that surface Y/N?

  • In the bell of the rocket engine shown on the right, does the pressure of the propellant
    on the walls of the bell have a component directed towards the front of the rocket Y/N?
       
If you answered Y to all the above then the rocket thrust it the total forward force of that gas on the bell of the rocket.
If not please explain you problem with that question.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3137 on: January 22, 2020, 04:35:41 AM »
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.

Rabinez placed a good drawing of this.
With this drawing can you explain how the firework rocket work?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3138 on: January 22, 2020, 04:36:17 AM »
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.
Already done! So maybe you could answer these simple questions:
  • Does it require a force to increase the velocity of a mass Y/N?

  • Does gas have mass Y/N?

  • Therefore does it require a force to accelerate a mass Y/N?

  • Is the propellant accelerated in the rocket engine Y/N?

  • Does gas pressure on a surface cause a force on that surface Y/N?

  • In the bell of the rocket engine shown on the right, does the pressure of the propellant
    on the walls of the bell have a component directed towards the front of the rocket Y/N?
       
If you answered Y to all the above then the rocket thrust it the total forward force of that gas on the bell of the rocket.
If not please explain you problem with that question.

Do you think that the 101st explanation will suddenly work when the previous 100 failed?  While I think your explanations (and those from many others) have been clear and useful, at this point no one is saying anything really new, right? And after it has been repeated ad naseum for more than a hundred pages, he just admitted that despite this, he doesnt understand it at all.  While I appreciate everyones (including sceptimatics) dedication to the topic, how many more times are you going to try? 

Perhaps people should just accept he is incapable of understanding it?  Wouldn't that be okay?  Some people just have poor comprehension skills - for whatever reason their minds are unable to understand ideas being conveyed, no matter how simply they are stated and they number of times they are repeated.  What's the point of deluging such people over and over with the same information?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3139 on: January 22, 2020, 09:34:19 AM »

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.

The 'sponge' would only be compressed in one direction, from the top, in this instance. That wouldn't make the 'sponge' rigid enough to provide a suitable resistance. There's nothing underneath the 'sponge' for it to compress against. How might the levitating 'sponge' float there under the rocket thrust with nothing beneath it?

Let's see if your head can absorb this.

If you jumped onto from a height and landed on 1 mattress what would happen to your body and the mattress?

You can accept that the mattress would provide very little spring back to your fall, right?
What about 5 mattresses?
Which one would take the biggest impact and would it be more springy on you as you hit it...and why?


What about 10 mattresses?
Would this be more springy and create a much .
What about 20 and 30 and 40.
Now start thinking of the rocket thrust and that analogy.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3140 on: January 22, 2020, 10:14:21 AM »
Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies and just draw the reality.
Deaw the damn arrows.


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3141 on: January 22, 2020, 10:35:22 AM »
Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies

Imagine air is like a stack of mattresses. 

Now imagine yourself falling through the air onto those mattresses.

So we should imagine ourselves falling through stacked mattresses onto stacked mattresses??? 

Weirdo doesnít even begin to describe it.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3142 on: January 22, 2020, 12:24:03 PM »
Nope. I don't argue for the exhaust
No, you do, you just pretend it is something else by inventing new definitions.
Once it has left the rocket, it is exhaust.

Try explaining how your rocket works, first.
Our side already has plenty of times.
You were unable to find a single problem with it.
Instead you just dismiss it or ignore it.

Now quit with the pathetic distractions and YOU explain how rockets allegedly work.

Explain what the gas is pushing off to leave the rocket.
Then explain why is actually pushing the rocket.

Again, the only sane option is that the gas is pushing against the rocket, as that is the only thing available for it to push off to accelerate it in the correct direction.
But that means rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

This is the issue you have been avoiding from the moment you joined this thread.
This the key issue which destroys your fantasy.
Yet you KNOW you cannot possibly provide an answer, because either you accept it pushes off the rocket and thus rockets work in space, or you go with the fantasy of not pushing off anything where you don't need to push off anything to move, which means that the same should apply to a rocket.
Either way, rockets work in space.

So cut out all the pathetic distractions and just deal with this key issue:
What is the gas pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket.
This may be easiest to explain by drawing a diagram which shows the action-reaction pair. 2 forces side by side, equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. One pushing on the gas inside the rocket to accelerate it out and one pushing on something right next to the gas (which again, your only option is the rocket).

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3143 on: January 22, 2020, 01:16:23 PM »
Do you think that the 101st explanation will suddenly work when the previous 100 failed?
I try to come up with simpler and simpler ways of putting it but I guess it's "Rocket Science".
Sceptimatic thinks that he's so brilliant that, using "common sense" alone he can come up with the "theory of everything".

So he point-blank refuses to look at all the experimental work done by Galileo Galilei, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton on the "Laws of Motion" and those like Robert Boyle, Jacques A. C. Charles, and Joseph Gay‐Lussac who worked out the "Gas Laws".

In the end, Sceptimatic uses quite a different language and he uses common words

Then he thinks that single-handed and without any meaningful experiments he can replicate all that himself.
Of course, he's not the only one who thinks that way.
Sandokhan does a lot more research but seems to think that he alone can interpret this correctly and so comes up with a whole new chronology and flat-Earth "model".

But the flat-Earth of the two are in no way similar and quite different from the "usual" flat-Earth model (if there is one).
Yet each of them will explicitly state that they alone are correct.

Go figure!

This might (or might not) help:
Back on February 13, 2017 I asked Sceppy to fill in his meaning for the list of words below:
(Sceppy filled the definitions into the Quote of my post.)

You claim "I understand what they mean." OK, please define:
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
"force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.
Also, only 9 months later Copper Knickers asked the following question:

Would a litre of water and a litre of mercury have the same mass in denpressure theory?

What is mass?
And Sceppy did not know even though he earlier said "mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object. - go figure!

Have fun with the Sceppinese dictionary!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3144 on: January 22, 2020, 01:32:09 PM »
I agree.
The only way to figure out scepinese is to walk through the language word by word.
It took us nearly 20pg to discover negative presure meant negative rate in relation to its previous state, not in relation to outside the vessel as most normal humans consider it.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18109
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3145 on: January 22, 2020, 09:35:00 PM »
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
I think Sceppy has given up:

Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world.  Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?

Did you pound your chest as you typed that?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3146 on: January 22, 2020, 10:02:07 PM »
Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies

Imagine air is like a stack of mattresses. 

Now imagine yourself falling through the air onto those mattresses.

So we should imagine ourselves falling through stacked mattresses onto stacked mattresses??? 

Weirdo doesnít even begin to describe it.
Of course. If you can't put your mind to analogies from my side then you're going to struggle.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3147 on: January 22, 2020, 10:05:16 PM »
Nope. I don't argue for the exhaust

Once it has left the rocket, it is exhaust.

No it's not exhaust. It's actual external burning energy and until its burned it is not exhaust..
The smoke coming out of a car is exhaust.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3148 on: January 22, 2020, 10:10:13 PM »
So he point-blank refuses to look at all the experimental work done by Galileo Galilei,
Famous for finding moons of jupiter and what not.
1600's.
Tell me about his telescope of that time?
Quote from: rabinoz

 Robert Hooke,
1700's and discovered cells in a sliver of cork or something.
What are you arguing with this?
Quote from: rabinoz

Isaac Newtonon the "Laws of Motion"
We've been through this and I've shown you the laws are not laws, at all. They concepts are not reality.

Quote from: rabinoz

 and those like Robert Boyle,
Boyle's law is close to what I put forward, only I do it in a slightly different way.
Gas volume compression creates a spring of air and pressure build.
I've been explaining this with the rocket and such.
Feel free to try and put your spin on it.

Quote from: rabinoz

 Jacques A. C. Charles
Famous for hydrogen in a balloon for flight?
What's the issue here that I don;t accept?
Quote from: rabinoz

 and Joseph Gay‐Lussac who worked out the "Gas Laws".
Known for water being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
What are you arguing for, here?


Quote from: rabinoz

In the end, Sceptimatic uses quite a different language and he uses common words
You seem to be bringing up all kinds of people from yesteryear as if you're putting some kind of back up system in place for your arguments.
What do you know about these people other than reading what they apparently did?
What of their experiments have to verified for yourself in the way they've been put forward?


Quote from: rabinoz
Then he thinks that single-handed and without any meaningful experiments he can replicate all that himself.
Of course, he's not the only one who thinks that way.

I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.
What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 10:37:01 PM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3149 on: January 22, 2020, 10:12:37 PM »
I agree.
The only way to figure out scepinese is to walk through the language word by word.
It took us nearly 20pg to discover negative presure meant negative rate in relation to its previous state, not in relation to outside the vessel as most normal humans consider it.
The only way to understand it is to pay attention and put the global shield to one side whilst you do that.
Failure to do this will naturally render any effort to try to understand, as pointless.

I suggest you actually take the time to look at the model handed to you on a plate before you even try to engage with my thought process.