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

Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 08:13:06 AM

But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. 

MacAndrew: Let’s examine other ways in which his hypothesis fails. Across much of his writing Sungenis and his supporters repeatedly fall into what I call the Great Inconsistency, appealing to the conclusions of General Relativity while vehemently  rejecting  them (see Here Comes the Sun, p.17, and There He Goes Again, p.2). 

R.Sungenis: Let’s get some perspective. Mr. MacAndrew knows that the very science he believes in, namely, General Relativity supports geocentrism, but he is too dishonest to give this information to the world. He would rather pretend it doesn’t exist and instead accuse me of “inconsistency” because I point out to the world what he won’t. His goal is to take the focus off his own sleight of hand and put the onus on me. But the truth is, he is very embarrassed that Einstein supported geocentrism. 

Nevertheless, let me say once again so that Mr. MacAndrew can finally  stop misrepresenting my appeal to GRT: I don’t appeal to GRT because I believe in it, but because Mr. MacAndrew believes in it! What better way to expose the fallacy of your opponent’s position than to point out that his system denies him the very thing he wants to achieve – to deny geocentrism. As St. James says in 1:23‐24: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”

MacAndrew: The section from GWW that we are reviewing is no exception. He quotes W G V Rosser’s review of General Relativity approvingly in spite of the fact that he rejects the theory: “As Rosser notes “light can assume ANY NUMERICAL VALUE depending on the strength  of  the...centrifugal  gravitational  field”  which  has  “enormous  values  at  large distances.” Sungenis is more interested in the rhetorical capital he can make from Rosser’s statements than he is in adopting a self‐consistent case for geocentrism.

R.Sungenis : MacAndrew is a guy who lives in a glass house (since his own GRT believes in geocentrism) but he keeps throwing stones at me for pointing this out to the world. He then has the audacity to say that we are using GRT because our own theory is not “self‐consistent.” Let’s set the record straight. We don’t believe in GRT. The reason is because it is not consistent. SRT contradicts GRT and GRT contradicts Quantum Mechanics, so we don’t dare use any of them to support geocentrism. Quoting John Wheeler again, here is what he has to say regarding the bankrupt theories of SRT and GRT:

The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which  is  central  to  all  of  classical  general  relativity,  the  four‐dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.

So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :

If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and  in  general  relativity  this  enormous  motion  would  create  forces  akin  to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

Why are you using as one of your authorities on astronomy and science, someone who who's training and background is theology and religion, and a charlatan at that it seems:

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-proposition-readers/

Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....

Kindly make your point without resorting to insults.

Thanks

That goes for rab as well.

Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....

Why is it that just NASA gets blamed for perpetrating the hoax that rockets work in space? It seems to be the only one CTers fixate on as though none others exist.

There's a long list of other agencies that seem to be in on this hoax if it is indeed one:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Or is it that rockets do work in space and all these other agencies know this and base all their activities on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Ha ha... as everything is natural! People again in a proigrasha! Here all of you argue and do not pay attention that there are other answers to your dispute. Yes you though hurt a forehead against a door, it for you will not be opened. So far you will not think and do not address history of all mankind.

Here my question and it concerns how rockets in space can fly.

Now I will ask you - as the ships on the rivers with a direct sail can float? Though who will tell me? It in the principle is impossible! As any fair wind does not blow always along the course. And the ships really floated. As they did it who will tell?

Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??

Need a translation here!

Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 08:13:06 AM

But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. 

MacAndrew: Let’s examine other ways in which his hypothesis fails. Across much of his writing Sungenis and his supporters repeatedly fall into what I call the Great Inconsistency, appealing to the conclusions of General Relativity while vehemently  rejecting  them (see Here Comes the Sun, p.17, and There He Goes Again, p.2). 

R.Sungenis: Let’s get some perspective. Mr. MacAndrew knows that the very science he believes in, namely, General Relativity supports geocentrism, but he is too dishonest to give this information to the world. He would rather pretend it doesn’t exist and instead accuse me of “inconsistency” because I point out to the world what he won’t. His goal is to take the focus off his own sleight of hand and put the onus on me. But the truth is, he is very embarrassed that Einstein supported geocentrism. 

Nevertheless, let me say once again so that Mr. MacAndrew can finally  stop misrepresenting my appeal to GRT: I don’t appeal to GRT because I believe in it, but because Mr. MacAndrew believes in it! What better way to expose the fallacy of your opponent’s position than to point out that his system denies him the very thing he wants to achieve – to deny geocentrism. As St. James says in 1:23‐24: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”

MacAndrew: The section from GWW that we are reviewing is no exception. He quotes W G V Rosser’s review of General Relativity approvingly in spite of the fact that he rejects the theory: “As Rosser notes “light can assume ANY NUMERICAL VALUE depending on the strength  of  the...centrifugal  gravitational  field”  which  has  “enormous  values  at  large distances.” Sungenis is more interested in the rhetorical capital he can make from Rosser’s statements than he is in adopting a self‐consistent case for geocentrism.

R.Sungenis : MacAndrew is a guy who lives in a glass house (since his own GRT believes in geocentrism) but he keeps throwing stones at me for pointing this out to the world. He then has the audacity to say that we are using GRT because our own theory is not “self‐consistent.” Let’s set the record straight. We don’t believe in GRT. The reason is because it is not consistent. SRT contradicts GRT and GRT contradicts Quantum Mechanics, so we don’t dare use any of them to support geocentrism. Quoting John Wheeler again, here is what he has to say regarding the bankrupt theories of SRT and GRT:

The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which  is  central  to  all  of  classical  general  relativity,  the  four‐dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.

So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :

If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and  in  general  relativity  this  enormous  motion  would  create  forces  akin  to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.

You also point to a well-known discrepancy between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But in spite of that, both of them are so well-established in their respective realms that we know both to be correct, as far as they go. In the realm of the unimaginably small, QM is correct. In the realms of the unimaginably massive and the unimaginably fast, Relativity is correct. And in the realm of the normal day-to-day lives of humans, Newtonian physics is close enough to make no difference. Your argument that Relativity is meaningless because there's a discrepancy, simply does not hold water and demonstrates a failure to understand Relativity. (Nobody understands QM, and anybody who claims to is lying.  )

As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.

Why are you using as one of your authorities on astronomy and science, someone who who's training and background is theology and religion, and a charlatan at that it seems:

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-proposition-readers/

Here is an endorsement dr. Robert Sungenis received from Wolfgang Smith, a professor of physics and mathematics at MIT:

April 2010: “Dear Dr. Sungenis: Since writing to you two days ago to thank you for your letter and the gift of your two-volume treatise, I have had a chance to peruse this  work  and  feel  compelled  to  congratulate  you  and  Dr.  Bennett  on  this outstanding achievement! Though I am not usually a loss for words, I find it hard to express my admiration for this masterpiece, which has no peer and constitutes without a doubt the definitive work on the subject of geocentrism...You are to be congratulated not only on your erudition and command of an incredibly vast subject matter, but also on the logical clarity of your presentation and lucidity of style. At your hands this subject of virtually unimaginable complexity becomes ‘almost’ simple, and certainly understandable (up to a point) to nonspecialists. Let me not swell this letter; perhaps I will get back to you on some specific points. Today I just wanted to express my admiration for your book, which strikes me as epochal in its implications...Yours sincerely in Christ, signed, Wolfgang Smith.”

Now, let me present you mr Wolfgang Smith :
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :

Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.

Maybe we should add to what Newton said in Proposition 43, the following story :

Quote from: cikljamas on November 20, 2018, 12:40:31 PM

So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity. The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.

As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX,  and other interferometry experiments...Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruđer Bošković (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. Bošković even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :

”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”

In short, the convinced Copernican Bošković
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression: “with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.” His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.

Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity. Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.

Regarding the proposition of a rotating aether around a rotating Earth, it is refuted by directional gyro experiments, by an absence of a counter-momentum when making loop maneuvers (aviation), and it also can be tested (very easily) with the method which i have proposed earlier in this thread (improved (facilitated) version of an experiment with moving platforms and vertically firing bullets).

With this proposition (No 3) you reminded me to one incredibly interesting story which you have never heard of :

The foregoing treatise illustrates in itself the difficulties facing Bošković in his efforts to reconcile the latest scientific achievements with the latest scientific achievements with the teaching about the immobility of the Earth.

The problem plagued him also because he sought to develop the most acceptable solution, i.e., one that would oppose neither the ruling prohibition of the teaching about the motion of the Earth nor the increasingly large body of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, the Church and the Index forbade him to accept the motion of the Earth; on the other, the latest scientific results, Newtonian physics in particular, could not be reconciled with the immobility of the Earth. The system proposed by Tycho Brahe did offer some hope and a way out, however, and Bošković advocated it initially.

Indeed, Brahe's system admitted equally of Newtonism and of Peripatetic natural philosophy. It was an inversion of the Copernican system and was mathematically structured along the same lines. Brahe's system implied an immovable Earth, hence its agreement with Peripatetic natural philosophy based on the same implication. On the other hand it also lent itself to the application of Newtonian physics because it only involved the inversion of the Sun and the Moon as compared with the Copernican system. These advantages of Brahe's system underlay its almost undivided acceptance in the Jesuit and Franciscan schools of thought during the first half of the 18th century.

The system was related more often to Aristotelian than to Newtonian natural philosophy. This is precisely why Bošković thought that it held some hope for resolving his own dilemma.

In later years Bošković changed his views with regard to the immobility of the Earth. Regardless of this fact, and even regardless of the lifting of the ban on teaching based on the motion of the Earth, he was convinced, almost until his death, that the system developed by Tycho Brahe could be used to advantage while accepting the latest scientific achievements as well.

In a popular review of astronomy for sailors, written towards the end of his life and included in the fifth volume of the Opera pertinentia ad opticam et astronomiam, published in 1786 in Bassano, he admittedly no longer advocated Brahe's system, but nevertheless voiced the following thought :

"Tycho's system, albeit much more complicated, explains all phenomena equally well as that of Copernicus, and all the reasons derived by Galileo from astronomical phenomena fail to prove the worth of Copernicus's system as against Tycho's. Yet, the arguments deriving from the successive propagation of light and from the physical causes of motion, available to us today and found to comply increasingly with the phenomena, necessarily imply the diurnal and annual motion of the Earth unless one accepts the assumption which I developed thirty years ago and which provides the obvious although infinitely improbable possibility that the opposite might be true."

Bošković refers here to his assumption presented in De cometis (On Comets), published in Rome in 1746. In a note to De iride et aurora boreali (On the Rainbow and the Aurora Borealis) By C. Noceti, his professor at the Collegium Romanum, Bošković expressed the conviction that he had found a way "whereby we shall be permitted to use, while retaining the idea of the immobility of the Earth, everything used by those who hold that it moves."

All these endeavours were focused on reconciling Newtonian physics with the immobility of the Earth. Boškovic's concern with the matter is apparent in many of his works; thus, in De maris aestu (On the Tides), published in 1747, he discussed the possible application of Newtonian mechanics to the question of the immobility of the Earth.

The latter hypothesis, stated for the first time in De cometis (1746), may be summed up as follows : Bošković imagined the existence of a stellar space containing all earthly and celestial bodies reached by our senses. This is, therefore, the space within which all observations and experiments are carried out. This space is governed by Newtonian physical laws, thus the Earth revolves about the Sun, while all other motions of the Earth resulting out of Newtonian mechanics are also possible. This space, however, is not Newton's absolute, infinite and immovable space, of which Bošković tells us nothing. Bošković' stellar space moves in relation to absolute space and, obviously, provides for an infinite number of possible combinations. The motion of the earth in this absolute space, therefore, would vary depending on the motion of stellar space in relation to absolute space. However, if this stellar space moves within absolute space, and if its motion is always opposite to the motion of the Earth in stellar space, i.e., to its daily revolution round the equatorial axis, yearly motion about the Sun and all other minor motions, the Earth would be immovable in absolute space.

Of course, the case is infinitely improbable but, as Bošković hypothesized, if the Creator wanted the Earth to be immovable, the requirement would certainly be met. This would comply with the holy writings and permit, without any danger, the acceptance of Newton's physics in its entirety. "Indeed, the Earth will be absolutely and really immovable in relation to absolute space, and will only move relatively and apparently in relation to this movable space."

The solution reconciled Newton's physics with the immobility of the Earth, albeit not in relative, stellar space to which such physics applies but in absolute space. It also permitted Bošković to discuss only relative space, governed by Newtonian physics, in which the Earth moves. On the other hand, the interpretation also raised new issues regarding absolute and relative space, as will be discussed later.

Therefore, although Bošković wanted to freely expound Newtonian mechanics, he also tried not to reject the immobility of the Earth, i.e., the official view of the Church and, accordingly, of the Collegium Romanum. Although Bošković' endeavours were obvious, his views were not regarded favourably by the Collegium. This applies in particular to his Theoria. The severity of the conflict is best explained by the events which took place in 1754. 

Who was Ruder Boškovic : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html

>>>With his theory of forces R. Boškovic was a forerunner of modern physics for almost two centuries. It was described in his most important book Theoria Philosophiae naturalis (Vienna 1758, Venice 1763, London 1922, American edition in 1966).

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize for physics in 1932) wrote the following:

"Among scientists from the 18th century Boskovic occupies outstanding place as a theologian, philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. His "Theoria philosophiae naturalis" announced hypotheses which were confirmed only in the course of last fifty years. "<<<

IN ADDITION :

The  most  famous  Internalist  of  Science  was  Alexander  Koyré,  who  died  in  1964. 
Thomas  Kuhn,  a  generation  younger,  thought  that  Koyré  was  an  absolute  hero  and
model  in  the historiography of science.  Koyré was a Jewish-Russian emigre; he was a
'white Russian', who was anti-Soviet and anti-Marxist.  He said that our perception and
description of facts depends upon our prior conceptual framework.  Koyré also said that
there is no method that is used to produce Science.  You cannot go out observe facts and
generalise.  He also believed that every scientific theory is embedded in a further set of
deep assumptions which shape that theory.  This set of deep background assumptions is
called  the metaphysical background  to  that  theory.   Koyré was one of  the  inventors of
that idea.  In all of that, I agree with Koyre, and we have been exposed here to Koyrean
ideas, but it does not mean that I agree with everything Koyré was saying.   
 
Koyre wanted  to produce a historiography, a master narrative of how  it all happened. 
In  a  couple  of  sentences  this  is  Koyré’s  story:   Modern  science  (by  this  he  means
Copernicus,  Kepler,  Newton)  is  not  based  on  the  discovery  of  a  method.   Modern
science is based on all the people involved in that science suddenly adopting a new and
different metaphysical  background.   What  is  this  ‘metaphysics’?    It  is  the  belief  that
nature is fundamentally mathematical and quantifiable.  It is the type of idea embodied
in what I have called Platonism and neo-Platonism in the Scientific Revolution.  Koyré
was  working  with  an  idea  that  there  is  one  and  only  one  metaphysics  for  modern
science, this kind of watered-down Platonism.  Koyré often writes that we should not be
Whiggish, yet I feel that unconsciously Koyre was himself Whiggish.  Koyré states that
Aristotle  was  not  ignorant  but  that  he  had  the  wrong  metaphysics.    You  could  not
develop  modern  science  with  Aristotle’s  metaphysics  for  it  is  the  ‘wrong’  one. 
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton,  they  all  stumbled  upon  the  ‘right’ metaphysics
and progressed.  Thus, Koyré is like a Whiggish historian of metaphysics!  I think it is
difficult to state that one metaphysics is better than any other metaphysics.  This is one
of the places where I part company with Koyré.

Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?

Yes, you have thrown out plenty of insults because you have no rational response.

Again, you resort to spouting loads of irrelevant nonsense and still refuse to deal with the topic at hand.
There are plenty of other threads, already created by you, that you have already brought these points up in and had them refuted.
If you want to discuss them, go there.

Do you accept that you were wrong and that rockets can indeed work in a vacuum?
If not, answer the question you have been avoiding since the first time it was brought up:

What force accelerates the gas out the back of the rocket and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM

Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.

Maybe we should add to what Newton said in Proposition 43, the following story :

Quote from: JackBlack on November 20, 2018, 01:42:41 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 20, 2018, 12:40:31 PM

So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity. The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.

As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX,  and other interferometry experiments...

Try again! "MMX experiment in combination with MGPX, and other interferometry experiments" are better explained by no luminiferous aether and relativity.

Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.

Try again! Airy's null-result experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy is better explained by no luminiferous aether and relativity.

James Bradley was the guy

who showed that stellar aberation could easily be explained by the earth orbiting the sun.

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

Only if you deny relativity. But no matter how you wriggle all aspects of stellar aberration cannot be explained by a stationary earth and motion of the stars.
Then stellar parallax really throws a spanner in the works!

CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.

Incorrect as has been explained many times!

In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”), which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years, it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :

”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that the stars indeed describe circlets."
<< That seems irrelevant to me! >>

No, stellar aberration cannot be explained by "with the supposition that the stars indeed describe circlets."
You night read (I assume that either you didn't read it or didn't understand it last time): Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion.
In particular note the part on rapidly rotating binary stars.

Regarding the proposition of a rotating aether around a rotating Earth, it is refuted by directional gyro experiments, by an absence of a counter-momentum when making loop maneuvers (aviation), and it also can be tested (very easily) with the method which i have proposed earlier in this thread (improved (facilitated) version of an experiment with moving platforms and vertically firing bullets).

No! Aircraft Directional Gyro are totally irrelevant here and are simply a device to stabilise the magnetic compass and must be reset often from the magnetic compass.

And I fail to see the relevance of any "(improved (facilitated) version of an experiment with moving platforms and vertically firing bullets)."

<< I can't comment on this until I get a chance to read it in more detail.

Quote mage:

Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.

You also point to a well-known discrepancy between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But in spite of that, both of them are so well-established in their respective realms that we know both to be correct, as far as they go. In the realm of the unimaginably small, QM is correct. In the realms of the unimaginably massive and the unimaginably fast, Relativity is correct. And in the realm of the normal day-to-day lives of humans, Newtonian physics is close enough to make no difference. Your argument that Relativity is meaningless because there's a discrepancy, simply does not hold water and demonstrates a failure to understand Relativity. (Nobody understands QM, and anybody who claims to is lying.  )

As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.






Yes
I do find it funny.
I bolded some choice comments.
Yes cherry picked and topically out of context, but in general shows an unexplanable duplicity or cog disonance attitude to "mainstream" science.
Clarification on WHY appreciated.

... aether...

Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the aether does not exist. Einstein explained why it is not needed. A hundred walls of copy/past from the internet cannot change that. The aether is one broken egg that all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put back together again.

I am going to speculate that your conviction that the Earth is stationary arises from a literalist reading of the Bible. And that your rejection of Relativity comes because Relativity says that there is no "center." A literalist reading of the Bible will always put you in conflict with science. But I'm reminded of something a Congregational United Church of Christ pastor once said to me, that in her view there is no faith-based reason to assume that Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. And indeed, it was not taken literally until Luther and his doctrine of sola scriptura, which he applied to matters of faith, but which later evangelicals have applied to all matters of knowledge. One problem with this is that there are a nearly unlimited number of ways the Bible can be read "literally," and they cannot all be right. Reading it as allegory eliminates all these problems and allows the sincere believer to accept science without having to accuse God of being a humorless ignorant putz. The funny thing is that people who insist on a literal inerrant Bible are effectively accusing God of being a humorless ignorant putz.

(For clarification, I don't believe in God or gods or anything else supernatural. I think the Bible is a pretty cool book with some adventure, some pornography, and some poetry, but is no more inerrant than 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.)

Quote mage:

Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist,

Yes
I do find it funny.

I am happy to bring some joy into the world.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 28, 2019, 03:02:32 PM

As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.

But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.

If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.

It can fly?

Please read what JackBlack wrote!
"If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly."
"Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96 m/s². So you aren't going to fly."

Quote from: cikljamas on August 01, 2019, 03:11:36 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 28, 2019, 03:02:32 PM

As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.

But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.

If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.

It can fly?

Please read what JackBlack wrote!
"If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly."
"Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96 m/s². So you aren't going to fly."

Something is fishy around here :

Let's quote an excerpt from one interesting article :

So we’ve answered Rob’s question. With enough machine guns, you could fly.

But our AK-47 rig is clearly not a practical jetpack. Can we do better?

My Texas friends suggested a series of machine guns, and I ran the numbers on each one. Some did pretty well; the MG-42, a heavier machine gun, had a marginally higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the AK-47.

Then we went bigger.

The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.

To put it another way: If I mounted a GAU-8 on my car, put the car in neutral, and started firing backward from a standstill, I would be breaking the interstate speed limit in less than three seconds.



Let's repeat this sentence :

If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.

I call bullshit on this!!!

This is the classical example of discordance between math and reality!

That is why we need experiments or thought experiments (in absence of real experiments)...

The question arises (thought experiment) : When A-10 (in flight) opens fire from his gatling gun (GAU-8) does he decelerate for 60 %???

According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :

A - 10 Warthog 30mm cannon in action :

Something is fishy around here :

Yes, someone made a topic claiming that rockets can't work in a vacuum, and instead of addressing the topic, they have been avoiding it quite a lot, they aren't even answering a single, simple question.

I call bullshit on this!!!
This is the classical example of discordance between math and reality!

You mean it is a classical example of you putting your feelings above reality.

According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :

No, this video shows no clear indication of the speed.

Now care to address my question:
What force accelerates the gas out the back of the rocket and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Quote from: cikljamas on August 01, 2019, 02:30:39 PM

... aether...

I am going to speculate that your conviction that the Earth is stationary arises from a literalist reading of the Bible. And that your rejection of Relativity comes because Relativity says that there is no "center." A literalist reading of the Bible will always put you in conflict with science. But I'm reminded of something a Congregational United Church of Christ pastor once said to me, that in her view there is no faith-based reason to assume that Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. And indeed, it was not taken literally until Luther and his doctrine of sola scriptura, which he applied to matters of faith, but which later evangelicals have applied to all matters of knowledge. One problem with this is that there are a nearly unlimited number of ways the Bible can be read "literally," and they cannot all be right. Reading it as allegory eliminates all these problems and allows the sincere believer to accept science without having to accuse God of being a humorless ignorant putz. The funny thing is that people who insist on a literal inerrant Bible are effectively accusing God of being a humorless ignorant putz.

(For clarification, I don't believe in God or gods or anything else supernatural. I think the Bible is a pretty cool book with some adventure, some pornography, and some poetry, but is no more inerrant than 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.)

The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.

However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought. Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 02, 2019, 03:24:09 AM

According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :

No, this video shows no clear indication of the speed.

Now care to address my question:
What force accelerates the gas out the back of the rocket and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

I don't have to address your question, because i've proven my point (numerous times) without addressing your question, don't you get it???
For example : all i have to do is to prove (show/demonstrate) that A-10 doesn't decelerate (AT ALL, LET ALONE FOR 60 % - roughly), while firing it's heavy rounds at incredibly fast rate!

Quote from: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 08:33:56 PM

Please read what JackBlack wrote!
"If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly."
"Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96 m/s². So you aren't going to fly."

Something is fishy around here :

Then we went bigger.

The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.

To put it another way: If I mounted a GAU-8 on my car, put the car in neutral, and started firing backward from a standstill, I would be breaking the interstate speed limit in less than three seconds.[/i]

Possibly (I haven't bothered checking yet) but:
1) The loaded A-10 Warthog has a mass 10 to 15 times that of your car.
2) The GAU-8 Avenger is only fired in one or two second bursts.

Let's repeat this sentence :

If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.

But!
1) The A-10 does not have two GAU-8 Avenger. It has one!
2) So, no the A-10 would not accelerate backward but (even if it had two GAU-8s) just slow slightly for one or two seconds.

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams

In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.

While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst slows the aircraft only a few miles per hour in level flight.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
mass: 29000 lbs or 13154 kg
payload: 16000 lbs or 7257 kg

The 4589 kgf is only applied for one and two-second bursts so would you like to rethink your claims?

I call bullshit on this!!!
This is the classical example of discordance between math and reality!

Why, you've proven no "discordance between math and reality"

That is why we need experiments or thought experiments (in absence of real experiments)...

The question arises (thought experiment) : When A-10 (in flight) opens fire from his gatling gun (GAU-8) does he decelerate for 60 %???

Why 60%? The longest burst is only about 2 seconds and the A-10 have a mass somewhere around the 20,000 kg mark!

According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :

A-10 Warthog 30mm cannon in action :

You could not possibly tell from that video that the "A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL".
It is only claimed that "in practice a cannon fire burst slows the aircraft only a few miles per hour in level flight".

If you disagree show your calculations.

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams

In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.

Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.

So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).

In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?

If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight, or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 05:24:52 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 01, 2019, 02:30:39 PM

... aether...

I am going to speculate that your conviction that the Earth is stationary arises from a literalist reading of the Bible. And that your rejection of Relativity comes because Relativity says that there is no "center." A literalist reading of the Bible will always put you in conflict with science. But I'm reminded of something a Congregational United Church of Christ pastor once said to me, that in her view there is no faith-based reason to assume that Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. And indeed, it was not taken literally until Luther and his doctrine of sola scriptura, which he applied to matters of faith, but which later evangelicals have applied to all matters of knowledge. One problem with this is that there are a nearly unlimited number of ways the Bible can be read "literally," and they cannot all be right. Reading it as allegory eliminates all these problems and allows the sincere believer to accept science without having to accuse God of being a humorless ignorant putz. The funny thing is that people who insist on a literal inerrant Bible are effectively accusing God of being a humorless ignorant putz.

(For clarification, I don't believe in God or gods or anything else supernatural. I think the Bible is a pretty cool book with some adventure, some pornography, and some poetry, but is no more inerrant than 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.)

The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.

However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought. Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.

I am not saying that all Christians and only Christians believed/believe that the Earth stands still. I am speculating that your insistence on favoring Aristotle over Newton might come from your belief that the Bible is a better source of knowledge than the science that came later. And note please that Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton did not follow the modern evangelical belief that the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge of physics. They believed in the Christian God, but they read the Bible as allegory (as did most if not all Christians back then) and were therefore open to the possibility that the world might not be exactly as described therein.

I am merely trying to understand why you would believe in a young Earth. AFAIK, only people who regard the Bible as inerrant and literal believe the Earth to be younger than around 4 1/2 billion years old, give or take half a billion. And while even many young-Earth creationists believe in the heliocentric solar system, I've never heard of a geocentrist in modern times (say, within the last hundred years) who was not also a young-Earth creationist and a Bible literalist.

But I would be happy to be corrected regarding your view of the Bible.

(As I said earlier, I regard it as a very cool book, but not a reliable source of information about anything.)

Quote

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams

In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.

Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.

So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).

In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?

If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight, or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?

I didn’t check the calcs but if the force from gun cancels out force from engines for three seconds all it means is the aircraft can’t accelerate. Big deal.

Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??

Need a translation here!

Exactly, a direct sail will not allow ships to sail along rivers. And sailing ships really sailed. So tell me, how did they do it? After all, they could not violate all the known laws of physics. Or not?

Quote

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams

In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.

Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.

So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).

In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?

If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight, or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?

If the plane has 2 x 40.5 kN, and losses 45 kN, it still hase remaining 81-45 = 36 kN.
So, for 2-3 seconds the power is reduced from 81 to 36, and still remains positive.
After those 2-3 sec, it gets back to 81.

For how much could reduction to 36 kN for 2-3 seconds, slow it down while diving?

According to this aviation website, there is an effect on the A10:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/46317/how-much-is-airspeed-reduced-on-an-a10-warthog-when-firing-its-cannon

But as others in this thread have mentioned, it only blips it's guns for a few seconds. And since it's a ground attack aircraft, it's pointing downwards anyway when firing and so gravity assists its forward motion.

Still waiting for the slam dunk evidence of documents with NASA stamped all over them outlining their plans for the Apollo landing hoax. Or even any whistleblowers' biographies, kiss and tell stories, leaks, outtakes from the scripted films, the script itself, etc., etc.,

Somehow, I don't think we'll get them.

Quote from: Romp on August 01, 2019, 10:42:52 AM

Why are you using as one of your authorities on astronomy and science, someone who who's training and background is theology and religion, and a charlatan at that it seems:

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-proposition-readers/

Here is an endorsement dr. Robert Sungenis received from Wolfgang Smith, a professor of physics and mathematics at MIT:

April 2010: “Dear Dr. Sungenis: Since writing to you two days ago to thank you for your letter and the gift of your two-volume treatise, I have had a chance to peruse this  work  and  feel  compelled  to  congratulate  you  and  Dr.  Bennett  on  this outstanding achievement! Though I am not usually a loss for words, I find it hard to express my admiration for this masterpiece, which has no peer and constitutes without a doubt the definitive work on the subject of geocentrism...You are to be congratulated not only on your erudition and command of an incredibly vast subject matter, but also on the logical clarity of your presentation and lucidity of style. At your hands this subject of virtually unimaginable complexity becomes ‘almost’ simple, and certainly understandable (up to a point) to nonspecialists. Let me not swell this letter; perhaps I will get back to you on some specific points. Today I just wanted to express my admiration for your book, which strikes me as epochal in its implications...Yours sincerely in Christ, signed, Wolfgang Smith.”

Now, let me present you mr Wolfgang Smith :
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :

Why is it that I think the two talking heads in the video aren't convincing me of geocentrism…………………..

And doesn't the letter's language seem flowery to you? Almost as if it's a mickey take.

Still waiting for the slam dunk evidence of documents with NASA stamped all over them outlining their plans for the Apollo landing hoax. Or even any whistleblowers' biographies, kiss and tell stories, leaks, outtakes from the scripted films, the script itself, etc., etc.,

Somehow, I don't think we'll get them.

I think we’ve moved onto A10 Warthogs don’t exist, now.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on August 01, 2019, 12:00:24 PM

Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??

Need a translation here!

Exactly, a direct sail will not allow ships to sail along rivers. And sailing ships really sailed. So tell me, how did they do it? After all, they could not violate all the known laws of physics. Or not?

I answered this in Reply 366 above:

As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.

Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.

I didn’t check the calcs but if the force from gun cancels out force from engines for three seconds all it means is the aircraft can’t accelerate. Big deal.

Actually, wind resistance would slow it down a teeny tiny bit. Still no big deal.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on August 01, 2019, 12:00:24 PM

Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??

Need a translation here!

Exactly, a direct sail will not allow ships to sail along rivers. And sailing ships really sailed. So tell me, how did they do it? After all, they could not violate all the known laws of physics. Or not?

Boats have been sailing on r8vers for hundreds of years:



As others posted, it depends on sail and boat type and width of river.