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

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.

Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2020, 08:05:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.

Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
What part of that is so hard to understand? 

There's none of it hard t o understand.
It tells you exactly what you want to know.
The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.
You see, the object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
Great, you could argue this is the case....but is it?
You see, there's ALWAYS an external force acting upon any object. It is never at rest.

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


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

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

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

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2020, 08:05:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.

Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2020, 06:47:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2020, 08:05:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.

Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
What part of that is so hard to understand? 

There's none of it hard t o understand.
It tells you exactly what you want to know.
The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.
You see, the object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
Great, you could argue this is the case....but is it?
You see, there's ALWAYS an external force acting upon any object. It is never at rest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: markjo

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

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

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

I think sceptis weirdo mind has issue with the fact you can never proove the base claim by removing all forces because there is always a force somewhere that needs to be taken into consideration.

Basically saying there is no such thing as absolute zero temp because as soon as you try to measure it, you would introduce a heat source and void it.

Same as his "vauum doesnt exist" arguemtn because there is always somethi mng, like the exhaust gas of a rocket, space dust, or etc.

But again, its a non argument.
What scepti needs to do is prove HIS theory and draw a proper damn diagram!!!

The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.

No, it does show a key part of reality.

Yes, there is almost always some external force, but that doesn't change the fact of what happens without it, and the impact of the force.

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

No, it is actually that it continues with its motion. An external force will change the motion, which can be to stop it (in some reference frame) or it could be to speed it up, or just change the direction.

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

Or, as was originally done, we can look how the different forces impact motion, and extrapolate back to no force.
We can see how applying a force in the direction opposite motion slows it down. We can see how applying it for a longer amount of time or a larger force will slow it down more.

You can also apply a force to negate an external force to see what happens when the net force is 0.

So no, it very much describes reality.

But lets consider what if this law was fiction.
Well that would mean objects at rest could magically spring into motion with no application of force, and objects could just magically stop for no reason.

It would mean rockets could be fine in space, as without the first law there is no requirement for a force for them to move.

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

While pure nonsense, that just pushes the problem back. Why does the atmosphere slosh?
Is it because it is an object in motion and will continue that motion?
Sure sounds like you are just using it for the atmosphere so you can pretend it doesn't work for other objects.

But we can see what effect that has by looking at a helium balloon.
The atmosphere sloshing forwards causes the balloon to be pushed backwards.

But the best way to show it is nonsense is to not be in a car. Instead be on a bike. The same thing happens.
In fact, if you do it bad enough, you go flying off the bike due to your momentum.

But of course, all of this is just another pathetic distraction from your complete inability to address the issues which clearly show your claims to be nonsense, which clearly show rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

Again, TELL US HOW THE GAS ACCELERATES!
What is it pushing on (noting that means it is pushing that object)?
Again, the only thing which it can push on is the rocket. Everything else is on the wrong side.

Likewise, tell us how the rocket accelerates.
What is pushing on it? We know it can't be the atmosphere as it is on the wrong side or the rocket is protected from it by the gas coming out of the rocket engine. The only option is the gas.

But if the rocket is pushing the gas out of the rocket and the gas pushes the rocket, that means that there is no need for the atmosphere and the rocket will work in a vacuum.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 15, 2020, 09:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2020, 08:05:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.

Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Who agrees with you?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 15, 2020, 09:13:43 AM

There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Does anyone see a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome in spades here?

But Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, Wise, John Davis and you, Sceppy, all claim the same thing but all have quite different:

• Maps or "Continental Layouts".
  
  
• "Models" of the flat Earth.
  
  
• Explanations for gravity.
  
  
• And in some case even a vastly different chronology.

They ALL insist that they, themselves are right. So who is right? Either one or none is right.

I'll take the easy way out and stick with the simplest explanation of all - that gravity is real and the Earth is a sedately rotating ball that orbits the Sun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: markjo

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

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

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

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

Or, this.




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

I think sceptis weirdo mind has issue with the fact you can never proove the base claim by removing all forces because there is always a force somewhere that needs to be taken into consideration.

Basically saying there is no such thing as absolute zero temp because as soon as you try to measure it, you would introduce a heat source and void it.

Same as his "vauum doesnt exist" arguemtn because there is always somethi mng, like the exhaust gas of a rocket, space dust, or etc.

But again, its a non argument.
What scepti needs to do is prove HIS theory and draw a proper damn diagram!!!

Can you prove the so called laws?

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you dont need them.

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you dont need them.

I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.

Likewise, tell us how the rocket accelerates.
What is pushing on it? We know it can't be the atmosphere as it is on the wrong side or the rocket is protected from it by the gas coming out of the rocket engine. The only option is the gas.

Picture a tube of water in freezing conditions where, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.
So, inside the tube the water is protected from external atmospheric interference.
Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interference immediately hits the flow and freezes is. Do you agree?

I'll take it you do, because you can't dent it.

Ok, now imagine that water consistently flowing into these conditions.
What will happen?

1. Would the tube be pushed up by the build up of ice under it?

2. Would the tube stay in the same position regardless?


I'll let you answer this one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:18:37 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 15, 2020, 09:13:43 AM

There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Does anyone see a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome in spades here?

But Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, Wise, John Davis and you, Sceppy, all claim the same thing but all have quite different:

• Maps or "Continental Layouts".
  
  
• "Models" of the flat Earth.
  
  
• Explanations for gravity.
  
  
• And in some case even a vastly different chronology.

They ALL insist that they, themselves are right. So who is right? Either one or none is right.

I'll take the easy way out and stick with the simplest explanation of all - that gravity is real and the Earth is a sedately rotating ball that orbits the Sun.

You can attach anything you like to the mindset of someone who has a differing opinion to the one you are and have been thoroughly schooled into and adhere to.
Maybe that's some kind of syndrome?

It doesn't solve the debate/argument in your favour by using psychological terms or reference to terms. It basically weakens anything you try to put forward, because it looks like you're turning petty and trying to use all kinds of ways and means to gain some kind of advantage.

By all means search for anything that you think suits my or anyone else's mindset for your own satisfaction but just remember that your argument is once again based on adherence to a narrative.

Chess with a pigeon and Dunning Kruger syndrome.
List as many as you feel will satisfy you.

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you dont need them.

Of course I can and I will.

First of all I'd like you to draw your diagram of how your rocket works by making it perfectly clear as to what is happening.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2020, 10:46:18 PM

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you dont need them.

I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.

I can but can you draw one showing your space rocket and how it works.
Your diagram not a simple copy and paste of some diagram that shows nothing.

Over to you.

Quote from: markjo

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

Quote from: markjo

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

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

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

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

Or, this.



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

Now you're just being silly; Applying a hydrodynamic principle to who knows what. Essentially you're saying installing baffles would prevent one from smacking the dashboard when the brakes are abruptly applied.



Seatbelts, not worthy. Airbags, unneeded. What we need are baffles in cars to stop the 'atmospheric slosh effect'. You manufacture so much anti-logic/science, it's hard to keep up:

- Pressure gauges don't measure pressure when pressure is released even though the fundamental design of a pressure gauge the world over measures pressure only when pressure is pressing on the gauge. Check
- Your explanations and diagram only show how a rocket would never move, an atmosphere or not being present. Check
- Now, your made up atmospheric slosh effect. Triple check.

What's next? A carbonite sun shining through a crystal at the north pole melting a constantly re-freezing dome, all of which have never been discovered, witnessed, documented, whatever. Yet you claim you are only satisfied something exists if you can personally verify it yourself. How do you square that?

What's next? Your hypocrisy is unmatched.

And if that's the case then it makes the law a nothing.

Do you understand what a law is in the scientific context?
A mathematical relationship.
All that law is stating is that if F=0, then vt=v0.

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

The momentum of the water keeps it moving.
Can you explain why it keeps moving?
Why should this apply magically to the atmosphere and the water, but not to people or other objects?
Yet again, you have a direct contradiction in your nonsense.

Picture a tube of water

Why do you need to continue to appeal to these pathetic analogies rather than just explaining what is happening?
Quit with the pathetic distractions and actually try to explain.

Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interference

We are dealing with something happening in a vacuum. What atmospheric interference is there?
NONE!
You are appealing to a fantasy with no connection to reality.

It also has absolutely no connection to rockets. With rockets, the gas doesn't just freeze and stop dead when it leaves, instead it leaves the rocket at a very high velocity and continues moving until it is well away from the rocket.

Again, quit with the distractions.

Answer the extremely simple questions you have been asked.
Tell us what is accelerating the gas.
Even in your pathetic analogy you just have the being "allowed to flow", with nothing to actually make it move.

Without something to accelerate the gas, the gas should remain sitting inside the rocket.

So again, tell us what accelerates the gas.

Then once you have figured that out, tell us what accelerates the rocket.

Until you can actually address these issues you have literally nothing to defend your garbage as these issues destroy your garbage and clearly show that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

Of course I can and I will.

WHEN?
You said you would ages ago, but all you seem to want to do is try and deflect.
You have had ample opportunity to provide such a diagram and you have repeatedly failed to provide one with any hope of working due to no force on the rocket and loads of forces existing with no reaction force, or just deflected, saying that you will provide it later or coming up with some other BS.

Stop deflecting and actual deal with the issues addressed.

First of all I'd like you to draw your diagram of how your rocket works by making it perfectly clear as to what is happening.

This has been provided for you countless times.
Stop with the pathetic distractions and draw your diagram to explain how the gas accelerates including clearly identify the force acting on the gas and the reactionary force, and then what force acts on the rocket.

So far in this thread we have had people who accept reality being able to clearly explain how rockets work in a vacuum, completely with diagrams clearly showing how, vs you and your friends who have been completely unable to address extremely simple issues or provide a simple diagram.

Picture a tube of water in freezing conditions

If it's in "freezing conditions" why hasn't it already frozen?

where, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.
So, inside the tube the water is protected from external atmospheric interference.

But "external atmospheric interference" has virtually no effect on the freezing point of water.
So who cares if it is or is not "protected from external atmospheric interference"?

Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interference immediately hits the flow and freezes is. Do you agree?

No! it would have already frozen and would not flow!

I'll take it you do, because you can't dent it.

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

<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>

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

Nearly at the 100!  I'm so fucking excited.

Come on, one last push!

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2020, 10:46:18 PM

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you dont need them.

Of course I can and I will.

First of all I'd like you to draw your diagram of how your rocket works by making it perfectly clear as to what is happening.

Conventional physics is well documented.
Your denP is not.
Draw the arrows.

Seriously.
Its been like 30pg now since you drew that green bar.
Is it that idfficult to show a force transfer through the grren bar?
You keep insisting the rocket rides the green bar.
So draw some arrows showing the bar pushes on the rocket.

Or
Explain why the arrows dont need to exist.

Nearly at the 100!  I'm so fucking excited.

Come on, one last push!

We're trying and Sceppy is very trying but no match for Heiwa.

Quote from: rvlvr on January 15, 2020, 10:48:19 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2020, 10:46:18 PM

Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you don't need them.

I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.

I can but can you draw one showing your space rocket and how it works.
Your diagram not a simple copy and paste of some diagram that shows nothing.

Over to you.

You don't need people here to explain, just look online for the answer and come back with what you think is right or wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2020, 10:53:58 PM

Picture a tube of water in freezing conditions

If it's in "freezing conditions" why hasn't it already frozen?

Quote from: sceptimatic

where, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.
So, inside the tube the water is protected from external atmospheric interference.

But "external atmospheric interference" has virtually no effect on the freezing point of water.
So who cares if it is or is not "protected from external atmospheric interference"?

Quote from: sceptimatic

Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interference immediately hits the flow and freezes is. Do you agree?

No! it would have already frozen and would not flow!

Quote from: sceptimatic

I'll take it you do, because you can't dent it.

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

Quote from: sceptimatic

<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>

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

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

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

Draw the arrows.

Draw the arrows.

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

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

Draw the arrows.

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

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

Draw the arrows.

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

I expect better.