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

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2020, 04:16:27 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: bright on January 21, 2020, 12:13:25 AM

Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.

I think Sceppy has given up:

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

Did you pound your chest as you typed that?

That probably did come across too aggressively.  Apologies.  I do actually really like Sceptimatic's fantasy world and enjoy hearing about it, I think he has a wonderful imagination.

What are your thoughts on it?  Do you like the idea of an invisible magic crystal at the center of the world shining on a dome to give us the sun, moon, stars, and planets?  What about the idea that we are all 'swimming' through semisolid mattress like structures as we wander about in our daily lives?  I'm currently enjoying imagining there is no such thing as inertia, and instead it is always just the viscoelastic atmosphere sloshing at our backs.

Its great stuff. 

Quote from: sobchak on January 22, 2020, 10:35:22 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 10:14:21 AM

Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies

Imagine air is like a stack of mattresses. 

Now imagine yourself falling through the air onto those mattresses.

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

Weirdo doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Of course. If you can't put your mind to analogies from my side then you're going to struggle.

Oh, Im not struggling to envisage your imaginary scenarios.  They are just really 'weirdo', as has been noted.  Nothing wrong with that though, you are free to imagine what you will and share what you want. 

Quote from: sobchak on January 22, 2020, 04:36:17 AM

Do you think that the 101st explanation will suddenly work when the previous 100 failed?

I try to come up with simpler and simpler ways of putting it but I guess it's "Rocket Science".
Sceptimatic thinks that he's so brilliant that, using "common sense" alone he can come up with the "theory of everything".

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

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

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

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

Go figure!

---

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

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 13, 2017, 05:40:50 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 12:48:35 AM

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

There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.

Also, only 9 months later Copper Knickers asked the following question:

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 06:38:30 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on November 22, 2017, 06:09:22 AM

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

What is mass?

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

Have fun with the Sceppinese dictionary!

lol. 

Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind.  Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.

Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind.  Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.

Conventional
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.

I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.

So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.

What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.

So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.

Are they all complete wrong?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2020, 10:10:13 PM

I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.

So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.

Basically what the theoretical science world is doing with a lot of stuff. Including yourself with simply accepting it without verifying it yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic

What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.

So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.

Are they all complete wrong?

All may be completely wrong or all wrong in some ways and in others, correct.
There's no way of knowing the absolute truth of everything and this is why debates happen and continue to happen.
This is why philosophies and theories....hypotheses and what not, happen.

You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.

You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.

As do you.

The big difference is that I do accept that I could be wrong, but all the evidence and rational thought shows that rockets do work in space.
Meanwhile you assert that you are right, but can't even explain how the gas leaves the rocket.


Again, what does the gas push against to leave the rocket?
The only thing available is the rocket.
If it pushes against the rocket, that means it pushes the rocket and rockets work in space.
If it doesn't and just magically moves without needing to push on anything then why should the rocket need to push on anything?
Either way, rockets work in space.

Again, how about you stop with the deflection and address this issue?
What is the gas pushing against to leave the rocket?

And still not a good explanation from scepti of how a simple firework rocket works. And don't come with your gas-on-gas fight, super-compressing the air and all that kind of words. A firework rocket is not able to create a huge amount of force that is capable of super-compress the air. Yet the firework rocket will go into the air, so what force is responsible to get this into the air?

And I agree with Jackblack that once the gas is leaving the firework rocket it is an exhaust. It doesn't matter if there is a flame or not.

Quote from: sobchak on January 23, 2020, 01:01:39 AM

Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind.  Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.

Conventional
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.

You are entitled to believe what you want, imagine what you want, and reject whatever you want.  You are welcome to believe in your magic crystal and strange atmosphere, it doesn't matter.  Go ahead and think the sun is a fire dragon named Steve who winks at you during eclipses, and as long as you are healthy and happy and not sacrificing virgins to appease his fiery hunger, all the best to you. 

That said, unless you are just play acting here, it is clear you are struggling to understand the conventional description. Besides the 106 pages of people here patiently (and impatiently) explaining, the world of information is at your fingertips, with textbooks, video tutorials, and web based resources all describing the modern understanding of rocket propulsion.  I dont care if you reject all of it as Reptillian plot, but the fact that you still dont understand how it works at all is a clear sign that you have some sort of emotional, psychological, or cognitive block to being able to process the information. 

This is fine, we all have our limitations. (and strengths, I really do like your imagination, you are a much more creative person than I am).  Just something you might want to think about.   

Quote from: rabinoz on January 23, 2020, 03:23:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2020, 10:10:13 PM

I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.

So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.

Basically what the theoretical science world is doing with a lot of stuff. Including yourself with simply accepting it without verifying it yourself.

The properties of gases were not "theoretical science"! They were all found by direct experiments with measurements.
I believe them because they are consistent with what is observed.
There are now theories as to why those old "gas laws" were nearly true and these theories also show the limitations of those old laws.

Nevertheless, those old gas laws are all that is needed in most situations.

But I see no need nor would it be possible for every individual to personally repeat every experiment and measurement of science.
Were that the case there could never be any progress.

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic

What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.

So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.

Are they all complete wrong?

All may be completely wrong or all wrong in some ways and in others, correct.
There's no way of knowing the absolute truth of everything and this is why debates happen and continue to happen.
This is why philosophies and theories....hypotheses and what not, happen.

While "there's no way of knowing the absolute truth" many things reach a point where they can be "regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt"

And for centuries Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation were "regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt".
Then along came Einstein and extended Newton's Laws into regions that Newton could not envisage in his day.

You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.

Sure but until there is evidence suggesting that "what I adhere to might be wrong" I see no reason to believe things that I can easily see cannot be correct.

You could ask Scepti about nuclear power stations if you want to understand how he thinks.

You could ask Scepti about nuclear power stations if you want to understand how he thinks.

Would love to, probably some fascinating insight there. I like the subject too, I have to say even 20 years later, seeing Cherenkov radiation in person still stands out as one of the coolest things I can remember. 

That said, this thread is making so much progress seems a shame to disrupt it.  Link to old discussion?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 01:32:09 PM

I agree.
The only way to figure out scepinese is to walk through the language word by word.
It took us nearly 20pg to discover negative presure meant negative rate in relation to its previous state, not in relation to outside the vessel as most normal humans consider it.

The only way to understand it is to pay attention and put the global shield to one side whilst you do that.
Failure to do this will naturally render any effort to try to understand, as pointless.

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

Great
Lets do that then
Put the duped fake science to the side and work on our green bar diagram.
Quit asking for concentional rocket diagrams.
Show us the way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2020, 10:05:16 PM

No it's not exhaust.

Yes it is.
You wanting to lie about definitions doesn't change that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2020, 10:05:16 PM

The smoke coming out of a car is exhaust.

As would flames coming out of a car's exhaust pipe be exhaust.

They key part is that the gases have been expelled and no longer do work on the vehicle.

In both cases the exhaust is still hot and capable of having its energy lowered.

But again, this is just another pathetic distraction.

You sure seem to love avoiding the issue, as if you KNOW you cannot resolve it.

Again, what is the gas pushing against to accelerate out of the rocket?

IE
If that car was the batmobile (micahel keaton)

Quote from: sobchak on January 23, 2020, 01:01:39 AM

Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind.  Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.

Conventional
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.

Good
You looked up a word that we currently dont have issue with.
But its all your other purposefully misrepresented use of language as posted by rab that was the problem.
Keep on missing the point.

Or purposefully avoiding it.

I am all you say I am.

No ones talking to you unless youre sceppy alt

I am all you say I am.

No ones talking to you unless youre sceppy alt

I am all you say I am.

Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.

Quote from: HattyFatner on January 23, 2020, 07:04:01 AM

I am all you say I am.

Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.

True dat.

So hatty is sceppy?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 23, 2020, 01:22:18 PM

Quote from: HattyFatner on January 23, 2020, 07:04:01 AM

I am all you say I am.

Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.

True day.

Nope, true claim, you are "Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims."

It's raining here and I was bored so I thought I'd check out the FES. It's been like six months since I was here, and you guys are still arguing about whether rockets can work in a vacuum??? I'm actually kind of impressed that those of you who are sane can keep it up this long. So maybe I can clear it all up:

The reason we know that rockets can work in a vacuum is that rockets do work in a vacuum. Since they do, they can. Hope this helps. 

It's raining here and I was bored so I thought I'd check out the FES. It's been like six months since I was here, and you guys are still arguing about whether rockets can work in a vacuum??? I'm actually kind of impressed that those of you who are sane can keep it up this long. So maybe I can clear it all up:

The reason we know that rockets can work in a vacuum is that rockets do work in a vacuum. Since they do, they can. Hope this helps. 

Welcome back but I'm afraid facts, logic and common sense have no place in the minds of Rockets in Space Deniers.

When shown numerous videos and eye-witness reports of rockets they just claim that they go up arc over and are dumped into the sea.
This is all supposedly part of some ridiculous Global conspiracy controlled by "somebody" to "hide God and the true shape of the Earth from the ignorant masses.

What anybody would gain from conspiracy this is a complete mystery but so is what goes on in the minds of these Rockets in Space Deniers!

When you point out that most people can see the ISS at exactly the specified times some say that it's just a helium balloon shaped like that!

Go figure!

amazibg input from a guy who says all science is right (even rocket scientists) except for when it comes to the shape of the earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 06, 2020, 12:51:03 PM

It's raining here and I was bored so I thought I'd check out the FES. It's been like six months since I was here, and you guys are still arguing about whether rockets can work in a vacuum??? I'm actually kind of impressed that those of you who are sane can keep it up this long. So maybe I can clear it all up:

The reason we know that rockets can work in a vacuum is that rockets do work in a vacuum. Since they do, they can. Hope this helps. 

Welcome back but I'm afraid facts, logic and common sense have no place in the minds of Rockets in Space Deniers.

When shown numerous videos and eye-witness reports of rockets they just claim that they go up arc over and are dumped into the sea.
This is all supposedly part of some ridiculous Global conspiracy controlled by "somebody" to "hide God and the true shape of the Earth from the ignorant masses.

What anybody would gain from conspiracy this is a complete mystery but so is what goes on in the minds of these Rockets in Space Deniers!

When you point out that most people can see the ISS at exactly the specified times some say that it's just a helium balloon shaped like that!

Go figure!

Which is why it's kind of pointless to argue with them. I mean, go for it if that's what you enjoy doing, but facts do not impress them.

amazibg input from a guy who says all science is right (even rocket scientists) except for when it comes to the shape of the earth.

I guess you missed that I switched sides shortly before dropping off the FES chat board half a year ago.

Ha ok
Last thing i remeber was calling you out and you trolling.
Good stuff then.
Enjoy your rain.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 22, 2020, 09:35:00 PM

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2020, 04:16:27 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 02:33:39 AM

Quote from: bright on January 21, 2020, 12:13:25 AM

Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.

I think Sceppy has given up:

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

Did you pound your chest as you typed that?

That probably did come across too aggressively.  Apologies.  I do actually really like Sceptimatic's fantasy world and enjoy hearing about it, I think he has a wonderful imagination.

What are your thoughts on it?  Do you like the idea of an invisible magic crystal at the center of the world shining on a dome to give us the sun, moon, stars, and planets?  What about the idea that we are all 'swimming' through semisolid mattress like structures as we wander about in our daily lives?  I'm currently enjoying imagining there is no such thing as inertia, and instead it is always just the viscoelastic atmosphere sloshing at our backs.

Its great stuff.

It's not a magic crystal, it's a gigantic carbon arc lamp.  And the imagination of sceptimatic is not very good.  He rips off ideas from movies.

Quote from: sobchak on January 23, 2020, 01:01:39 AM

Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind.  Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.

Conventional
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.

Well I don’t accept your definition of “conventional”.  I’ve decided that “conventional” means “a bit socialist”, and no so called dictionary is going to tell me otherwise.

So you can stick your conventional meaning of the word conventional where the sun don’t shine.

Quote from: bright on January 21, 2020, 12:13:25 AM

Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.

Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating  a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.

Interesting. This is a bit different from your previous stance on the subject. However, I disagree and my reasoning is presented in the video below.



Mike