WHY would the government trick us?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 09, 2024, 01:51:09 AM

Instead build a horizontal vacuum tube, similar to the long fiberoptic systems that are supposed to be vacuum-based from what I remember. We know that electromagnetic energy can move in a vacuum. But solids? No, we don't have anything like that.

Look out a window and think about what you just said.  Then do a google search for fiberoptic cable.

Out my window? I see our back yard in one direction and a corn field in another.

You city people think you have things all figured out, but you have a remarkably provincial mindset. Also, do you understand that energy has to be supplied to these fiberoptic cables to get them to do their thing? If I just set up the vacuum tubes and attached them to a pole, what would happen? Ah right, nothing.

All I need to know, thanks.

Now for JackBlack.

If you give something some kinetic energy, and that is lost incredibly slowly, it can last an incredibly long time.

So you're admitting it isn't perpetual. Good, this is progress. However, you don't seem to get how infinitely vast the round Earth universe is. When I asked the internet the distance from Earth to Mars, they said roughly 4 lightyears away. That means, going for four straight years at about light speed, you finally make it to this other planet.

 "Incredibly long time" isn't gonna cut it.

Ten days on the momentum of one gas pump while traveling in a car is an incredible long time. But once you talk about driving a car in the past where no gasoline exists, we're talking more like the actual situation here. You're either stupid, or you're trying desperately to convince me, who you think is stupid enough to agree. Well sorry, but I'm not. Find some other gullible person.

If you actually paid attention to the videos, you'd realize that there are other forces than just air resistance, and some of them mean objects in motion do slow down. In fact, it made very little difference to the motion of a pendulum until a foam board was added, then the mass in a vacuum made it spin an extra long time, while the air resistance made it stop outside the vacuum. But it would have stopped.

The air is not the only source of loss.
This has already been explained to you and just ignore it.

Actually, I've explained this to you. But you continue to think just because an object is suspended in (pardon the expression) midair in a vacuum that some mystical magical force will keep it going. Actually objects in a vacuum tend to fall like stones, as demonstrated here.

 "That's because the pull of gravity is proportional to..."
 Lemme stop ya there bucko. That's because the density of  a feather is only mildly heavier than air but infinitely denser than nothing. Since all objects are denser than nothing, buoyancy is negative, and with no air resistance all objects fall at exactly the same rate.

You want to move an object upward through propulsion? It is constantly losing energy by fighting against its tendency to fall.

And incredibly long time? No, if you turn off the engines, momentum will slow in the same way it would if I tied a rocket to a series of weights. You will need to keep supplying energy I imagine to keep it aloft.

The car has axels, axels which rotate in bearings.
These bearings have friction, which acts to slow the vehicle.
Likewise, the car has rubber tires, tires which deform and convert kinetic energy to heat under the load of the car.
These represent losses which slow the car down.

You forgot the fact that it's moving on road. Energy is transferred from the wheels on the car to the road it drives on too. But you seem blissfully unaware that this is not helping your case. For you see, a propulsion system has moving parts.

Do you want to go build a 4800 km long vacuum chamber?

I have less than $2000 to my name, you do it. I also already know that the friction from all the moving parts and from the train track will not create anything remotely perpetual, so you are wasting money.

Yet you cannot show why.
Notice that even your source doesn't agree with you.
It takes objection to the idea of a body where absolutely no force acts on it, but not to change the motion.

What? Are you on crack? Seriously?!? If I turn my car to the right to enter a hairpin, speed is lost. Energy is affected by changes in motion. Energy is affected by distance. Energy is affected by collision, by the movement of parts, contact with surfaces, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc (etc). There is no such thing as a forceless reaction. Objscts stat in motion because of force, or more accurately because of energy. You might get a little extra thanks to materials or surfaces, but you are dreaming if you think "a little extra" adds up to billions or trillions of miles.

4 Light years!!!

12.5 light minutes average. LOL

For the nth time, you do not understand what the word "works" means.

Here's what doesn't work.
1. Your "video" isn't any better proof than the videos that I myself have used on the topic. Guy who looks like he walked off the set of Deliverance uses a converted smoker turned vacuum, that even appears to have an open side. Then he starts up his gerryrigged device (which btw is not translucent but highly opaque dirt brown container) and ignites the rocket, opening it to a bunch of smoke. Seriously, how was that going to prove anything?
2. As I say, better men than him have tried. Action Labs, the go to for all things vacuum (his chambers are always see-through, btw), has managed to show that certain types of propulsion works, buoyancy does not work, and momentum works slightly.
3. But none of that actually proves anything! Look, outer space is supposed to be big. Like hundreds of light years big. And each light year is approximately 5.88 trillion miles. So boasting about how you can get tiny amounts of this or that substance to burning in a vacuum is not going to strike me as "working." Do you have a source of fuel that will keep you going through space? No, you do not. Rocket fuel is not readily available or easy to make. Once you run out, you're stranded. Would you describe this as a method that works? I wouldn't!
4. Again, no buoyancy means that a heavy object must fight against "gravity" because propulsion needed to ascend in a vacuum takes a great deal of energy. That means a great deal of exhausted materials for propulsion.
5. So basically, all of these space travel shows and movies, and so on, are just grooming the public to believe something that if they had any common sense, they would dismiss in a heartbeat.

So again:

• Can rockets ignite in a vacuum? Yes, provided the chemistry is right.
• Can rockets move in a vacuum? Yes, propulsion does happen if you create something to push against.
• Can rockets work in a vacuum? No, no they can not. The amount of fuel doesn't add up to the distance involved, momentum has no been shown to be infinite (this is explained away by other "forces"), the "science" depends on motion that violates thermodynamics, and even if you could ride momentum to the next world, you would be required to build a space station to refuel. Such a space station would also involve terraforming the planet or those involved would suffocate, dehydrate, or starve.
  
  
  Quote

  Gravity acceleration that can and does vary by location

  Gravity is referred to repeatedly as 9.8 m/s something or other. The thing is, layers of air need no such fixed unit. We know that water's density is 1 gram per milliliter (1 g/ml) or 1 gram per cubic centimeter. We can find out the density for air. We just use the pressure of air or water or helium or whatever, then compare to density of the object, and we're golden.
  Your formula uses a "gravitational constant" that you now tell me isn't a constant. It's not helpful to understand how a different area can cause things to rise or fall, only how the pressure of the surface has changed due to compression, altitude, temperature, etc. If I dropped one feather in corn syrup, one in water, one in sulfur dioxide, and one in helium, I would want to know how fast each object fell, I would compare the substances. I would not try to figure out whether "gravity" has decided to vary from 9.8 whatever by location. I would just test the surfaces that the feather is dropped into.  Amazing, isn't it? That feather probably won't descend 9.8 m/s (or any speed) through corn syrup. And it probably won't do it through water. Almost as though only the object and the surface matter.
  

1&2) But has action labs ever done the same experiment as this guy? because unless action labs does the same experiment as this guy and comes to conclusion that he was indeed faking the results, you cannot disprove his results.

3)
>>tells that rocket fuel is hard to make and expensive
>>calls NASA a money making hoax
what?
4) Yes. That's exactly what a rocket does! It fights against "gravity" to go to space. In the process, as the rocket goes further away from earth, the less powerful "gravity" becomes, meaning it takes less energy to fight against "gravity" at a height of 100 kilometers than at, say, 1 km.
5) It's irrelevant. But if something were to be said, I'd mostly say that the internet plays pranks. You were probably an unfortunate victim.

So again:

• Yes
• Yes
• If you see no problem with rockets *moving* in vacuum, why do you assume they don't *work*? The rocket can store more than enough fuel to go to the moon and come back. No refueling station needed. But, even if that wasn't possible, why can't we just send more fuel shipments to the rocket? surely you don't think every gas station has an oil rig right next to them. The fuel is transported from around the world, surely we can transport some fuel to the moon as well?

Quote from: markjo on June 09, 2024, 12:15:41 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 09, 2024, 01:51:09 AM

Instead build a horizontal vacuum tube, similar to the long fiberoptic systems that are supposed to be vacuum-based from what I remember. We know that electromagnetic energy can move in a vacuum. But solids? No, we don't have anything like that.

Look out a window and think about what you just said.  Then do a google search for fiberoptic cable.

Out my window? I see our back yard in one direction and a corn field in another.

That means that you perceive electromagnetic radiation (A.K.A., light) moving through a solid (window glass).

Do you still stand by your statement about EM energy not being able to move in a solid?

You city people think you have things all figured out, but you have a remarkably provincial mindset. Also, do you understand that energy has to be supplied to these fiberoptic cables to get them to do their thing? If I just set up the vacuum tubes and attached them to a pole, what would happen? Ah right, nothing.

Do you understand how fibre optic cables work?
They should a beam of light through the cable.
Because the cable effectively acts as a light guide, which prevents the light from spreading out. Allowing a tiny, low power LED to send light and information for 10s to 100s of km.

So you're admitting it isn't perpetual.

It depends on if there are losses.

However, you don't seem to get how infinitely vast the round Earth universe is.

You don't seem to understand how negligible those losses are.

On Earth's surface, the air you are moving through has a density of 1.2 kg/m^3.
If my math is correct, in interplanetary space around Earth, it is closer to 0.00000000000000000003 kg/m^3

That is a factor of roughly 10^20 difference.

When I asked the internet the distance from Earth to Mars, they said roughly 4 lightyears away.

Are you sure?
Because that is pure BS.
The nearest star other than Earth is ~4.2 light years away.
The distance to Mars varies, but it is a maximum of ~22 light minutes.
That means going straight there at light speed, for 22 minutes, you make it there.

If you want that distance in km, it is roughly 400 000 000 km.

"Incredibly long time" isn't gonna cut it.

Isn't it?
Here is what happened to a train:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9371970.Sand_error_causes_train_to_miss_platform_by_more_than_two_miles/

While breaking, the lack of friction with the rails caused it to coast for 6.5 minutes and 3.22 miles while breaking.

If we ignore the fact it was breaking, and instead pretend it was just the air trying to stop it, and note that the force from air resistance is proportional to the density of the medium, and pretend that the time and distance shuold be effected linearly (it isn't, assuming a constant acceleration time will be and distance will be effected as the square) so this is very much making a favourable assumption for you, then this train, in interplanetary space should coast for roughly 1 000 000 000 000 000 years and travel a distance of 300 000 000 000 000 000 000 miles.
Note that this is 51032338 light years.

So yes, an "incredibly long time" is going to cut it.

You just entirely fail to understand just how utterly negligible those losses are.

I'm not the stupid one here.
You are the gullible one, that has accepted dishonest FE BS.

If you actually paid attention to the videos, you'd realize that there are other forces than just air resistance, and some of them mean objects in motion do slow down.

You mean as I repeatedly pointed out to you, which you kept on ignoring to pretend that the crap you were appealing to would be equivalent to a rocket in space?
The forces you kept fleeing from?
The forces where I expliticly asked you what they were meant to be equivalent to for a rocket in a vacuum?

Forces like the forces related to the impact and deformation which occurs with Newton's Cradle when the balls smack into each other, which results in the coversion of some of the kinetic energy to heat?
Forces which require a collision?

We are not talking about rockets in space colliding into other rockets and continuing to move.
We are talking about rockets traveling through space without collision.

Or forces involved in both Newton's Cradle and the pendulum, where you have it suspended on a pivot, with friction against the pivot, and tortion both converting kinetic energy to heat.
Forces which require that connection point with friction?

We are not talking about a rocket attached to a string. We are talking about a rocket travel unteathered.

This is why I repeatedly asked you where is the kinetic energy going?
We can tell you where it is going in these examples you are dishonestly appealing to.

Actually, I've explained this to you.

No, you repeatedly ignored it, as above.
You acted like as soon as you put it in a vacuum chamber it shoould be identical to a rocket in space, completely ignoring that air resistance is only one method of loss, where you completely ignore the other lossess to dishonestly pretend they are representative of a rocket.

But you continue to think just because an object is suspended in (pardon the expression) midair in a vacuum that some mystical magical force will keep it going.

No, I don't. There is nothing mystical or magical about what I am suggesting, and again your own source which you appealed to shows you are wrong.
In a vacum, with no forces, there is nothing to change the motion of the object.

You instead appeal to pure magic where the object magically stops for no reason at all.
You have no explanation for where the kinetic energy and momentum goes. You have no explanation for what force is stopping it.

So no, YOU are the one appealing to some mystical magical force to stop it. I'm, accepting reality.

Actually objects in a vacuum tend to fall like stones, as demonstrated here.

You mean they are accelerated by gravity.

As explained repeatedly, in space, with enough tangential velocity, that makes them orbit, not fall.

buoyancy

You can skip your buoyancy BS.
Stick to your inability to objects to rockets in space.

You want to move an object upward through propulsion? It is constantly losing energy by fighting against its tendency to fall.

You want to put it into orbit, it doesn't lose any energy. A perfectly circular orbit remains at the same altitude and speed.
An elliptical orbit exchanges kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy back and forth.

And as already explained, if you give an object enough energy going up, it will keep going, with gravity only able to take away some.

You will need to keep supplying energy I imagine to keep it aloft.

What you imagine is pure fantasy.
Lets stick to reality.

You forgot the fact that it's moving on road. Energy is transferred from the wheels on the car to the road it drives on too.

No, I didn't.
I pointed out how it has tires which are deformed and roll.
That is what you wanted to ignore to pretend that it should be equivalent to a rocket in space.

With this you basically just admit you knowlingly provided a pure BS example that you knew was not analogous.
By bringing it up now, you are basically killing your case.

For you see, a propulsion system has moving parts.

Which is entirely irrelavent as we are talking about what happens when that propulsion system stops.

I have less than $2000 to my name, you do it.

No.
You are the one that wants this ridiculous BS, you pay for it.
We already have plenty of evidence to convince any honest person.

I also already know that the friction from all the moving parts and from the train track will not create anything remotely perpetual, so you are wasting money.

That was not what I was suggesting.
I was suggesting a very long vacuum tube, with an object travelling at orbital velocity.
In this case there would be no track, other than the initial launch track.
The rocket would travel along that as it gets to orbital speed, and then it just remains in the vacuum, coasting.
So there would be no friction from any moving parts nor from the track.

If you wanted it to be a train on a track, it would need to be one that uses magnetic levitation without losses, so you are talking superconductors.
And they can already go quite some time in air.

What? Are you on crack?

No, are you?
Again, compare what you said, to your source.
Your claim:

He was saying that, "An object in motion stays in motion as long as force/energy acts upon it."

Vs your source:

“Every change in a body’s state of motion is due to impressed forces.”

Notice the direct contradiction?
According to you, it is saying no force means it will stop, i.e. if it is moving, it will change its motion to come to a stop.
But what your source actually said was that changes in motion require a force, which means if an object is in motion you need to apply a force to stop it. i.e. the exact opposite of what you said.

If I turn my car to the right to enter a hairpin, speed is lost.

Now try doing it on a much more gentle curve.
One where you don't need to break hard, or have the car skid out.

There is no such thing as a forceless reaction.

Yet that is exactly what you want.
For an object in motion, to not be acted on by any force, yet magically come to a stop.
That is a forceless reaction.

You might get a little extra thanks to materials or surfaces

It isn't a little extra, and as above, it is much better to think of what is stopping it.

If you have a brick sliding on rough terrain, it is a very significant force trying to stop it, so much so that it doesn't move very far at all.
If you instead suspend it using metal wheels on a metal track to signifcantly reduce that friction trying to stop it, it goes much further.
If you take away all that, so the lossess are negligible, it will go an incredibly far distance because there is basically nothing to stop it.

Now again, care to tell us where the kinetic energy is going?
Care to tell us where the momentum is going?
Care to tell us what force is acting to stop it?

You mean as I repeatedly pointed out to you, which you kept on ignoring to pretend that the crap you were appealing to would be equivalent to a rocket in space?
The forces you kept fleeing from?
The forces where I expliticly asked you what they were meant to be equivalent to for a rocket in a vacuum?

More pipe dreaming. "If I could just show the perfect version of motion, then I could prove once and for all that..." No. You can't. Give it up.

Have you noticed that 100% of vacuum tests are dangling on some kinda string? Oh look, pendulums keep moving on a string. Until they stop anyway. Oh and we have rockets... fixed in midair by string or other restraints. If we were to cut the ropes, you'd rather quickly figure out the truth. The rocket does not fly. It only ignites.



And what about the forces YOU are fleeing from? Whether or not I invoke "gravity", nothing changes. Whether I invoke friction or air resistance, nothing changes. I think momentum is finite. You think there's an imaginary force known as inertia that suddenly disappears from the equation in a vacuum. Whatever explanation you come up with:
1. Gravity and inertia
2. Buoyancy and finite momentum
...the result is exactly the same. The rocket would have negative bouyancy (or as you put it, it would struggle against gravity like that feather) and would gradually lose energy (or "encounter inertia"). The only thing it shouldn't encounter in a vacuum is air resistance and the like. But you're fleeing from the truth far more than I am. You've even taken to trying to convince me.

You pick apart a few seconds of ignition, and think that solves the problem. But the more I watch, the more I figure out this is a problem, not a solution that I'm looking at. That ignition only works as long as there is oxygen. What, if you're stranded, while you burn the passenger's life support air as fuel? It doesn't work.

Sorry, I confused Mars (nearest planet) for Alpha Centauri (nearest star). Same difference. I asked the internet this months ago, mixed them up, and couldn't be bothered to care. Same difference. They don't have the fuel for even that distance. They might be able to have that kind of thrust if they kept their boosters. But guess what? They still wouldn't make it. You wanna  know why? Because if you wanted to know what is really equivalent to the motion of a rocket, we should be looking at the failed technology that is jet packs.

The limiting factor for every rocket belt is the fuel load. Enough fuel to carry a flier for more than 20 seconds or so was too heavy to lift. That the SRLD worked at all was an engineering triumph.

Either you have not enough fuel to get you any distance close to what you suggest, due to the strain of keeping aloft... or the fuel load means that you are pushing even harder to boost yourself. Planes solve this problem by being aerodynamic, but objects in a vacuum are as aerodynamic as a bowling ball.

You'd have to create more thrust on less fuel, keeping in mind that infinite thrust on tiny amounts of fuel is impossible. 

You are the one that wants this ridiculous BS, you pay for it.
We already have plenty of evidence to convince any honest person.

That's the thing. You are not honest people.

You do funny things with numbers to convince honest people that a car's limited fuel tank could last days in a vacuum when it only lasts about eight hours in air. By analogy, you think that a space shuttle that has 1,735,601 kg at liftoff,
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2491/how-much-fuel-was-used-for-a-space-shuttle-launch
but uses 83% of its thrust at liftoff (talk about waste!) is somehow gonna manage 20+ days to go on a one-way trip. Not only does the math not seem to be there, but you've got to account for the fact that you have to lift off for a return trip. If it was so hard to create thrust to escape Earth, why is it so easy to go back to Earth? But no, conveniently we don't even need boosters for a return trip! You think I'm the one being dishonest, but I'm only making observations, and they don't make any sense!

Whether one person tells me I'm wrong or ten gang up on me, I happen to know you have not been honest.
Forget the government. How 'bout you answer why you're trying so hard to deceive me?

We are not the ones doing the deceiving, you are victim of a religion at odds with reality twinned with online grifters preying on your gullibility.

When “the aimless blade of science slashed the pearly gates,” those such as you, either have to catch up or deny everything around you.

Quote

Go ahead and make one.
Until then, we can either just accept rockets working in the vacuum of space...

Or we could just reject it.

If you haven't got any proof, "just accepting" something on faith is like my telling you that there is a big man in the sky. I haven't offered you anything showing why you should believe this, and when you ask me to show where he is, I tell you that he's invisible. We don't just accept things because other people say so. I happen to know that you wouldn't accept this on faith. There is in fact more to that. But the point is exactly that without me telling you about it, that's exactly what you're left with.

(For reference, one of the ways we know God exists is that the created world is sufficiently organized in terms of cells, DNA, atoms, etc that such organization happening by accident is nonexistent)

If you want to build something to show me how this works, that's fine. But lacking proof that it does work, I don't have to accept anything.

Quote

When you understand, you don't need such a useless, wasteful test.

So we agree that all this attempt to use vacuums to prove things is not gonna convince anyone who doesn't already accept it. Good to know. Maybe some of these funds wasted on rocket facilities can go instead to bulldozing them.

Quote

But for what we are discussing, you don't need perpetual motion.

Having an object remain in orbit for a hundred years, is not perpetual motion (and for large enough things like the ISS, the atmospheric drag is actually signifcaint enough that it needs to be boosted occasionally.

But it is. So is expecting a rocket to run a 100,000+ miles on a single drop of rocket fuel. This is literally what you think momentum is.

Forget the big vacuum skyscraper. Suck out all air from a mile of land, and drive a car through the vacuumed area. Supposedly, the car from one press on the gas will keep going and going, but in classic fashion, when (not if) it doesn't, you will say that intertia and friction stopped it. Or some other reason you'll offer up as an excuse.

Btw, Newton's law of motion staying in motion? It doesn't mean what you think it means.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mistranslation-of-newtons-first-law-discovered-after-nearly-300-years1/

Quote

Newton’s use of the Latin for “except insofar” (nisi quatenus) was meant not to specify that the law referred only to such bodies, he said, but to point out that motion only changes insofar as a force compels it to. In other words, Hoek wrote, a better paraphrase would refer to all bodies: “Every change in a body’s state of motion is due to impressed forces.”
At the time Newton was writing, he says, it was not at all taken for granted that objects required a force to move them about; there were all sorts of old theories about objects having their own animating power. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavenly bodies were made of a theoretical form of matter called aether and naturally moved in circles. Newton was rejecting all of these older ideas in his writing, Smith says, and pointing out that there is no such thing as an object upon which no forces are acting.

Newton was not even saying what you think he was saying, even if you believe him. He was not saying that objects stay in motion unless another force stops them. He was saying that, "An object in motion stays in motion as long as force/energy acts upon it." This agrees with what I have been saying the last few pages, and disagrees with you forever.

You cannot move through space on limited fuel. Because there is no readily available rocket fuel in space, you would need to be tethered to a pump, which feeds fuel into the rocket from Earth. It would be very cumbersome, very expensive, and not worth doing.

Bulma, if you want to talk science, why don't you go away and come back after you've attained a degree in science? Preferably physics.

You are simply clueless when it comes to science. Every post you make, is full to the brim with scientific misunderstandings.

More pipe dreaming.

That does seem to be all you have.

Have you noticed that 100% of vacuum tests are dangling on some kinda string?

No they aren't.
We have satellites in space.
No string involved there.

It is the crap YOU are appealing to, where you dishonsetly pretend that they shouold be equivalent to situations where there are no strings.

And what about the forces YOU are fleeing from?

I'm not fleeing from any of them.

Whether I invoke friction or air resistance, nothing changes.

There is a massive change.
You ignore the friction in these systems to pretend they represent a rocket in space.

Saying nothing changes is like saying that if you are driving a car on a freeway, it doens't matter if you slam on the breaks or just take your foot off the accelerator the car will stop the same.
It is nonsense.

I think momentum is finite. You think there's an imaginary force

Again, I accept momentum is finite.
You falsely claim infinite momentum is required for motion to continue.
I explicitly reject imaginary forces you are appealing to to stop the craft.

would gradually lose energy

Gravity isn't making it lose energy. Gravity converts between kinetic and gravitational potential energy.
It can't magically take the energy away.

But you're fleeing from the truth far more than I am.

No, I'm not.
I'm clearly addressing your BS and why it doesn't work.
You respond with more vague BS and ignoring massive problems with your comparisons.

YOU are the one fleeing.
YOU are the one that has to ignore massive problems with your arguments.

But the more I watch, the more I figure out this is a problem, not a solution that I'm looking at.

Yet you can't show any problem.

That ignition only works as long as there is oxygen.

Which as already addressed, is part of the fuel for rockets.

Sorry, I confused Mars (nearest planet) for Alpha Centauri (nearest star). Same difference.

Well you are right on that part, you are wrong either way.

They don't have the fuel for even that distance.

Based on what?
Your pathetic assertion that magic is stopping them?
Again, they don't need the rocket on the entire way there.

Because if you wanted to know what is really equivalent to the motion of a rocket, we should be looking at the failed technology that is jet packs.

Jet packs work at quite low speeds, in the atmosphere.
They aren't going to orbital velocity, they just hover.
They need to be carried by people.

So that is yet another useless comparison from you.

Either you have not enough fuel to get you any distance close to what you suggest, due to the strain of keeping aloft... or the fuel load means that you are pushing even harder to boost yourself.

When your cherry picked quote says "lift" does it mean by the jetpack, or by the person?
Yes, rockets need to push harder to launch the fuel.
However, that just means the majority of the rocket is fuel.
If this was a valid argument, the rocket wouldn't take off.

You'd have to create more thrust on less fuel

No, you create more thrust and more fuel.

That's the thing. You are not honest people.

No, YOU are not.
You repeatedly lie and appeal to whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend your fantasy is true and reality is wrong.
Because you can't refute what is said, you just appeal to this dishonest BS.

You do funny things with numbers to convince honest people that a car's limited fuel tank could last days in a vacuum...

You mean I do simple math to show your claims are pure BS.
Because you can show no fault, you futher appeal to dishonset BS like this.

is somehow gonna manage 20+ days to go on a one-way trip.

Again, the rocket isn't on the entire time.

If it was so hard to create thrust to escape Earth, why is it so easy to go back to Earth?

In what context?
Are you referring to the trip to the moon?

If so, 1 - You have air resistance to fight on takeoff from Earth, but you don't have any significant amount on take off from the moon.
2 - Ignoring the gravity of the moon, the change in specific gravitational potential energy from Earth to the moon is roughly 62 MJ / kg. Going the other way from the moon to Earth, using the moon's graivty and ignoring Earths, you have a difference of 2.8 MJ / kg, i.e. as you lift off from the moon, you are effectively falling to Earth.
3 - They had to take EVERYTHING from Earth. This is all the fuel required to get up into orbit around Earth, the fuel required to go to the moon, and the fuel required to get back. But from the moon they only needed the fuel to get up from the moon and back to Earth.

You think I'm the one being dishonest, but I'm only making observations, and they don't make any sense!

You are being dishonest.
You aren't merely making observations. You are looking for excuses to reject reality.
And as soon as you think you have found one, you latch onto it and ignore any explanation of why your assumption was wrong.
It isn't that it doesn't make sense, it is that you don't want it to.

I happen to know you have not been honest.

Yet you can't show why.

While continually fleeing from simple questions which destroy your BS, and simple arguments which destroy your BS; all while appealing to vague BS without any basis and incredibly dishonest comparisons while ignoring the fundamental difference between them.

Again, if you want to focus on what doesn't make sense, you have so much showing you that energy can't be destroyed, and that you need a force to change velocity.
So just ask yourself the simple questions:
Where does the kinetic energy go?
Where does the momentum go?
What forces changes the velocity?

So far, the best you have is gravity, but that causes it to orbit, not stop; and if you go fast enough, you can just go straight away and wont stop you.

You do funny things with numbers to convince honest people that a car's limited fuel tank could last days in a vacuum when it only lasts about eight hours in air.

What in the fuck of fuckity fuck are you talking about?

#distancematters

Thanks, JackBlack!

#distancematters

Thanks, JackBlack!

Which in no way supports your BS.

That means you can't just throw a ball up into the air with your arms and expect it to reach mars.
It does not mean you cannot use a rocket to go to mars.

Distance is not the only thing that matters.

Again, WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS.

#distancematters

Thanks, JackBlack!

bulma, quick question. do you believe that the third planet in the solar system exists?

Quote

You do funny things with numbers to convince honest people that a car's limited fuel tank could last days in a vacuum when it only lasts about eight hours in air.

What in the fuck of fuckity fuck are you talking about?

It seems that Bulma thinks that rockets are like cars.  I'm not sure why, tho.

Since Bulma likes large images, maybe this will help.

Bulmas nonsense thinking could be all sorts of things

Who knows until he smuggly insists he is right.


Is he thinking that in space vaccum, a rocket would have to constantly fight with airresistance (space vaccuum... remeber?) or rubber wheel friction(once again, space).




Or
Is he thinking gasoline petrol evaporates?




Can ww get a confirmation from bulma on thoughts?

Nor sure, bit I think that Bulma thinks that rockets need to keep burning propellant even after achieving orbit or escape velocity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 12, 2024, 06:39:44 AM

#distancematters

Thanks, JackBlack!

Which in no way supports your BS.

That means you can't just throw a ball up into the air with your arms and expect it to reach mars.
It does not mean you cannot use a rocket to go to mars.

Distance is not the only thing that matters.

Again, WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS.

Do you know what the word expended means?

If I set fire to paper in our backyard (as I've been known to do). The potential energy of the paper converts to thermal energy and kinetic energy. I can literally watch the fire motes made from paper shards rise in the air, then cool down and stop rising, falling as ash.

Maybe if you stopped gaslighting people who are trying to tell you things, you'd learn enough that you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.

Maybe also if you bothered to watch the behavior of matter, you'd stop fixating on "forces acting to stop" things and realize that forces are what make things go, their absence is what makes things stop. Force acts the same as pushing a swing. If I push a kid on a swing, the kid lurches forward, and because he holds tight to the swing, instead of falling on his face on the sand or whatever, energy is transferred to the swing making it go.

If I decide to be a neglectful guardian and walk off instead of continuing to push, no force is acting to stop the swing. Ubless you consider neglect a force, what actually happened was the absence of force. Inertia and indeed anything related to entropy are not forces. They are absences.

(Side note: Wikipedia lumps momentum and inertia together by caling inertia "the tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest, unless a force causes its speed or direction to change." No sorry, momentum causes things to stay in motion, and inertia which supposedly causing things to stay at rest, is not a real thing but an absence)

Also, I just made a kid cry to demonstrate this. You will pay me back by giving that kid candy. Because that's what force is: I use action (in this case guilt) to get something to happen. Don't you feel horrible that you made me draw this example and this imaginary kid is now crying? If we do nothing, he will continue to cry.

Kinetic energy is added to (or multiplied by, I never cared enough to find out) momentum. If I were to explode enough dynamite to knock a box into the air, it would continue into the air until kinetic energy is exhausted. Then it would start using momentum as it falls. Assuming the box survives, extra momentum is used as the box bounces or rolls. Assuming no hill to generate angular momentum, the box runs out of energy. We aren't talking about matter turning into energy (as in Einstein's theories) we are talking about matter exhausting energy.

You can see the concept of energy exhaustion. Since July 4th and Guy Fawkes Day are upcoming, get yourself some sparklers. Light them and wave them around. Potential chemical energy is converted into kinetic energy, thermal energy, and light. These are expended (transferred) from the sparkler leaving an ashy stick. As the energy transfers through the air, you can see more less how for it goes. But you think energy continues forever unless some for acts upon it. Sorry, that's backwards. Without some force acting upon it, it will not continue. Matter cannot be created or distroyed, but energy can and does transfer (and thus exhausts itself).

If there is no transfer, there is no release. If there is no release, the rocket has no propulsion. In other words, the rocket's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be refilled in space, space travel is a hoax. That's even before we talk about pressing against air.

In other words, the rocket's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be refilled in space, space travel is a hoax.

Or, the rocket carries enough resources to get to space.  That's why around 85-90% of a rocket's mass is propellant.

Do you know what the word expended means?

Do you understand what fuel means?
Do you understand how it doesn't mean the same thing as kinetic energy or momentum?

Using all your fuel does not mean you instantly come to a stop.
We have been over this. That would require either a magical force to stop you, or for you to magically lose energy and momentum with it going no where.

Maybe if you stopped gaslighting people who are trying to tell you things, you'd learn enough that you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.

Maybe if you stopped spouting pure BS and looking for excuses for reality to be wrong, you'd learn enough that you wouldn't call such questions stupid.

Maybe also if you bothered to watch the behavior of matter, you'd stop fixating on "forces acting to stop" things and realize that forces are what make things go, their absence is what makes things stop.

And if you bothered to watch things, rather than look for excuses, you would realise forces are what changes motion.
A force is required to make things go, and to make them stop.
No force, no stopping.

That is why cars have breaks, to apply a force to stop the car.
It isn't the absence of force which stops the car, it is a force which stops it.

If you do this properly, you identify losses in a system.
You understand why it is so much easy to pedal a racing bike at higher speeds than it is to pedal a mountain bike. The racing bike tires are made to be far more rigid than the mountain bike, so there are less energy losses there.

You would understand that sliding a brick along the ground doesn't go very far when you release it, but if you do it on ice where the friction is much lower, it can go further, and if you put in on a trolley with wheels with ball bearings on a smooth track it can go even further, because you are reducing the forces trying to stop it.

And yes, we know air resistance does provide a force, from simply watching an object get blown by the wind.

If I decide to be a neglectful guardian and walk off instead of continuing to push, no force is acting to stop the swing.

Where you are finding this magical swing which contains no friction at all?
Is this a magical swing which hovers in the air? Or does it have some kind of pivot? How does this pivot work?

No sorry, momentum causes things to stay in motion, and inertia which supposedly causing things to stay at rest, is not a real thing but an absence

Wrong again.
Momentum is a measure of the motion.
Inertia at least for most things, is simply its mass.
If you want to speed an object up, you need to apply a force, to speed a heavier object at the same rate, you need to apply a greater force.
And that also works with stopping it.

Also, I just made a kid cry to demonstrate this.

You didn't provide any demonstration.
Instead you just asserted delusional BS where you entirely ignore what is happening to further prop up your delusional fantasy.
If you really want, you didn't make them cry. You killed them by putting them in a vaccum to make sure there is no air resistance.
Don't you feel horrible for murdering a kid, just so you can pull more dishonset BS?

Kinetic energy is added to (or multiplied by, I never cared enough to find out) momentum.

Kinetic energy is distinct from momentum.
They are both measures of motion.
Momentum has directionality, and is proportional to v.
Kinetic energy does not have directionality and is proportional to v^2.

If I were to explode enough dynamite to knock a box into the air, it would continue into the air until kinetic energy is exhausted.

And yet again you violate the law of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
You act like the energy is some finite supply that magically gets used up vanished into nothing.

What you actually have here (ignoring air resistance) is momentum being conserved with gravity causing the box to transfer its momentum to Earth, with kinetic energy being converted into gravitational potential energy.

But as above, if you have enough kinetic energy, gravity can't stop you.

And if you throw it sideways instead,

But you think energy continues forever unless some for acts upon it.

No, MOTION continues forever, with the same energy, without that energy magically disappearing, unless somethign acts to stop it.

Without some force acting upon it, it will not continue.

Again, all the evidnece shows you are wrong.
Without a force acting it can't stop.

If your delusional BS was true, as soon as you take your foot off the accelerator, the car would instantly stop.
As soon you release a ball you are throwing it would instantly stop.

Yet so many observations of so many things show that isn't what happens.
And instead you need a force to stop it, with common forces being friction or air resistance.
And as you improve the set up to have less friction and air resistance, objects can continue to coast further.
Extrapolating that to no friction or air resistance allows it to go forever.

Matter cannot be created or distroyed, but energy can and does transfer

Yet you called questions asking about that stupid.

If it was that simple you would stop dodging the questions and instead answer them.

Again, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE ACTS TO STOP IT?

Until you have answer for that you are just fleeing from reality.

If there is no transfer, there is no release.

Stop acting like it all happens at once.
There is transfer during the release and propulsion.
The question is what happens after?

In other words, the rocket's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be refilled in space, space travel is a hoax. That's even before we talk about pressing against air.

Try it more honestly.
In other words, you are using whatever dishonset BS you can to pretend space travel can't work.
You are appealing to when the rocket is on, accelerating it, to act like that magically can still take away the energy considerably later when the engine isn't on; even though that acts specifically to give it energy to accelerate it rather than stopping it.

You know you can't appeal to anything else and analysing it honestly will show you are spouting pure BS, so you appeal to this dishonest BS in the hopes of conning some fool.
And that is before you get to more dishonset BS from you which you have already contadicted and shown you know it is pure BS.

Nice and simple:
The rocket is on, expelling exhaust at a high speed backwards away from it, never to interact with it again. This gets it up to speed.
It then turns off, and is no longer expelling that exhaust.
Now, with the rocket off, WHAT IS IT INTERACTING WITH?
WHAT IS IT TRANSFERING THE ENERGY TO AND HOW?

If there is no transfer, there is no release. If there is no release, the rocket has no propulsion. In other words, the rocket's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be refilled in space, space travel is a hoax. That's even before we talk about pressing against air.

If you would like some other similar comparisons to this dishoneset BS:

If there is no transfer, there is no release. If there is no release, the car has no propulsion. In other words, the car's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be refilled between petrol stations, travel between petrol stations is a hoax. A car can only ever work at a petrol station, any travel between them is fake.


If there is no transfer, there is no release. If there is no release, the train has no propulsion. In other words, the train's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be supplied without overhead power lines, travel over unpowered segments is a hoax. A train needs a continuous power supply with an unbroken line at supply voltage.   (NOTE: In reality, the supply rail or cable is repeatedly broken, with the train easily able to coast through)

If there is no transfer, there is no release. If there is no release, the train has no propulsion. In other words, the train's propulsion means that it is using up energy and resources. Because these resources cannot be supplied without the train trying to drive forward, coasting is a hoax. A train could not coast for several minutes and miss its station by several miles just due to poor track conditions. (NOTE: https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9371970.Sand_error_causes_train_to_miss_platform_by_more_than_two_miles/ )



Your argument is pure BS, based upon wilful misrepresntation of reality.

Without a force to stop it, it keeps moving.
Appealing to situations where there is a force to stop it and ignoring that force to pretend it magically stops with no force, just demonstrates your dishonesty.


A rocket just needs enough fuel to get to its required speed, and for latter course corrections.
It can then coast the rest of the way.

I also notice that even though you asked about what I presume was the moon landing, you just entirely ignored the response.
Was it because you know it shows you were spouting pure BS, and it actually makes sense how it happened in reality, and your childish arguments against it don't work at all?

I'm pretty sure that the earth is a globe, but I want to understand Flat Earth a little more.
Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?

What incentive does the government have to tell you the truth? They have a myriad of reasons to lie. What about world history indicates they are trustworthy or benevolent?

More pipe dreaming.

Things exploding in a vacuum..

What Happens When You Put Pop-Its In a Vacuum Chamber? Explosions in Space Experiment

As mentioned in this video.

Flat Earthers misunderstand how rockets work

Still see the sun comes up in the east every morning over the same trees for the view from my house, and bulmabriefs144 is still delusional and wrong.   

What incentive does the government have to tell you the truth? They have a myriad of reasons to lie. What about world history indicates they are trustworthy or benevolent?

Their myriad of reasons to lie have a purpose behind it, such as lining their own pockets.
They don't lie just for the sake of lying. Instead, they are more likely to tell the truth to try to show they are credible.

So the question is what is the incentive to lie about the shape of Earth?

Nor sure, bit I think that Bulma thinks that rockets need to keep burning propellant even after achieving orbit or escape velocity.

Yes, as a matter of fact they do. All of these videos of rockets only prove one thing. "Oh look, we have this rocket igniting. That proves to you simpletons that rockets can ignite. Why are you still asking questions?!?  We have all the proof we need!" Well, actually I don't. I want to see a full-size but not full-tanked (1% fuel) rocket launch upward in a vacuum. Without tethers. In the biggest chamber you can afford. You have made the claim over and over that rockets can work in a vacuum. I've seen the ignition.
But the rule of burden of proof is that the one making a claim must supply proof. More importantly, your socialist ideas say that those with money must give taxes to those without. So you have to pay for this.

The proof that has to be shown is that when a rocket it depleted of fuel, that it will not fall back to earth. Not "things exploding," Data, that thing cannot continue after they stop igniting or exploding. Because that is the claim you are making. So let's see it. Even a tiny rocket without restraints moving up an not falling down. Ignition is not enough. "What goes up, must come down," Newton says. " Objects in motion stay in motion." Which do you want to believe?

I bet you're ready to (a) stop supporting socialism and/or (b) quit making a claim that rockets work.

I already know it will fall. You still believe such a thing as "escape velocity" exists despite only seeing this "evidence" on TV. Yeah well, I also saw this on TV during Easter week.

You know what though? Much of this movie is done through composition. You know, green screen.

So the question is what is the incentive to lie about the shape of Earth?

They lie about the shape of the Earth to prop up other lies. We can live in a space thingy (ISS) for years. We can go to Mars. As those lies are exposed, suddenly things get shuttered. Mars goes you kidney disease they say. ISS is being retired soon, they say. We we expose satellites too, oh you know, it's cheaper to just send radio signals bouncing through the atmosphere. The big lie NASA still has after all that is all to push climate change as a threat that affects the entire globe. But it doesn't because there is no glove. The Earth is a plane, and it has been made so it cannot be moved.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 13, 2024, 06:54:39 AM

Do you know what the word expended means?

Do you understand what fuel means?
Do you understand how it doesn't mean the same thing as kinetic energy or momentum?

Using all your fuel does not mean you instantly come to a stop.
We have been over this. That would require either a magical force to stop you, or for you to magically lose energy and momentum with it going no where.

It then turns off, and is no longer expelling that exhaust.
Now, with the rocket off, WHAT IS IT INTERACTING WITH?
WHAT IS IT TRANSFERING THE ENERGY TO AND HOW?

 I want you to try this. I want you to get in the car, and drive away, and show me how momentum is an infinite force. I want you to show me by going to a hill covered with ice and snow, and drive down and release your foot from the pedal. Friction is great, momentum is great, and I've created an infinite vacuum. The road ahead heads downhill on a mild slope forever. As I have given you ideal conditions, the car should keep going and going, but that's impossible. What will eventually happen, even if it should keep going and going, is that first the wheels will heat up. Then the tire will go flat (then you'll topple over and die due to the ice causing you to stay in motion, but let's spare your life), then the rubber will start to peel off, as I've discovered by trying to drive on a flat. Then the metal starts to coil off. Pretty soon you have no tire, and it just stops (or maybe it acts as the world's worst sled, I dunno, but I'm pretty sure at some point, you probably want to get out). You either die, or you now have no car. And are breathing vacuum. Should thought this through.

 The conditions of a launch in space aren't even that ideal. You have an enormously heavy object that you've tossed the boosters for trying to move in a vacuum. Escape velocity? What escape velocity? You've done "pushups on the surface of water" from about mile 16 (where Earth loses 90% of its oxygen) to the vacuum at 62 miles.

Remember that perfect downhill slope? Well this is an uphill slope while carrying a car filled with fuel tanks. I am literally facepalming here. Even in a vacuum, you cannot make that work.

The thing is, your car's fuel is one thing, momentum is another, uphill movement is still another. Even downhill, I'm not convinced momentum is infinite, so you'd probably be spared the infinite car ride of doom as there'd probably be heat enough from metal scrape to melt the ice and even carve into that perfect hill. There is no such thing as perfect momentum. Energy is used up, one way or another. But you're hoping I'm gullible enough to believe momentum continues in adverse conditions. Sorry, fuel load is a thing, and so is fuel exhaust. Once it's gone, this happens.

 "Oh look, this proves rocket propulsion can... " Did you notice what it did? It ran out of fuel. Did you notice it continue to move forward? What? You didn't?!? Yeah. Neither did I.

Spaceships are not like your regular cars running out of fuel on the highway. Space is like a friction-free paradise! Unlike ships in water that need a constant push to keep going, spaceships have got it all figured out. Once those engines are turned off, their momentum takes over and propels them forward at a steady pace. It’s a cosmic roller coaster with no brakes.

This is what the internet says happens when a rocket loses all fuel.


Friction still exists in a vacuum. Heat exchange still exists in a vacuum. "It's a friction-free paradise, man! A friction-free paradise..."

 Cool story, bro.

I bet you're ready to (a) stop supporting socialism and/or (b) quit making a claim that rockets work.

A rocket in space with no other forces acting on it will continue in a straight line.
1   No forces to pull it into orbit/ crahs onto land.
2   No resistance fofces loke wind or rain to slow it down.

Spectacular you think using the above mentioned, that a rocket, on earth, in a vacuum tube, will fall back onto earth once the fuel is spent.
Thevacuum tube in only remved one of the above variables.

Guess which!?





And socialsm is that we take care social costs.
High school was paid for.
You just stupid.
Paying for socialized access to lab equipment to show you you are stupid is not a societally moral oblogation.

"Oh look, this proves rocket propulsion can... "

So we have video of rockets and Pop-Its burning their fuel with oxidizes in a vacuum that doesn’t have enough oxygen to support combustion with the reaction resulting in thrust. 

We are a long way from your stupid argument rocket fuels can’t burn in a vacuum and create thrust to move.

So.  You have been proven to have no understanding of rockets?  And objects can move in a vacuum. 

Things exploding in a vacuum..

What Happens When You Put Pop-Its In a Vacuum Chamber? Explosions in Space Experiment

As mentioned in this video.

Flat Earthers misunderstand how rockets work

Still see the sun comes up in the east every morning over the same trees for the view from my house, and bulmabriefs144 is still delusional and wrong.   

So bulma.  If things need to push off things to move.  And need a force to get an object to accelerate from stationary.  In the Pop-It video in your no gravity delusion.  When the magnet holding the metal ball to the top of the tank is removed to drop the metal ball.  How does the metal ball physically and knows to drop straight down through the vacuum.  Why doesn’t the metal ball just roll around on the underside of the top plate of the container.  Why does it move at all.

You keep saying that, "The sun comes up in the east, and bulma is still delusional and wrong."

 So let me ask you a question, then maybe if I think your answer is any good, I'll entertain your other question, later, if I have time.

Ready? Now, this will sound like many questions, but it's really only one.

How do you know?

How do you know that I am delusional? How do you know that I am wrong? How do you know that the sun even rises from east? (After all, maybe that's actually the south or west, maybe all your life people have told you the direction is east but it's actually not) How do you know the sun, supposedly made from hydrogen/helium/other is actually made from hydrogen/helium/other? How do you know it's round? How do you the sun is orbited the Earth, and not the other way around? How do you know it's gravity and not something else? How do you kow those trees are real? How do you know the sky is real?

I suspect you don't know.

I suspect everything in your brain comes from other people or books written by old dead people. Nothing is inspired, nothing is original. It's all just copied ideas. If that's the case, why should I answer you? Everything that deviates from The Orthodoxy is by definition a delusion, and wrong. If you can't think of a single original thought, then it is completely pointless trying to tell you anything, because anything not according to the rules is wrong.

I can answer all those questions easily btw.

You keep saying that,

Delusional people don’t need to change the subject.

It’s been demonstrated over and over the reality that rocket fuel supplies its own oxidizer and can burn in an inert atmosphere and / or vacuum.

A normal person would think “well, that’s handy. And useful.”

But you bulmabriefs144 have to lie about the nature and reality of a chemical reaction between fuel and an oxidizer.