WHY would the government trick us?

 You as a proud member of the NASA cult,

Understanding physics makes a person a cult?

Vs the flat earth cult that can’t reasonably explain how the sun and moon endlessly orbit in the atmosphere of the flat earth delusion.  Nor explain the path of the sun that would have to visibly turn throughout the day as it passed overhead.


https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SunAnimation.gif

Flat earth is self debunking. 

 You as a proud member of the NASA cult,

So?  You’re saying it’s impossible for Sputnik to have orbited the earth for three months in the vacuum of space?  Vs the delusion of the Flat Earth where the sun and moon would have to orbit in atmosphere year after year? 

Quote

Which just further demonstrates you don't care about evidence, reality or the truth.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

And given that you don't care about evidence, reality or the truth; that isn't surprising.
You want to pretend your delusional fantasy is the truth.

That is correct. You as a proud member of the NASA cult, have been unable to change any part of your thinking

Pure BS.
You are the one who has made it quite clear that you are not willing to change your mind.
You have made it clear that you are the cultist, not us.

whereas I have learned that that propulsion does exist in a vacuum, that air resistance changes, but still have no sign that objects are able to rise, and even less sign that space is frictionless or that objects can continue indefinitely.

Except you have literally nothing to support that delusional BS of yours.
Nor any evidence that you have learned anything.

As objects are in motion, they encounter internal friction.

Friction from internal parts of the object do not act to slow the object down.
Not unless that is connected to something like a drive chain.

States of matter all release heat on the atomic level.

And that does not slow the object down.
It slows internal motion of the object, i.e. its temperature.
It does not effect the kinetic energy of the object.

"Members of a cult rarely change their minds, regardless of what is presented to them."

Yes, no matter how many times it is explained why your comparisons are pure BS, you ignore it and cling to these invalid comparisons to pretend they prove something.

Did you focus on the fact that it stopped moving or that it fell to the ground?

Was it going at orbital velocity or escape velocity? No.
So that shows nothing.

I've already answered the question you're screaming at me at all caps.

No, you haven't. You continue to ignore them and flee, because you have no answer and you know they show your claim is pure BS.

The answer, then, as now is that objects move because of force, not stop.

Even though your own source shows that is wrong.
The source you appealed to states changes in motion require a force.
That includes speeding it up, and making it stop.

All observations of motion in reailty show there is force stopping it.
There is not a single instance of an object magically stopping without a force applied.

Friction turns kinetic energy into heat but it also adds a brief burst of speed.

Friction is a force, which depending on the direction, can either be used to accelerate an object or slow it down.
But this requires an interaction with another object.
e.g. when a car slows down, due to friction with the road or the air.

It is not friction inside it.

If left alone even in a frictionless environment there is a limit built in by kinetic energy on all movement, and then momentum expends itself.

Again, pure BS, where you are basically saying kinetic energy will magically disappear; even after admitting that energy can't be created or destroyed.

There is no force that acts against this.

More nonsense.
You don't need a force to keep it going.
You only need to provide a force to keep things going in the presence of a force trying to stop it. And that force just needs to balance out the force trying to stop it.
In the absence of external forces, there is nothing to stop it so it keeps on going.

As I mentioned in a previous post, what Newton actually said was mistranslated

And you then used that to blatantly lie about it.
Again, the key part is not wrong.
The key part is a force is required to change motion. That every change in motion has a corresponding force.
He was NOT saying your dishonest, delusional BS of no force magically makes it stop.

NASA is all like "we're working on solar-powered space ships" or "now we have ionic thrusters". Yeah big deal. You haven't solved the fundamental problem of space travel.

They have solved it. You just keep rejecting it.

This statement proves that I have the ability to learn.

The fact you keep bringing up the same refuted BS including stuff you have shown is wrong, shows you don't learn.

Now why does this have to remain fixed?

Because it is a small scale test where it is not going at orbital velocity or escape velocity.

Again, for your BS to work you need to address these questions, and actually understand how orbits work:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you can answers these, your arguments are pure BS.

Saying it just magically stops without a force is saying kinetic energy and momentum magically vanish where you are literally destroying energy.

So these questions remain valid and unanswered by you.

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

I'm not sure if it's worth starting from this current thread or I should start another one, but I've thought about this stuff a lot, and I have to consider some possibilities.

Firstly, I accept the science that earth is spherical, that mass curves or warps space time such to the extent that vast amounts of matter can clump into large dense spherical shapes over time. And that such masses curve space to the extend that as they travel through space, such celestial bodies interact with one another. They get caught in gravity wells of one another, and orbit with some pull on each other.

Poorly worded as that may be above, that's where I come from.

Here's a few points I wanted to share

1. I find it impossible that any one human alone can learn all there is to know about the world and things around them. It takes a group effort of many minds over time to study and learn together. To some degree, we had to rely upon others who have gone before us to know, or at least believe we know about things around us.

2. From a conspiracy stand point, I've considered the possibility that flat earthers could be the actual conspiracy source. If NASA and other agencies are composed of humans, which lie about things, then what's to have stopped the first FEers from lying that the Earth is flat? Maybe they lied for the purpose of trolling others, or as a joke, just to see who'd believe it. And it convinced some, that then convinced others, never knowing they were built upon a falsehood.

3. That said, due to whatever factors could cause this, I believe many FEers cannot accept any truth that leads to a spherical Earth due to a simple statement. The conspiracy is more important than the truth.

One could be presented by all the evidence of every space agency on Earth, all the paperwork, videos, images, the names of every scientist, every measurement. But such works would have to then suggest or lead to the agreement that such agencies and governments, are actually also telling the truth on some things. And that is simply unacceptable. Pouring water over a basketball and asking why it doesn't all stick is a better "fact" than the truth because it doesn't rely upon the government to believe it. A computer generated image of the earth and moon spinning over a flat earth is more acceptable. Thinking the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s² pushing us well beyond the speed of light at this moment is more believable.

And that alone is silly. Many if not all know what it feels like to accelerate inside a moving vehicle, or on a horse, or simply running. If the Earth was constantly increasing in its velocity, no amount of living on this planet would make you adapt enough to not notice that. No amount of genetic ancestry or evolutionary factors would have written into your DNA and psychology a mental block to not notice constant acceleration of the ground below you, but people will construct and accept such theories because they are not government born.

And that is unfortunate.

- -- --- -- -

I have visited and revisited this place many times over the years. I am already prepared for an easy one statement dismissal by a FEer based upon some flaw in my understanding or my post. None of this is here to prove you wrong.

Know this, I do not hate you, and I don't think I pity you. My only solace is when this world melts away and is purified, and we stand on the other side of this timeline, the truth of the world below you will be so perfectly clear. The illusion of flat earth theory will be a distant dream. The truth always comes out. We hardly can stop it ourselves.

Thinking the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s² pushing us well beyond the speed of light at this moment is more believable.

I just want to point out that such a constant acceleration will never push anyone beyond the speed of light.  It is actually rather complex, but the issue is what is the frame of reference with which you will compare to say you are traveling faster than light?  As it turns out, you will never reach the speed of light as measured by the chosen frame of reference, while you, traveling at a speed increasing by 9.8 m/s^2, will not be able to measure your speed as exceeding the speed of light.

Can you draw that out on a piece of paper? It sounds like you're using some likeness of General Relativity, coined by none other than the Albert Einstein, who very much supports modern science contrary to FE.

Am I approaching 0.5c and the rest of the known universe is approaching 0.5c the opposite direction, giving the illusion of travelling at the speed of light? I ran the numbers, and if an object constantly was accelerating at 9.8 m/s² for 1 year from a relative velocity of 0 m/s, that object would be traveling at 1.03 the speed of light or 308,386,231.74 meters/second .

By what localized study have you performed to back up such a science?

Or you're better off discarding any science you've piggy backed off of since it's the same modern science, the science many if not all FE says the government lies about, that which points back to spherical planets and a sun that's ~96,000,000 miles away Earth.

So there is no speed of light. You won't violate some universal speed limit since we all made up such stuff. There's no point defending a value and limited speed of reality as we know it if you believe the gov lied about it in the first place.

But if you want to believe that the speed of light and acceleration rates like 9.8 m/s² and other scientific things came from a government funded sources from all over the planet, then don't quit there. You can't even use 9.8 anything in this realm of study since it's not a speed you've approached in your own studies to even reference, We only know that speed works through tons of study.

- -- --- -- -

To be honest, I don't have the energy to debate any of this with you. so I'll just throw questions at one of the robots online and let that speak for itself.

- -- --- -- -

claud.ai

Q: How did we come up with 9.8 m/s²

The value of 9.8 m/s² for the acceleration due to gravity on Earth was determined through a combination of empirical measurements and theoretical calculations over the course of several centuries. Here's a brief history:

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was one of the first to study falling objects and introduced the concept of acceleration. He demonstrated that objects fall with a constant acceleration, independent of their mass.

Isaac Newton (1643-1727) formulated his universal law of gravitation, which states that every particle attracts every other particle with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This laid the groundwork for calculating the acceleration due to gravity.

In the late 18th century, Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) performed the famous Cavendish experiment to measure the density of the Earth, which allowed for a more accurate calculation of the gravitational constant, G.

By combining Newton's law of gravitation with the known mass and radius of the Earth, the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface can be calculated as: g = GM/r² where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the radius of the Earth.

Numerous experiments and measurements have been conducted over the years to refine the value of g, taking into account factors such as latitude, altitude, and the Earth's rotation. The most precise measurements use instruments like pendulums, gravimeters, and atom interferometers.

The standard value of 9.8 m/s² is an average value that is sufficiently accurate for most practical purposes on Earth's surface. However, the actual value varies slightly depending on location, ranging from about 9.78 m/s² at the equator to about 9.83 m/s² at the poles.

- -- --- -- -

Q: How was the Cavendish experiment performed?

The Cavendish experiment, performed by Henry Cavendish in 1798, was designed to measure the density of the Earth and, consequently, the gravitational constant G. The experiment was based on the torsion balance, a device invented by John Michell. Here's a simplified explanation of the experimental setup and procedure:

Torsion balance: The apparatus consisted of a long, thin, horizontal rod suspended by a thin wire (torsion fiber) at its center. Two small lead spheres were attached to the ends of the rod.
Large masses: Two large lead spheres were placed on opposite sides of the apparatus, close to the small spheres on the rod.

Attraction: The gravitational attraction between the large and small spheres caused the rod to rotate slightly, twisting the torsion fiber.

Measurement: The angle of rotation of the rod was measured using a light beam reflected from a mirror attached to the rod. This angle was proportional to the gravitational force between the spheres.

Calibration: To determine the force, Cavendish calibrated the apparatus by measuring the period of oscillation of the rod when it was set in motion without the large spheres nearby. This allowed him to determine the torsion coefficient of the wire.

Calculation: By knowing the torsion coefficient, the angle of rotation, and the dimensions and masses of the spheres, Cavendish could calculate the gravitational force between the spheres. Using Newton's law of gravitation, he then calculated the density of the Earth.

Cavendish's experiment was remarkably sensitive for its time, and his results were within 1% of the modern accepted value for the Earth's density. This experiment was later refined by others, leading to more accurate measurements of G and the Earth's density.

It's worth noting that although the Cavendish experiment is often described as "weighing the Earth," it doesn't directly measure the Earth's mass. Instead, it measures the Earth's density, which, when combined with the known size of the Earth, allows for the calculation of its mass.

- -- --- -- -

Q: How did we come up with the torsion coefficient?

The torsion coefficient, also known as the torsional constant or torsional rigidity, is a measure of a material's resistance to twisting. In the context of the Cavendish experiment, it refers to the resistance of the suspending wire to twisting. The torsion coefficient is crucial for accurately determining the gravitational force between the masses in the experiment.

Cavendish determined the torsion coefficient of the wire in his experiment by observing the period of oscillation of the torsion balance. Here's a step-by-step explanation:

Oscillation: When the torsion balance is twisted and released, it oscillates back and forth due to the restoring force provided by the torsion wire. The period of this oscillation depends on the torsion coefficient of the wire and the moment of inertia of the balance.

Period of oscillation: The period of oscillation, T, is the time taken for the balance to complete one full oscillation. Cavendish measured this period by observing the time taken for the light beam reflected from the mirror on the balance to return to its initial position.

Moment of inertia: The moment of inertia, I, of the torsion balance depends on the mass and geometry of the rod and the attached spheres. It can be calculated from the dimensions and masses of these components.

Torsion coefficient: The torsion coefficient, κ, is related to the period of oscillation and the moment of inertia by the equation: T = 2π√(I/κ) By rearranging this equation, the torsion coefficient can be calculated as: κ = 4π²I/T² where I is the moment of inertia and T is the period of oscillation.

By measuring the period of oscillation and calculating the moment of inertia of the torsion balance, Cavendish was able to determine the torsion coefficient of the wire. This allowed him to quantify the relationship between the angle of deflection of the balance and the gravitational force causing that deflection.

The torsion coefficient is a property of the material and dimensions of the wire. It depends on factors such as the wire's length, diameter, and shear modulus (a measure of a material's rigidity). By using a thin, long wire made of a material with a high shear modulus (like steel), Cavendish was able to create a torsion balance that was sensitive enough to measure the tiny gravitational forces between the spheres in his experiment.

I've never looked up the Cavendish Experiment, and honestly, this looks pretty cool Here's Science in action. and I'm linking the first video MrLundScience referenced, which looks even better

Bennett Science
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 2




MrLundScience
The Cavendish Experiment - Obvious Gravitational Attraction

Yes, anytime you are talking about traveling at speeds anywhere near the speed of light, relativity is important.  That's why you need to take that into account.  You talk about moving at 0.5 c while the universe is traveling at -0.5 c.  That makes no sense. 

This is too complex a topic to try to educate you here.  Maybe others wish to do so, I don't.  But the reality is that if you have accelerated to 0.5 c, by "dead reckoning", relativistic effects are already kicking in.  If you try to measure your speed relative to some reference, it will not show what you expect. 

Because of the differences in time passage in the two frames of reference, the "stationary" observer and the "moving" observer, the apparent acceleration of the traveler, measured by the "stationary" observer, will appear to decrease, while the traveler measures that his acceleration is constant.  The end result is the traveler can think he is actually traveling faster than light, but this is because of the time dilation.  The "stationary" observer will always "see" the traveler as moving slower than the speed of light.

Can you draw that out on a piece of paper? It sounds like you're using some likeness of General Relativity, coined by none other than the Albert Einstein, who very much supports modern science contrary to FE.

Am I approaching 0.5c and the rest of the known universe is approaching 0.5c the opposite direction, giving the illusion of travelling at the speed of light? I ran the numbers, and if an object constantly was accelerating at 9.8 m/s² for 1 year from a relative velocity of 0 m/s, that object would be traveling at 1.03 the speed of light or 308,386,231.74 meters/second .

It is actually special relativity.

The issue is what you are measuring the speed of light relative to and what you are measuring the acceleration relative to.
If you are measuring the acceleration in the reference frame of the accelerating observer, then to an outside observer, their acceleration will appear to decrease due to time dilation, and they will appraoch the speed of light but never reach it.

Also, not sure how you did your math. Doing it the simple way I got 309 052 800 m/s for 365 days.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2024, 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

It’s hard to go any slower when someone is so wrong about so many things in just one post.

Slooooooooooooooooower

Haha



Well you notice when asked a direct question, their brain either shortcircuits and they refuse to answer or they know theyre wrong and refuse to answer.

But note
They refuse to answer.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 19, 2024, 04:29:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2024, 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

It’s hard to go any slower when someone is so wrong about so many things in just one post.

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

I know all of you think that applies to me, but I did independent research, trusting in my own eyes and my own instincts. You guys trusted in about 2000+ years of RE fables from so-called experts.

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

I can tell you why this is wrong easily, because it comes from me.

And while we're on topic of super-slow explanations, just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion)

but that both energy and fuel are finite? Well, I'm looking at page 7, and I'm still telling you this. Looks like I started talking on about page 4 or 5 about propulsion, so yes that's up to 7 pages of you not getting it.

Who here is slow?

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

I know all of you think that applies to me...

Yes, you do give off that impression.

...but I did independent research, trusting in my own eyes and my own instincts.

Okay, use your eyes to observe a sunset, then use your instincts to explain how you can be watching a sunset when it's high noon somewhere else in the world at the same time.  Tell me if you think it makes more sense than a round earth rotating on its axis.

You guys trusted in about 2000+ years of RE fables from so-called experts.

We have also fact checked those "RE fables" over the years.  Some have been confirmed while others have been replaced by better "fables".

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

FE is wrong because it does not match everyday observations without all sorts of contrived explanations.  FE can not produce a simple model that adequately explains the basic principles of phenomena such as sun rise and set, moon rise and set, phases of the moon, solar and lunar eclipses as simply and elegantly as a toy like this:

 

I can tell you why this is wrong easily, because it comes from me.

Sorry, but "because I said so" is not good enough.

And while we're on topic of super-slow explanations, just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion) but that both energy and fuel are finite?

Energy and fuel being finite do not make rockets getting to space impossible.  Difficult? To be sure.  Impossible? Not if you're clever enough.

BTW, what makes some random YouTuber who has no idea about how rockets work more trustworthy than actual rocket scientists?  If you can't do a push up against water, then what makes you think that a rocket is pushing against air at sea level, which is far less dense than water?

Well, I'm looking at page 7, and I'm still telling you this. Looks like I started talking on about page 4 or 5 about propulsion, so yes that's p to 7 pages of you not getting it.

Who here is slow?

Oh, I get it.  I picked up on you being wrong from the get go.

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

That does appear to be the case for you.
No amount of explanation will have you realise that a rocket is not a pendulum. That it doesn't have a string or whatever tied to a pivot which results in losses.
Instead, you will just continue clinging to dishonest BS to pretend you are right.

I did independent research

No you didn't.
You went out seeking whatever crap you could find to prop up your dishonest BS.
You then take it without even bothering to read it all and try to provide it to show we are wrong, even though it shows you are wrong.

e.g. your link about how Newton was mistranslated. Which you then take to say we must be wrong, and then proceed to blatantly lie about what allegedly said.
Your own source showed you were wrong.

If you were actually doing independent research, you would have read the article and see what the better translation is, and use that.

Likewise for friction, you would look and see what the article says, what kind of friction it is describing and when it is important.
Instead, you see it says friction, and think that is enough to settle it.

You aren't doing research, you are looking for whatever you can find to try to prop up your BS; with no intention of accepting things that show you are wrong.

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

You mean we have repeatedly explained why it is wrong, with you entirely incapable of defending your delusional BS, so now you are coming up with excuses of it being parotting.

just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion)

And how many pages before that and elsewhere have you tried to say they can't work at all because there isn't air to push against, only to finally cave and admit that is pure BS after your own words showing they shouold be fine, and experiments showing it is fine, you appear to have finally caved, but do still have an occasional display of the same delusional BS. And I'm sure in the future you will be back to the same BS.

And yet now, what video are you linking to?
A pile of dishoneset delusional BS which among other things include that rockets can't work because they don't have anything to push off.
It even compares this to doing pushups off the surface of water.
Sound familar?

So if you have allegedly learnt and alleged moved on from that dishonest, delusional BS, why are you still linking to a video which has that as a big argument as to rockets are impossible?

The majority of that BS video is focused on that BS argument, which you claim to have learnt is wrong.
So why link to the same BS video?

So you are either incredibly slowing, or intentionally lying to everyone.
Which is it?

but that both energy and fuel are finite?

And this is your other big issue, you continue to ignore what the actual issue is and instead irrelavent BS.
You may as well be telling us that grass usually looks green.
It doesn't help your argument at all.

So you are asking how many pages have you tried to explain irrelavent BS which doesn't address the issue at all, nor do you attempt to address the issue at all instead doing whatever you can to deflect away from it because you seem to know the actual issue shows you are wrong?

Again, we don't need fuel or energy to be infinite.
A finite fuel can get it up to a finite speed with a finite momentum and finite kinetic energy, which can allow it to coast the rest of the way.

You are yet to present anything which actually challenges this.

Your dishonest comparison to things like pendula with a pivot does not help you, as you cannot explain what the pivot is meant to represent.

So you are appealing to 3 or 4 pages of you spamming the same irrelavent BS (including some which you have effectively admitted is wrong) while entirely ignoring the actual issue.
Great job showing just how slow you are.

Who here is slow?

YOU! Because you still bring up irrelavent BS.

Again, 3 simple questions you fail to answer:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to actually address these.
Again, the video with a pendulum does not help you, unless you can tell us what the string and pivot is meant to represent for a rocket.
We can point out that that string and piviot is a source of loss, and will act to slow the pendulum down.
But you don't have something analogous to that for a rocket.

Appealing to a vaccum and the tiny amount of resistance from that is pointless, due to just how negligible it is, as I already demonstrated.

Appealing to translations of Newton being wrong wont help you, because the better translation still disagrees with you and says you need a force to change motion, which includes making it stop.

Appealing to heat loss wont help you, because that is internal energy, not kinetic energy. Unless you have something like a road it is rubbing against to turn kinetic energy into heat energy, heat loss wont make it stop; and even then, it isn't the heat loss making it stop, it is the friction against the road.

Appealing to suborbital trajectories wont help, because notice that gravity doesn't stop them, the side of the container or Earth does, and as explained repeatedly, if you go fast enough, you orbit or escape. You need to deal with that, rather than showing a suborbital trajectory collides with Earth.

So again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2024, 07:05:01 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 19, 2024, 04:29:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2024, 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

It’s hard to go any slower when someone is so wrong about so many things in just one post.

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

I know all of you think that applies to me, but I did independent research, trusting in my own eyes and my own instincts. You guys trusted in about 2000+ years of RE fables from so-called experts.

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

I can tell you why this is wrong easily, because it comes from me.

And while we're on topic of super-slow explanations, just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion)

but that both energy and fuel are finite? Well, I'm looking at page 7, and I'm still telling you this. Looks like I started talking on about page 4 or 5 about propulsion, so yes that's up to 7 pages of you not getting it.

Who here is slow?

All that is true to you; as long as you stay in your cave,(PLATOS CAVE)
If you can step out , there are times you seam to except the ISS Is real then you dismiss it as lies
I do not know how I can help you.
You will say I do not need help
——
As a test find a place with a clear view east to the far horizon and a tall building to west be at lest across the street  so you can watch the light hit the top of the building and move down as the sun rises ,time for you to think.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2024, 07:05:01 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 19, 2024, 04:29:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2024, 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

It’s hard to go any slower when someone is so wrong about so many things in just one post.

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

I know all of you think that applies to me, but I did independent research, trusting in my own eyes and my own instincts. You guys trusted in about 2000+ years of RE fables from so-called experts.

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

I can tell you why this is wrong easily, because it comes from me.

And while we're on topic of super-slow explanations, just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion)

but that both energy and fuel are finite? Well, I'm looking at page 7, and I'm still telling you this. Looks like I started talking on about page 4 or 5 about propulsion, so yes that's up to 7 pages of you not getting it.

Who here is slow?

I'm slow.  I learn things well, but not always quickly.  I have learned a bit about jet engines and rocket engines.  Turns out they are not so different, other than the jet not carrying its own oxidizer.  So the jet is limited to working in the atmosphere, not because it needs anything to push against, but because it needs to ram air into the intake, to supply oxidizer to the combustion. 

Both a jet and a rocket generate thrust (the force that moves the vehicle) by burning fuel and generating a metric s**tload of hot gases, which burst out of the exhaust at a very high velocity.  This is the "contact force", the exhaust pushing against the exhaust port of the engine.  That's why a rocket has a specially shaped cone, to maximize the area the exhaust can push against.  The air around the engine is of no consequence in generating thrust. 

I don't know who the guy in the video is, but I watched for 12 minutes, and never heard him say anything useful.  He keeps mumbling about how there is so little air at "space" altitudes, that is impossible for a rocket to generate thrust, because there's nothing to push against.  He literally seems dumbfounded that they can even work where the air density is just 2% of what it is at the surface of the earth. 

Why do you give this guy any credence? 

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2024, 07:05:01 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 19, 2024, 04:29:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2024, 03:54:57 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2024, 03:00:22 PM

I think the approach is to skow walk bulma through it.

Likeuusupper slow

Maybe this will help:
https://kamsc.github.io/assets/links/Physics%20for%20Dummies.pdf

Slower

It’s hard to go any slower when someone is so wrong about so many things in just one post.

When people are brainwashed, no amount of explanation will help.

I know all of you think that applies to me, but I did independent research, trusting in my own eyes and my own instincts. You guys trusted in about 2000+ years of RE fables from so-called experts.

You think it's wrong, but outside of parroting what these people said (their words, not yours), you can't even begin to tell me why it should be wrong.

I can tell you why this is wrong easily, because it comes from me.

And while we're on topic of super-slow explanations, just how many pages have I tried to explain to you that rockets neither have anything to push against without introduction of new matter (through engine propulsion)

but that both energy and fuel are finite? Well, I'm looking at page 7, and I'm still telling you this. Looks like I started talking on about page 4 or 5 about propulsion, so yes that's up to 7 pages of you not getting it.

Who here is slow?

And back there when you started talking about propulsion, you super confused yourself by analogizing it with bouyancy.

So
7pg now ive asked - please confirm you understand that the lift mechanism of floating heliums balloons is different from the lift mechanism of fluid lforcefully leaving an opened balloon.

I'm slow.  I learn things well, but not always quickly.  I have learned a bit about jet engines and rocket engines.  Turns out they are not so different, other than the jet not carrying its own oxidizer. 

Fun fact: In aerospace engineering terms, rockets are considered to be jets.  That's why the Jet Propulsion Laboratory works on rockets.

I don't know who the guy in the video is, but I watched for 12 minutes, and never heard him say anything useful.  He keeps mumbling about how there is so little air at "space" altitudes, that is impossible for a rocket to generate thrust, because there's nothing to push against.

You probably missed his "you can't do a pushup against water" analogy.  He pretty much destroys the whole "rockets must push against air" argument without even realizing it. 

Why do you give this guy any credence?

Confirmation bias.  Why else?

You probably missed his "you can't do a pushup against water" analogy.  He pretty much destroys the whole "rockets must push against air" argument without even realizing it. 

No he doesn't.

Let's turn to a balloon analogy.

1. I bring a well-tied off balloon from the Land of Air to the Room of Infinite Vacuum. Yes, I'm using Tolkienesque capital letter names.  Using a clamp, I untie the balloon, then clamp it tightly before it can lose a significant amount of air. If there were 6 oz of air in this balloon when I clamp it, there is still 6 oz of air when I turn on the vacuum chamber. Now there's (virtually) no air in the chamber, and still 6 oz of air inside the balloon. (Likewise, if I have several tons of fuel in the engine of a rocket, they start that way when I enter a vacuum, after using the boosters to supposedly get there)
2. There is a catch that allows the clamp to release from the outside. The balloon pushes forward for a bit then plops to the ground. (Likewise, the rocket releases its engine fuel, then plops toward the ground)
3. Bottom line? It pushes against air. The air introduced to the chamber. No air left, what is there to push against?

"But but this disproves..." nothing. It disproves absolutely nothing, because you have to move through miles of mostly airless sky, with nothing but the fuel you brought with you. As I've said for like seven pages now. He and I both know that you probably won't even make it to space, but if you could, you would be fighting to stay aloft, with the moment you stop releasing fuel the moment the fun ends. Vacuum ≠ zero gravity. It equals, to quote ppl from the San Francisco Bay area, Hella Gravity.

This is not to say travel to other worlds is completely impossible. But you seem to have favored Star Trek physics as scientific, when Stargate is better science. If you want to get to another world, you'll need a portal to warp through.

Not a shit ton of propulsion.

Hey you, Worthless Maggot! Drop and give me 50 pushups on the water!

And if I see you falling through that water, you'll need to do them over again.

spectacularly wrong



1.
ounce is a measurement of weight and simultaenously a measure of volume.
context required.

2.
if using volume, air expands to fill the space so air needs to be measured in volume and pressure to determine a weight of air.
that's why your bbq propane tank gets lighter as you burn it up.
but the tank volume remains the same.
because PV = NRT matters.

3.
let's say the balloon is filled with 6oz of helium.
so your udmbass example will show the balloon floating by bouyancy for external-balloon air.
and when the chamber is evacuated, the balloon will drop.
that shows a difference in mechanims of lift between bouyancy and jet flow.

4.
pushes against the air that came from itself?
that's the same moronic mentaliity of a magnet placed in front of a car and the magnet pulling the car forward, but the magnet is attached to the car.

and back to items 1 and 2 above, the pressure available for the 6oz of air is proportional to the tank.
theoretically, if the tank was 10000oz, the amount of air from the balloon to provide pressurize is negligible.
however, you'll see the balloon flies further because there is negligible air resistence due tot eh vacuum.

no.
as shown the high powered jets on this firefighter's contraption should, by your theory, jump when pushing off the window of the frame.
because teh frame is more solid than air.
the jets are not pushing against air.

and why don't the jets keep rising until the whole thing flips over?
the jets are the same.
the air is the same.




5.
a vaccum chamber on earth will feel earth's gravity.
being in a vaccuum != zero gravity.
free falling compared to your immediate surroundings = zero gravity.
in space, outside earht's atmosphere = vaccuum.
context matters.
try and understand basic things.

Quote

You probably missed his "you can't do a pushup against water" analogy.  He pretty much destroys the whole "rockets must push against air" argument without even realizing it. 

No he doesn't.

He absolutely does.  If a person can't do a pushup against water, then how can a rocket push up against a "dense" atmosphere that is thousands of times less dense than water?

Let's turn to a balloon analogy.

Let's not and say that we didn't bother.  Unless you inflate the balloon and then release it without tying off the end, then a helium balloon is nothing like a rocket.

Let's turn to a balloon analogy.

So you are back to the same refuted BS, after claiming you have already learned that it was wrong?

So much for being able to learn.

It is quite simple, at the exhaust of the rocket, you have high pressure air trying to push out in all directions.
You push off that.
You don't need other air around it.

"But but this disproves..." nothing. It disproves absolutely nothing

It disproves the delusional BS you previously claimed you learnt was wrong, by showing that rockets don't need to be in an atmosphere to work, and instead they can push off their exhaust, just like is shown in plenty of tests in a vacuum chamber.

That was what your crappy video was trying to say.

What happens after the engine is turned off is a different issue, which you also can't justify your delusional BS about.

As I've said for like seven pages now.

You mean as you have been ignoring simple questions and explanations of why you are wrong for seven pages now?

He and I both know that you probably won't even make it to space

No. You don't know that.
You just assert it to cling to your delusional fantasy.

if you could, you would be fighting to stay aloft

No, you wouldn't, because of how orbits work, as has been explained to you for several pages, with you ignoring it for several pages and unable to show a fault for several pages.

Vacuum ≠ zero gravity.

Yes, as has been explained to you repeatedly with you ignoring it.
It isn't being in the vacuum of space which makes it zero g.
It is being in orbit, i.e. free fall, which creates the experience of zero g.

Showing something on a suborbital trajectory hits the ground with the ground stopping it does not mean an object in space on an orbital trajectory will magically hit the ground.

Again, for your BS to work you need to address these questions, and actually understand how orbits work:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Let's not and say that we didn't bother.  Unless you inflate the balloon and then release it without tying off the end, then a helium balloon is nothing like a rocket.

(I didn't say a helium balloon. I said a released air balloon. Btw, helium balloons do not rise in a vacuum. I have videos to prove this.)


On the contrary, a rocket operates on principles of propulsion. Pressured fuel and oxidizers push against the ground and then the air. In the same way as a balloon when air is released propels it ahead.

In fact, NASA uses balloons as a model for understanding propulsion.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/simple-rocket-science/


But sure, if you're uncomfortable with this comparison...

Which leads to our problem. We have these well-fastened "rocket burns in a vacuum" videos, but I checked several of them, and none of them have the rocket doing anything but a sideways burn. Do we have any proof that a rocket can even rise in a vacuum?

helium ballons don't rise in a vaccum...

But sure, if you're uncomfortable with this comparison...

hurray!

we admit the method of lift are different (vs rocket)!
so begs the questino - why the fuck did you equate them then?

Do we have any proof that a rocket can even rise in a vacuum?

answer the previous post about vacuum != zero gravity.
were the experimetns done on earth?
and if so do you expect gravity to magically disappear just because air is evacuated from the cahmber>?


see a Flate earht den pressure believes air causes things to go down.
so in a Round earht you MISAPPLY the flatearth believe.

you are mentally incapabable of disassosiating and "living" the propsosed universe.


you are a moron.

Btw, helium balloons do not rise in a vacuum.

Because it lacks the pressure gradient (you are still yet to explain) to push it up.

On the contrary, a rocket operates on principles of propulsion.

Yet you throw those principles out the window to pretend rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Even after saying you have learnt that is BS.

Pressured fuel and oxidizers push against the ground and then the air.

No, fuel and oxidiser are combined and burnt to produce very high pressure gas.
This gas pushes outwards in all directions.
This pushes the gas already in the nozzle out at high speeds and pushes the rocket in the other direction.

It does NOT need to push against the ground or the air.

To understand why, ask yourself what that gas coming out at high speed is pushing off?
What is pushing off to accelerate so much to come out at such a high speed.

When you realise it is the rocket, you realise that means the rocket and gas are pushing each other.
No need for anything else.

In fact, NASA uses balloons as a model for understanding propulsion.

Yet people like you still seem to fail to understand this very simple concept.

Which leads to our problem. We have these well-fastened "rocket burns in a vacuum" videos, but I checked several of them, and none of them have the rocket doing anything but a sideways burn. Do we have any proof that a rocket can even rise in a vacuum?

Which is not a problem at all.

The videos clearly demonstrate your claim is pure BS.
That rockets aren't pushing off the air.
And then a little bit of understanding, tells you that because they fly in the atmosphere, including going up, they can go up in a vacuum.

Even without that, it is just a simple engineering problem.
Rockets can propel themselves in a vacuum. They just need enough to go up against gravity. To go straight up, that is a simple thrust to weight ratio of 1.

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

Pressured fuel and oxidizers push against the ground and then the air. In the same way as a balloon when air is released propels it ahead.

No.  The rocket motor burns fuel with an oxidizer that causes rapid expansion of hot gases.  The rocket literally creates its own expanding explosion or expanding atmosphere that creates thrust. 

On the contrary,

That you are soundly debunked and have to flee from another subject?