WHY would the government trick us?

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

Never thought I’d say it to you, but you are correct.

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/

Well, that didn’t last very long.

NASA is using the balloon example to show how unbalanced forces within the balloon propel it forward.  If you think that pushing against air can propel a rocket, then try doing a push up against air and let me know how that works out.

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

I’m fine with the comparison.  It’s your incorrect interpretation of the comparison that I have a problem with.

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?

How’s this?

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.

if rockets are pushing against ground and air, why then doesn't this jet lift higher when it goes through the window?
the "ground" rises as the window frame.
when you climbs stairs, you go up.
why didn't the water jet go more up?

NASA is using the balloon example to show how unbalanced forces within the balloon propel it forward.  If you think that pushing against air can propel a rocket, then try doing a push up against air and let me know how that works out.

So you admit that upward propulsion is basically a sham.

Obviously, I have seen sideways propulsuon (unbalanced forces?!? It's literally a balloon releasing air! They even said that this is what is happening in their propulsion system) even in vacuums. But I have yet to see even one rocket work straight upward. Or even upward at a 45 degree slope. Just more and more pictures of rockets moving sideways.

So you admit that upward propulsion is basically a sham.

No, they are pointing out the stupidity of your claim.

We can easily see upwards propulsion, like with a toy rocket. Or even a balloon.

Trying to object to upwards propulsion, when it is trivial to verify, just shows how truly desperate your position is.

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

Quote

NASA is using the balloon example to show how unbalanced forces within the balloon propel it forward.  If you think that pushing against air can propel a rocket, then try doing a push up against air and let me know how that works out.

So you admit that upward propulsion is basically a sham.

I have no idea how you got that impression.

Obviously, I have seen sideways propulsuon (unbalanced forces?!? It's literally a balloon releasing air! They even said that this is what is happening in their propulsion system) even in vacuums. But I have yet to see even one rocket work straight upward.

I already showed you a video of a rocket in a vacuum chamber going straight up.  Granted, it didn’t go up very far, but enough to prove the point.  As long as the force of the thrust is greater than the gravitational pull, then the rocket will go up.   Not sure how to make it any more simple than that.

I have no idea how you got that impression.

You literally said that contrary to the "equal and opposite" force of released air propelling against other air, some mysterious "unbalanced forces" are in play here. Or "you didn't really see that air pushing the balloon ahead, just like that gaslight isn't actually on, dear. You have such an imagination." Yes, I've seen a few versions of the Gaslight movie.

I already showed you a video of a rocket in a vacuum chamber going straight up.

No, you didn't. You're imagining things, dear. 

No but seriously, I didn't see any such video.

It's all about the laws of inertia.  The "fuel" in the rocket heat up and expand, creating pressure in all directions.  The gas can escape at the rear of the ship and leaves rapidly.  These gasses have inertia.  This leaves behind pressure from the gasses on the rocket.  This pressure mush have, by the laws of conservation of momentum, a force that pushes on the rocket, from the inside.  Action, reaction.

Here is a decent discussion of the concepts and math.  Notice there is no mention of "pushing against" anything, much less, air!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3

Quote

I have no idea how you got that impression.

You literally said that contrary to the "equal and opposite" force of released air propelling against other air, some mysterious "unbalanced forces" are in play here.

*sigh* Yes, forces are equal and opposite, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are balanced.  If the forces are balanced, then the system is in equilibrium.  If the forces are unbalanced, then there is a change in motion. 

Quote

I already showed you a video of a rocket in a vacuum chamber going straight up.

No, you didn't. You're imagining things, dear. 

No but seriously, I didn't see any such video.

Then you weren't paying attention.  Here it is again.

Quote

I have no idea how you got that impression.

You literally said that contrary to the "equal and opposite" force of released air propelling against other air, some mysterious "unbalanced forces" are in play here.

Yet instead of even attempting to provide a quote, you just blatantly lie.
That is not what they said at all.
They did not say anything was contrary to the equal and opposite force.

Instead, they pointed out there is an unblanced force on the balloon.
And it is quite easy to understand why.
The air inside is pushing in all directions. Most of this hits the balloon, but there is a hole.
That means the force isn't equal.

Here is a simple diagram (and for simplicity we will ignore the insignificant pressure gradients for this example):

The red indicates the high pressure gas.
The black represents the body of the rocket or the balloon.
The red gas pushes outwards in all directions.
The force on the top and bottom are balanced by each other.
The tube at the top is pushed up by the gas touching it, while at the bottom the tube is pushed down. This results in no net up or down force on the tube.
Likewise, the tube pushes back with an equal and opposite reaction on the gas, with the top of the tube pushing the gas down and the bottom pushing it up, so no net force up or down on the gas.

But the left and right aren't balanced.
The left side of this tube has the gas pushing it to the left, with an equal and opposite force pushing the gas back to the right.
This means there is a net force on the tube pushing it left and a net force on the gas pushing it right.

Notice these are unbalanced forces.
When discussed or unbalanced forces, we are discussing forces on objects.
So the tube has an unablanced force, in that there is a force acting on it without an appropiate additional force acting ON IT to counter that force.
This unablanced force results in an acceleration.
And the same applies to the gas, with an unbalanced force pushing it to the right.

When we discuss equal and opposite forces, we are discussing forces acting on DIFFERENT obects.
The force of the GAS ON THE TUBE is equal and opposite the force of the TUBE ON THE GAS.

Understand the difference?

So there are equal and opposite forces at play, the forces pushing the gas and tube, equivalent to gas and rocket or gas and balloon.
But these equal and opposite forces result in an unbalanced force on the tube/balloon/rocket and the gas, pushing them in opposite directions.


Putting this in air doesn't actually help at all.
Putting it in air now means you have gas outside the rocket as well, represented by the white in the diagram.
This gas outside also results in a net force on the rocket.
Just like the gas inside, the up and down is balanced and the left and right is not.
Now the gas outside is pushing the tube to the right, acting against the gas inside.


But seriously, what the hell is the point of all this crap of yours, other than to demonstrate you entirely incapable of learning and instead will just spout whatever dishonset BS you can to pretend your delusional fantasy is true and reality is wrong?

YOU have provided videos of rockets working in a vacuum.

You have claimed that you have learnt that rockets do work in a vacuum (in the sense of propulsion being possible).

I have learned that that propulsion does exist in a vacuum

Yet here you are still arguing against it and acting like you need the air to push off.

So all you are doing is showing everyone that you are lying POS that will spout whatever BS you think can help your case, even if means outright contradicting yourself, and that you don't give a damn about the truth at all.
Is that what you want to show everyone?

If not, how about you accept what you have already claimed to have learn and shown in your videos, that rockets don't need air to push off and any FEer claiming that either has no idea what they are talking about or they are intentionally lying to people?

Instead, they pointed out there is an unblanced force on the balloon.

No, there's propulsion.

If we represent air release with dots...

We call this propulsion in any circumstance. When explaining to school age kids. When trying to explain what propulsion is. Hell, even when mentioning in a video about flat Earth, you might use it.

Buuuut when you're trying to lie, all of a sudden, it isn't propulsion, but some unbalanced force.
Quit the bullshit. When something is something, stop calling it something else.

Propulsion requires repulsion. It's forward motion created by backward motion.

The scientists explaining this can't even get this right!


The action is the backwards motion. Releasing the gas. As a reaction, the object is pushed forward.

This is because reaction is an effect, and action is a cause. Pulling back on a bow then releasing (action) creates the reaction of driving an arrow forward. With an arrow the action is release of kinetic energy and recoil. With a balloon, the action is air release. With a rocket, the action is combustion/exhaust.  But you're missing an important point in your quite literally ass-backwards science. Without an action, there can be no reaction. Without cause, there is no effect. Vacuums do not create magic of causeless effect. No combustion/exhaust, no forward thrust.

"If you wanna teach me things, I suggest you study your subject material."

Yet here you are still arguing against it and acting like you need the air to push off.

This is correct. You need the air (or other propellant) that is within the tank. An exhaustable resource.
Just as a balloon within a vacuum cannot and will not expel air forever because there is not infinite air inside the balloon, any resource used to propel the rocket is repelled, then the reaction is that it drives the rocket or balloon forward. But what happens after that? Do you actually think a balloon or rocket can propel without anything to propel it?
Yes, some propulsion (mainly sideways) works. This is because air is pushing off. Air that you brought with you. But anything that moves air rather than introducing it doesn't work. This is why a fan-based drone won't fly, but a balloon will lurch forward. Does upward propulsion work? I suspect not. But the bigger point, which after 8 pages you've yet to grasp, is the question about continuing to work. I've told you time and again that these videos show no evidence of continuous motion.

"...showing you the difference between propeller based flight, and rocket based flight."
No you're showing us the difference between air-movement-based flight and air-release-based flight. If the drone had a reserve air tank, it could probably fly by exhausting air and using it to propel, as he showed when he released air back into the room. But because it only pushes against the air there is, it basically struggles to spin the propellers enough to fly. It moves air. The balloon (and the rocket) release stuff. But once it's released (AGAIN) it's gone.

Why do people keep trying to educate this guy about science, facts and stuff?  He either is not capable of learning, or he's playing us for fools. 

How much of the flat earth movement is really just people getting their jollies off by leading us all on?  I think it's about 99%.  Well, people leading us on, and people who really are fooled by the nonsense.  That makes it 99%. 

Quote

Instead, they pointed out there is an unblanced force on the balloon.

No, there's propulsion.

i.e. there's an unbalanced force.
Propulsion is a result of that unbalanced force.

We call this propulsion in any circumstance. When explaining to school age kids. When trying to explain what propulsion is. Hell, even when mentioning in a video about flat Earth, you might use it.

Not in all circumstances.
When you start talking about forces, and talking about how unbalanced forces cause objects to accelerate, you start focusing on them.

Plenty of things are called by many names.

But notice how you aren't refuting it.
It doesn't matter what you call it, the balloon/rocket/tube does NOT need the air to move.
The gas inside is enough.

Propulsion requires repulsion. It's forward motion created by backward motion.

As I said, rocket goes forward, gas goes back.
Quite easy to understand.
Even a child could. But not you.
You, even after providing videos showing you are wrong, and claiming to have learned, still play dumb.

The action is the backwards motion. Releasing the gas. As a reaction, the object is pushed forward.

Action and reaction are interchangeable.
Neither is more fundamental.
You can say the gas is pushing on the rocket, giving an action, with the reaction being that gas pushing back.
You can also say the rocket is pushing on the gas, with the reaction being the rocket being pushed back.

This is because reaction is an effect, and action is a cause.

And if you want to go down that route, the gas pushing on the rocket is the cause, so the action is the gas PUSHING THE ROCKET, the reaction is then the rocket pushing the gas backwards.
So even while trying to explain it, you entirely fail at doing so.

Pulling back on a bow then releasing (action) creates the reaction of driving an arrow forward.

And yet again you have entirely failed.
That is NOT the action, for this action-reaction pair.
You can have pulling back on the bow as an action, with the bow from all the tension pulling on you as a reaction.
Then when released, the tension in the bow is accelerating the arrow, the action, with the arrow pushing back on the bow being the reaction.

This is also why your argument is pure BS.
The action and reaction occur at once.
It isn't the action occurs and then some time later the reaction occurs.

Vacuums

Focus on the gas inside the balloon/tube/rocket, not the vacuum around it.
Again, gas around acts against the rocket.
The gas inside pushes the rocket.
No magic, just simple physics.
Things you claimed to have learned.
Things that were clearly demonstrated in a video you posted.

"If you wanna teach me things, I suggest you study your subject material."

Follow your own advice.

This is correct. You need the air (or other propellant) that is within the tank. An exhaustable resource.

You really need to make up your mind.
Because the past few posts, and the BS you linked were about propulsion in a vacuum.

But what happens after that?

Already addressed, especially by the questions you keep ignoring.
Once it is moving the question becomes what stops it.

Does upward propulsion work? I suspect not.

Yet you have no argument for why.
We see upwards motion using the same principles in the air. You can test this yourself.
What magic would stop it from without the air around the atmosphere.

But the bigger point, which after 8 pages you've yet to grasp, is the question about continuing to work.

You mean the point I have continually grasped and continually brought up which you keep fleeing from?
The point you keep using whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid it.

Again, for your BS to work you need to answer these questions:

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

Deflecting with other pathetic BS wont help you.

I've told you time and again that these videos show no evidence of continuous motion.

And I've told you time and time again why they are invalid comparisons.

Again, what is the pivot meant to represent? Last time I checked rockets in space are not attached to a pivot.
Likewise, what are the collisions meant to represent?

Are these objects going at orbital velocity or escape velocity? No.

Now stop with the dodging and try answering the questions.

Deflecting with other pathetic BS wont help you.

Exactly.

Stop deflecting with this pathetic BS.

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that. As a history major, I only need to know that the corrupt Catholic church supported endeavors like this and over the last 4000 years or so we've had warring factions, one trying to destroy or enslave everything through globalism (by various names) and one setting people free from slavery (the Jews and Protestants). I only need to know that the story of church persecution of Galileo and Copernicus was mostly a lie, that Catholics had a system called scholasticism which was basically a church monopoly on knowledge, and that these systems paved the way for modern scientism dogma. This isn't science, it's NASAism. I only need to know that over the last hundred or so years, secular globalism has not only led people down a path of self-destruction (more abortions, more suicides, including things like death coasters in Sweden), but the science behind some of these things is propped up by publish or perish system of marketing and that many scientists have to retract their "great discovery".

I only need to know that the science of perpetual motion isn't there and energy is lost. I do not need to trace it, I do not need to invent forces, I not need to make assumptions or suppositions. I only need to know that perpetual motion violates thermodynamics in one of the three (not counting the zeroth) laws, and that claiming it doesn't is magical thinking.
I only need to know about how devices that move air struggle along the ground, while balloons get thrust by basically laddering their own stored air, and that the concept of no air to push against equal no propulsion means that for miles of journey upward with what they can expel against themselve, the rocket must basically ladder upward against its own tremendous density vs the extremely thin air from about mile 16 to 62, and know that if for one second it stops thrusting, it will begin to fall back down. Outer space is not some "friction-free paradise", but a great resistor of upward momentum. Expecting a shuttle to rise through such thin air (before even getting to the vacuum of space) is on par with expecting Charles Atlas to be able to fly just by flapping his hands. He is too damned heavy, and nobody has been able to rise even an inch by pure muscle without some aerodynamic system.

I know you can come up with stupid theories as to why I'm wrong, asking me again and again "What force?" because you don't like the answer (you need to get over it, and accept that I've already told you, forces cause motion, they don't stop it; absences do that... like the absence of air). I only need to know that you don't know what you're talking about.

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that.

Strictly speaking, if you want to understand how rockets work in a vacuum, then you need understand the fundamentals of what makes rockets work in a vacuum, regardless of your major.

Quote

Deflecting with other pathetic BS wont help you.

Exactly.

Yet that is all you keep doing.
You cannot address the simple trivial quesitons which show your claim is pure BS.
You cannot come up with a coherent, honest argument to support your BS.

Instead you can just deflect to dishonest BS which has massive differences to what is being discussed making it an invalid comparison.

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that.

So what you are saying is that you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant, so you can pretend your dishonset delusional BS is true.

Unless you know the answers, you have no rational objection.
You are just rejecting reality and spouting whatever delusional BS you want.

I only need to know that the science of perpetual motion isn't there and energy is lost.

The big question is how quickly it is lost.
And to answer that you have to have some idea of how it is lost.

There are 2 extremes, one is the energy is lost so fast it comes to a stop almost immediately.
The other is that energy is lost so slowly it may as well not be lost at all and it will keep going till long after everyone is dead.
The latter, while strictly not perpetual motion, it may as well be.

And that really is the big difference between rockets and space travel not working, vs it working just fine.

It is the differnce between saying it will stop eventually possibly after we are all dead to saying it wont even be able to complete 1 orbit, or it wont be able to reach Mars.

If you want to say crap like that, you need to have some idea of how quickly that eneryg is lost.

and know that if for one second it stops thrusting, it will begin to fall back down.

Unless it is in orbit, in which case that "fall back down" simply means accelerating towards the planet to orbit it.

Outer space is not some "friction-free paradise", but a great resistor of upward momentum.

No, it isn't. As already explained.
Rockets work better in a vacuum.
You had nothing to refute that.

I know you can come up with stupid theories as to why I'm wrong

You mean I can clearly explain why you are wrong. But you don't like that so you will just ignore it.

accept that I've already told you, forces cause motion, they don't stop it; absences do that

I accept that you have told me pure BS which is contradicted by so much it isn't funny.

Forces change motion.
All it takes to realise forces can stop motion is slamming on the breaks in a car.
If your delusional BS was true, breaks wouldn't do anything, and they wouldn't be needed.
Instead, as soon as you take your foot of the accelerator the car will come to an immediate stop; and all the work on making things aerodynamic and reducing friction is entirely pointeless.

You need a force to stop. Things don't magically just stop.
That is what 2 of those questions point out.
Things magically stopping with no force means the energy and momentum just vanishes. It can't go anywhere.

I only need to know that you don't know what you're talking about.

And you clearly don't know that.
Instead you boldly proclaimed you don't need to know.

Again, for your BS to work you need to answer these questions:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you do you have no idea how long it can keep going for.
You have no idea if it will stop and hit the ground as soon as the rocket switches off, or if it will coast until the heat death of the universe.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 28, 2024, 04:27:58 AM

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that.

Strictly speaking, if you want to understand how rockets work in a vacuum, then you need understand the fundamentals of what makes rockets work in a vacuum, regardless of your major.

And I do. But because they don't align with what you've been told are the fundamentals, you perceive them as wrong.

Buoyancy, diffusion, propulsion, momentum, energy and entropy.

The balloon decides to sink when it no longer has air in it (buoyancy, specifically negative buoyancy)
Air rushes from the balloon, which has greater air pressure to a vacuum with no air pressure (diffusion)
The balloon rushes forward as air rushes out (propulsion)
It continues for a few seconds after there is no air (momemtum)
However, energy is finite and transfers from the object (energy and entropy)

Quote from: markjo on June 28, 2024, 02:23:27 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 28, 2024, 04:27:58 AM

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that.

Strictly speaking, if you want to understand how rockets work in a vacuum, then you need understand the fundamentals of what makes rockets work in a vacuum, regardless of your major.

And I do. But because they don't align with what you've been told are the fundamentals, you perceive them as wrong.

To be fair, it's not just me that thinks you're wrong.  It's pretty much the entirety of the scientific and engineering communities that think that you're wrong.  It really have to wonder what makes a history major think that they understand science better than actual scientists and engineers who work with these concepts every day.

Buoyancy, diffusion, propulsion, momentum, energy and entropy.

Yes, you seem to have a solid misunderstanding of all of those concepts.

The balloon decides to sink when it no longer has air in it (buoyancy, specifically negative buoyancy)

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that gravity is a fundamental part of buoyancy.

Air rushes from the balloon, which has greater air pressure to a vacuum with no air pressure (diffusion)

Or, rushes from the balloon to any environment that has a lower air pressure.  However, it's not generally referred to as diffusion.

The balloon rushes forward as air rushes out (propulsion)

Yes, because the forces inside the balloon are no longer balanced, resulting in a net force that propels the balloon forwards.

It continues for a few seconds after there is no air (momemtum)

Yes, inertia says that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force.

However, energy is finite and transfers from the object (energy and entropy)

The energy transfers from the object to where?  I always thought that the balloon falls because there is no force to oppose gravity.  Or, if the balloon is on a string, then there is no force to oppose the friction of the string.

And I do.

You clealry don't, especially given how often you repeat the same refuted BS.

And how you found a site to cherry pick to pretend it supported you even though it directly contradicted your claim.

Buoyancy, diffusion, propulsion, momentum, energy and entropy.

In terms or rockets, the key ones here are propulsion to make it move, and momentum and energy which mean it keeps going.

All coming back to the simple questions you refuse to answer:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

However, energy is finite and transfers from the object (energy and entropy)

Which comes with the questions of what is transferring to and how, and how long does this take?

With your current lack of understanding, you have no idea if this will be instant, or take billions of years.

If you actually understood, you would recognise that the most common way this happens is some frictional force (or other forces), acting to slow the object down and convert kinetic energy into thermal energy, with the object then reaching thermal equilibrium.
e.g. for a car, you have all the friction in the bearings, as well as friction from air resitance and the energy that goes into deforming (and heating up) the tires.
All of this acts to slow the car down.
As you take away these source of energy loss, the car can keep going for much longer.
e.g. making it more aerodynamic makes it go further, getting low friction bearings make it go further, and if you put it on solid steel rails with steel tires for minimal deformation it can go very far.

We even have some devices that let us see a drastic differnce, e.g. an air hockey table.
Without the air flowing, the pucks slide along the top of the table, with friction between the table and the puck trying to slow it down.
But turn on the air and the air acts like a lubricant, significantly reducing the friction between the puck and the table allowing it to go much further.
But the air resistance is still a big issue so it still stops in a reasonable amount of time.

Extrapolate that to space, where there is negligible air resistance and it can go a very long time.

Likewise, if you understood what you were talking about you would realise gravity is not magic. It does't magically just bring things closer.
Instead it accelerates them "downwards".
So if an object is going fast enough (and in the right direction), it will just make it orbit, or just slow it down a bit.

But you don't understand.
Your level of understanding is just "things must stop, so rockets can't work. This pendulum stops in a vacuum so everything must."
It lacks all the neccessary understanding to actually reach an informed conclusion.

Again, for your BS to work you need to answer these questions:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Just saying it can't go forever so it must stop doesn't tell us if it will fall back to Earth within a few minutes, or if it will last a few billion years.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 28, 2024, 04:27:58 AM

Strictly speaking, as a non-science major, I don't need to know that.

Strictly speaking, if you want to understand how rockets work in a vacuum, then you need understand the fundamentals of what makes rockets work in a vacuum, regardless of your major.

Hahahaha

He said it woth such confidence

In terms or rockets, the key ones here are propulsion to make it move, and momentum and energy which mean it keeps going.

All coming back to the simple questions you refuse to answer:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, for your BS to work you need to answer these questions:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Just saying it can't go forever so it must stop doesn't tell us if it will fall back to Earth within a few minutes, or if it will last a few billion years.

You know, if you bothered listening to my arguments, you wouldn't keep having to ask these stupid questions.

Someone on another thread accused me of having a temper tantrum. No, I rant but it's kinda a cold rant where I just type an d type. I wish I had enough emotions to throw a temper tantrum. After my Dearest left for parts unknown, I don't really have it in me. But this is what a temper tantrum actually looks like. He asked, I answered, he didn't like my answer and filed it into the ignore section. Now he's using the text version of screaming, using big all caps to question me like a cop questions someone they think is lying. Did you know that statistically, cops get a high number of confessions and people changing their answers? It's because they ask the same question over and over, and eventually some people think there must be something wrong with their memory or their answers.

There isn't. You just won't accept them, or worse yet, aren't capable of understanding them.

Another previous post (or two) asked how magically something (governed by science) works. We're not in the business of magic, but you know what?

This system actually works better than your space flight.
https://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2666
https://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2961

Rather than propulsion into open air, it is a compressed vacuum tube, that empties out into a sort of river, supplied by beings with high energy at the mouth of the tube. Yes, there is supernatural element, but they understand at least that to get energy out, you must put energy in. The energy comes from two excessively powerful beings, draining them of much of their power. It is stable only if one or more of these beings has limitless amounts of power. Energy in >= energy out, or no dice.

So, back to real science. Does propulsion in space work? No, it does not. In order to provide thrust involves backward expulsion of air or fuel into thin air with boosters. It requires fluid pressure equivalent to doing pushups on water because there is not much air to push against, meaning you would have to use immense amounts of energy (see also, very heavy rocket boosters). Which leads to a tyranny of mass issue where upward propulsion is hindered by the fuel load. But we somehow get around these two problems (hah! yeah right!) and head into space. Hooray! Hurray! All is solved! We have "exit velocity" and space is magically friction free, even though ActionLabs demonstrably shows friction does exist in a vacuum and no, that's not just for things on wires. But before you go congratulating yourself by ignoring all these things like you do, there's one more wrinkle. You now have no boosters. And instead of thin air, you now have about no air. With just the puny propulsion system of the main shuttle, you have to push not against thin air but against a vacuum. Propulsion and momentum isn't easier, it is harder. Do I need to know where that energy goes? Not really, but certainly know that it cannot propulse the rocket (which is to say to release energy backwards to create forward motion) and hold energy within the shuttle. That's akin to holding onto a cake and eating it. You've heard that expression right? Well it applies to government (sorry, commies) and it applies to space travel. There cannot be infinite energy short of divine intervention, because there isn't infinite fuel. So logically that energy conducts (sorry, convects) out of the ship. Either it is set adrift, or more likely it falls right back to Earth. "What about all these videos of successful space missions?" I'm sorry, wasn't there another thread where you guys showed be an animated model of how you think flat Earth sun orbit should always be seen? This is a photorealistic animation. If you can make that, you can make fake images that look real to the eyes.

Does a suction tube (like above) or a Stargate work? Better than that!

Bulma.  Here is a very simple question for you.  Do you believe that Newton's 3 laws of motion are valid, even in a vacuum?

If yes, then you have the very basic principles of how rockets can work in a vacuum.  It's just a matter of getting you to understand where the relevant force pairing occurs.  Here's a hint, it isn't outside the rocket engine.

If no, then I suppose that it's a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion.

In the simple things for Bulma to think on section.

If you were to hit something hanging in space would it move?
If so, you are on the way to understanding why a rocket works, see above.

, supplied by beings with high energy at the mouth of the tube. Yes, there is supernatural element, but they understand at least that to get energy out, you must put energy in. The energy comes from two excessively powerful beings, draining them of much of their power. It is stable only if one or more of these beings has limitless amounts of power.

Does a suction tube (like above) or a Stargate work? Better than that!

How does propulsion work?

Aliens meme

Someone on another thread accused me of having a temper tantrum.

If no, then I suppose that it's a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion.

Which would be the on going Bulma temper tantrum..

That is the topic. Then being compared to Nazi locksteppers is uncomfy for you so you tell me that I'm off topic.

Posting this against people that know how to use demonstrably true science like the heliocentric model is a temper tantrum. 

In the simple things for Bulma to think on section.

If you were to hit something hanging in space would it move?
If so, you are on the way to understanding why a rocket works, see above.

Also, if you can't do a push up against water, then how can a rocket do a push up against air?

You know, if you bothered listening to my arguments, you wouldn't keep having to ask these stupid questions.

Pure BS.
I have explained why you are wrong every time you have attempted to deflect from these questions.

These question are key to your misunderstanding, and there is nothing stupid about them.

They show that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting ignorant crap to pretend reality can't work.

And because of just how damaging these questions are to your dishonest, delusional BS you just entirely ignore them yet again.

You just won't accept them, or worse yet, aren't capable of understanding them.

Wrong again, I fully understand what you are saying and I recognise why it is wrong and why it doesn't answer the question.

For example, appealing to thermal radiation to pretend it means the kinetic energy will magically vanish does NOT answer the question.
Blatantly lying by claiming things just magically stop with no force applied and no interaction does not answer the question as in reality changes in motion (including stopping) requires a force (as your source even stated).
Trying to circumvent the question by saying perpetual motion is impossible, while providing no indication of if the motion should last for less than a second or a billion years does not answer the question.

We're not in the business of magic, but you know what?

Yet that is exactly what you are appealing to, where things magically stop for no reason at all with the energy just magically vanishing.

So, back to real science. Does propulsion in space work?

YES IT DOES!
As you have already claimed to have learnt it does.
And as plenty of experiments have shown, including from videos you have provided yourself.

Again, if you understood the science, you would understand that the high perssure air inside will push the rocket one way while the rocket pushes it the other way, and putting air outside makes it worse.

It requires fluid pressure equivalent to doing pushups on water because there is not much air to push against

Again, IT DOESN"T NEED AIR TO PUSH AGAINST!
The air outside makes it worse, not better.

And look at just how insane your comparison is.
You compare it to doing push ups on water because you don't have air to push against.
Have you tried doing pushups on air?

This is simple, meaning you would have to use immense amounts of energy

As rockets do, with most of the mass of a rocket when fully loaded being the fuel.

But we somehow get around these two problems

With quite simple physics.

We have "exit velocity"

Escape velocity, not exit velocity.
Another quite simple to understand concept.

space is magically friction free

No, rockets in space experience negligible air resistance and do not interact with other objects through friction to slow them down.

that's not just for things on wires.

Again, if you were honest about this you would be able to explain where this friction is.
But you aren't honest.
You want to pretend there is magic friction which magically acts on everything to magically stop it.

Again, this ties in directly to the questions you keep ignoring.

For the pendulum there is a quite clear source of friction, the wire. This provides a mechanism for energy loss, where kinetic energy is converted into heat.
Yet you cannot tell us what this wire is meant to represent for a rocket in space.

And instead of thin air, you now have about no air.

Which makes the rockets better, as already explained.

you have to push not against thin air

Again, not how it works.

A rocket does not work by pushing against the air.
It works by pushing against the high pressure gas in the combustion chamber and nozzle.
Once that gas has left and starts interacting with the air it has already left the rocket and can't do anything.

Just like if you are on a skateboard and throw a heavy ball away, you don't need to wait for that ball to hit a wall to start moving backwards, you move when you throw the ball and it doesn't matter what happens to the ball after.

Again, what the air does is act against the motion by pushing the front of the rocket backwards.

Propulsion and momentum isn't easier, it is harder.

Repeating the same dishonest BS with no justification at all wont help you.

Do I need to know where that energy goes?

Yes. You do.
If you can't, you are literally saying you have no reason at all for the rocket to stop, you just demand it does.

but certainly know that it cannot propulse the rocket

Again, once the rocket is moving it has that kinetic energy. It doesn't need to use that kinetic to propell itself, that kinetic is its motion and it will continue with the motion until something takes that kinetic energy.

While the rocket egine is functioning, it certainly can push itself forwards.

If you want to claim completely delusional crap that it can't, then that means you are claiming the high pressure gas just sits in the rocket exposed to a vacuum doing nothing.

There cannot be infinite energy

And nothing needs infinite energy.
That is just your dishonest delusional BS because you have no valid objection, hence the questions you keep fleeing from.

logically that energy conducts (sorry, convects) out of the ship.

There is nothing logical about that.
Not all energy is the same.
Kinetic energy doesn't just magically turn into heat and radiate away.

Either it is set adrift

i.e. continues in a free fall path allowing it to orbit a planet for an incredibly long time, or drift to another planet.
i.e. space travel works.

This is a photorealistic animation.

No, it wasn't.
Not even close.

So all these questions remain unanswered and remain destroying your delusional BS.

Once the rocket is moving you need a force to stop it. An ineraction wihich will either transfer that kinetic energy to another object or convert it to heat.
Otherwise the rocket keeps moving.
Claiming otherwise is appealing to pure magic.

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

Until you have an answer, all your BS just remains pathetic BS.

Why do people keep trying to educate this guy about science, facts and stuff?  He either is not capable of learning, or he's playing us for fools. 

How much of the flat earth movement is really just people getting their jollies off by leading us all on?  I think it's about 99%.  Well, people leading us on, and people who really are fooled by the nonsense.  That makes it 99%.

Yes, I think so too! It's like mission impossible for flat earth arguers like Bulma and Turbo. This seems like the new version of role playing. Instead of dungeons and dragons where people play the role of wizards and warlocks, you have people playing the role of fucktard flat earthers.

As we see, they can be very very convincing! Look how poor ol JB keeps getting suckered into their nonsense!

Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?

Leave the shape of the Earth out of it and there is still the same question underneath. Why would a government trick the people it is meant to serve? Probably allow the people in power to fool the populace into acting against its collective best interests and instead acting in the best interests of those who are in power.

Quote from: Glacey on April 27, 2024, 04:51:28 PM

Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?

Leave the shape of the Earth out of it and there is still the same question underneath. Why would a government trick the people it is meant to serve? Probably allow the people in power to fool the populace into acting against its collective best interests and instead acting in the best interests of those who are in power.

That's actually pretty funny.  It assumes that the voters actually have some idea of what is best for their selves.  In the real world, most voters are pretty stupid.  It's much more like the voting on Survivor.  It's still about manipulation, but pretty much emotionally based.