WHY would the government trick us?

Negative buoyancy, angular momentum, and friction with the air.

Buoyancy relies upon gravity, so that can't work.

You could have just appealed to momentum and tension in the string.

Designers and engineers using the 1st law of motion all have to make adjustments when their inventions don't work forever.

You mean they have to recognise what forces are acting to slow it down and try to eliminate them.
That is why they moved from simple axels stuck in things, to greased bushings, to ball bearings.
That is why they moved from large blocks to aerodynamic vehicles.

i.e. the understand the various forces which act to stop the device and try to minimise their effects.

Meanwhile, whenever physics or engineering uses non-Newtonian principles, it needs no adjustment.

Because it doesn't work at all and they just appeal to vague BS.

You can call me too stupid all you want, but you are the one too stupid to realize I'm right.

You aren't right.
You are too stupid to bother reading a source before providing it, and then too stupid to realise what you claimed using it as a justification is directly contradicted by that source.

Any real scientist understands that you are basically doing the scientific equivalent of pushing a 50 lb picture frame with a tiny bottle rocket before letting it go, and expecting it to fly rather than falling.

No, they don't.

This shows yet another blatant misrepresentation of reality.

Looking at the space shuttle, the payload to LEO was 27.5 t.
This was taken up by:
Two solid rocket boosters each with a total mass of 590 t of which 90 t was the empty weight (leaving 500 t as propellant)
And the shuttle itself with a dry mass of 78 t connected to a fuel tank with a total mass of 760 t and a dry mass of 35 t, leaving 725 t of propellant.
So that overall is a total mass of 2045.5 t, with 320.5 t being dry mass and payload, and 1725 t being propellant.
The payload is 1.3% of the mass of the everything-payload.

So that would be like launching a speck of dust with a bottle rocket.

But more importantly, again, this bottle rocket remains at suborbital velocity. Which simply means its orbit will pass through Earth, with the collision with Earth stopping it.

Again, at orbital velocity, even though it is accelerating towards Earth, this just means it remains in a circular orbit around Earth, never getting closer.
Or alternatively, it is in an elliptical orbit, where it gets closer and speeds up which then makes it get higher and slow down, oscillating between a minimum and maximum.
In this case it doesn't collide with Earth (or anything else) so it doesn't stop.

Again, this is explained quite easily with Newton's cannonball which you just ignored.

but I know what it decidedly will not do.

No, you don't.
You foolishly think you do to cling to your delusional fantasy, even though it has been refuted countless times.

You actually see a science formula, and you still think that it doesn't work. Can you say bias?

The formula doesn't support your delusional BS.

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

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 12, 2024, 12:59:18 PM

A pendulum will not work without gravity. What changes the direction of the wight, at end of the string?

Negative buoyancy, angular momentum, and friction with the air.

Are you saying that the buoyancy of the pendulum alternates between positive and negative?  How would that work?

Are you saying that the buoyancy of the pendulum alternates between positive and negative?  How would that work?

No, he is saying negative buoyancy. i.e. weight. i.e. what normal people call gravity.

No, he is saying negative buoyancy. i.e. weight. i.e. what normal people call gravity.

That's correct.

Positive buoyancy is when things rise.
Neutral buoyancy is when they float.
Negative buoyancy is when they fall.

They also float when the layer above or below them is light or heavier still, like an object being lighter than water but much heavier than air.

You could have just appealed to momentum and tension in the string.

I could have. If my intention wasn't to reform the theories of Newton to something that decent God-fearing people could agree with. Newton's theories need a definite revision, as they not only assume we all hand like bats on the underside of the sphere but that birds fly upside down while the clouds spin thousands of miles on sync with the bird yet both appear still. All this stuff is nonsense meant to prop up other nonsense.

But you'd probably say that tension comes from the pull of gravity.

Tension isn't the major driving force anyway. If it were swinging the pendulum would be primarily the danger of snapping it.

You mean they have to recognise what forces are acting to slow it down and try to eliminate them.

Hahaha, no. They have to realize that if they design a device to run without a battery, without an electric cord, within some hookup to water, wind, etc (and often, even then) their device will wind down.

I have a healthier cynicism for engineering than most engineers out there, and you know, I've built a few things. My back-blowing lawnmower (the side blower got knocked off for the final time and the mower itself ate the plastic) had a number of issues that I tinkered with. First, when cutting the bag (I had a spare, and realized the primary flaw in a bag was that it filled up, requiring increasing work to mow the same lawn, and reducing the grass-cycling or saved nutrients that I liked), cutting too high in the bag (I had cut starting about halfway down, but it needed to be between 2/3 and 3/4 down, with the former resulting in better air flow) results in being hit in the legs while mowing. Thankfully, I didn't cut even higher or I'd get some grass in the face. I adjusted this by duct taping the bag, but quickly learned that the tension from blown air eventually loosens the most areas I taped it to, and grass seems to get between the duct tape and the bag, loosening the adhesive. I also discovered the bag not being cut all the way to the bottom (I didn't want to overcut the first time), it was storing too much grass and not blowing  past a few minutes. Since I'd cut too high up top, I decided not to cut a whole rectangle (as I was already getting too much grass in my face). So I made a vertical opening. The grass funnels out the back and keeps blowing... on my leg.
If I had further bags to tinker with, I might've made upper section lower by stapling a cardboard box to the to higher portion. The risk here is that cardboard gets soaked easily (losing shape) and is subject to the tension from the grass. To a lesser extent, that's a potential fire risk. I could try cutting the rectangle lower and narrower so that it wouldn't blow so hard towards my legs but instead try to dump toward the ground. But I might find that its foward momentum is key to keeping the grass moving. Lastly, I could try having a porous mesh to slowly release grass instead of with force. I'd need help from the people who designed these bags to streamline the process.

Engineering is about fucking up. Oh sure, they toss around complicated formulas for show, but not being formally trained as one, just having the ability to visualize and adjust designs, the ability to fuck up and do right the next time is far more important. The other requirement is understanding that no matter how you adjust, some portion of your device (whether a proper engine like a real engineer might make or just an add-on like a third-rater might make) is doomed. This is because the forces working on it often involve balancing equations with entropy, and perpetually moving a device sets it up to break down one way or another.

Yeah, I am right. The formula of 1 lb per 22 Newtons means that 1000 Newtons of so-called gravitational force (which I'd replace by some variable of propulsion, had I this formula to work with) for a bottle rocket to lift about 50 lb. Major rockets have to lift themselves, and often weigh hundreds or thousands of tons. Let's see, the Saturn V lifted 7.5 million lb (7500000 x 22=165000000 N)... I'm sorry, but wouldn't that sort of gravity cave in a layer of Earth's crust? Shouldn't people nearby be experiencing a gravitic field and have to back up or be forced prone and/or flattened like a pancake? Why is it that we see this thing casually lift off like it's no fuss, when the massive amount of downward force should cause mini-earthquakes? I'm told that 1 Newton is the force of Earth's gravity. So a liftoff of that magnitude forces 165000000 times Earth's entire gravity into one location. Right....

Unless it's just propulsion, and the whole equation becomes much simpler. Exhausted fuel equals opposite upward momentum from the rocket. It still can't remotely make it to space, but we aren't talking about entirely unobserved gravitational force.

Engineering is about fucking up.

No.  Tinkering is about trial and error.  Engineering is about working smarter, not harder.

Oh sure, they toss around complicated formulas for show, but not being formally trained as one, just having the ability to visualize and adjust designs, the ability to fuck up and do right the next time is far more important.

Wouldn't it be better to use some of those complicated formulas to get you in the ballpark first so that you don't mess up and adjust so many times?

Let's see, the Saturn V lifted 7.5 million lb (7500000 x 22=165000000 N)...

No.  Fully loaded, the Saturn V weighed about 6.2 million pounds.  The 5 F-1 rocket engines generated about 7.5 million pounds of thrust.  Also, 1 pound is about 4.5 Newtons.  You probably got confused by Newton being about 0.22 pounds.  Please try to get your facts straight.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't that sort of gravity cave in a layer of Earth's crust?

It might have, if the engineers didn't use complicated formulas to figure out how to reinforce the relevant areas of the earth's crust. 

Shouldn't people nearby be experiencing a gravitic field and have to back up or be forced prone and/or flattened like a pancake?

Huh?  You don't know how gravity works, do you?  Seriously, make sure that you actually understand something before before you try to debunk it.  Nearby people were a lot more concerned about the acoustic energy generated by a rocket generating 7.5 million pounds of thrust.  People several miles away were able to feel the rumble at liftoff.

Why is it that we see this thing casually lift off like it's no fuss, when the massive amount of downward force should cause mini-earthquakes?

It did.

Small earthquakes, as high as 4.6 on the Richter scale, were registered across North America when the first Saturn V launched from Florida in November 1967

I'm told that 1 Newton is the force of Earth's gravity. So a liftoff of that magnitude forces 165000000 times Earth's entire gravity into one location. Right....

Wrong.  One Newton is the force of one kilogram of mass being accelerated at a rate of 1 meter per second squared.  Also, the launch pad has a flame diverter to turn the force of the thrust 90 degrees and a water deluge system to absorb some of the acoustic energy.  Weight is the force generated by the mass of an object being acted upon by the acceleration due to gravity.  Again, please properly learn the things that you're trying to debunk.

Unless it's just propulsion, and the whole equation becomes much simpler. Exhausted fuel equals opposite upward momentum from the rocket. It still can't remotely make it to space, but we aren't talking about entirely unobserved gravitational force.

You do understand that as the rocket burns its propellant, the rocket gets lighter and therefore easier to push, don't you?  In the case of the Saturn V, the first stage burned 40,000 pounds of propellant per second.  It's not unusual for a rocket to throttle down, or even shut down, one or more of the first stage engines in order to keep the acceleration of the increasingly lighter rocket under control.  Also, don't forget that there are many complicated formulas that the engineers used to make sure that the rocket can make it to space.

Quote

No, he is saying negative buoyancy. i.e. weight. i.e. what normal people call gravity.

That's correct.

Correct only in the sense that that is the crap you say.
Incorrect in how it works.
There is no positive and negative buoyancy in reality.
In reality, buoyancy is an upwards force caused by weight.
Your BS has been refuted countless times. But now is not the time for it.

I could have. If my intention wasn't to reform the theories of Newton to something that decent God-fearing people could agree with.

i.e. you throw reality out the window just to try to reform it into BS.

the underside of the sphere

Again, there is no underside of Earth.
Stop with the repeated BS.

Tension isn't the major driving force anyway. If it were swinging the pendulum would be primarily the danger of snapping it.

Great job showing a complete lack of understanding yet again.
Tension is the main driving force causing the path to curve and it to go back up.

Even if you just had it stationary, hanging from a string, tension would be a major part.

Quote

You mean they have to recognise what forces are acting to slow it down and try to eliminate them.

Hahaha, no. They have to realize that if they design a device to run without a battery, without an electric cord, within some hookup to water, wind, etc (and often, even then) their device will wind down.

No, they wouldn't, because they understand Newton's laws and understand how forces act.
They wouldn't stupidly think that

I have a healthier cynicism for engineering than most engineers out there

i.e. you reject reality and don't understand how engineering works.

Engineering is about fucking up.

No. It's about trying to understand the world and how things work, to then build things, and test them.
A decent engineering does design a building have it collapse and then try again.

Yeah, I am right. The formula of 1 lb per 22 Newtons means

What formula?

If you want the formula for weight (i.e. gravitational force) that is the mass in kg, multiplied by g (roughly 9..
So for 1 lb, i.e. 0.45 kg, you are looking at roughly 1 lb per 4.4 N.

Let's see, the Saturn V lifted 7.5 million lb

No, the Saturn V had a total mass (including propellant) of roughly 7.5 million lb.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't that sort of gravity cave in a layer of Earth's crust?

No.

Shouldn't people nearby be experiencing a gravitic field and have to back up or be forced prone and/or flattened like a pancake?

No.

Why is it that we see this thing casually lift off like it's no fuss

It doesn't.
It lifts off as if it is a quite substantial fuss with giant rocket engines pushing it upwards.

the massive amount of downward force should cause mini-earthquakes?

The Saturn V launch does cause lots of ground.

I'm told that 1 Newton is the force of Earth's gravity.

No, you aren't.
You are spouting delusional BS yet again.

It still can't remotely make it to space

Why? Because you say so?

we aren't talking about entirely unobserved gravitational force.

You mean the entirely observed gravitational force.

And still, no answer to the simple questions which destroy your BS:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 13, 2024, 04:31:45 AM

Engineering is about fucking up.

No.  Tinkering is about trial and error.  Engineering is about working smarter, not harder.

Obviously, you're not an engineer. What was it? 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Yes, being formally educated as an engineer  allows one to make less mistakes and fuckups. Something I sorely wish I had. So I was something more than a novice, but not able to pursue it professionally.

But engineering is actually about the spark, the ability to see something and say "I think I need to adjust that 45 degrees" or "if I swing this door, the tension will cause it to sag, because I haven't tightened the bolt here enough."  I made a movable arm for Little Shop of Horrors once. There was the problem of reach back then because the original tension wore down by the time we got to opening night, so Audrey kinda had to help by moving closer, but the point is we got a big plush plant arm to move and "grab" someone. Had I actually been able to see the other side of the stage, I might have pieced together why it wasn't grabbing far enough, but I suspect the pulley system was worn. I tried to create more tension, but yea, working with plush. The sort of engineering I do is alive, as it involves wood (which warps if it encounters moisture) and metal (which has a number of interesting features, like rust and electromagnetic conductivity).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 13, 2024, 04:31:45 AM

Oh sure, they toss around complicated formulas for show, but not being formally trained as one, just having the ability to visualize and adjust designs, the ability to fuck up and do right the next time is far more important.

Wouldn't it be better to use some of those complicated formulas to get you in the ballpark first so that you don't mess up and adjust so many times?

As I never learned what half these symbols mean, it's just distraction.

I never really learned to read music either, but this didn't stop me from doing handbells in junior high school. We even did Phantom of the Opera.

These formulas are like musical notation or braille, in that a person cannot instinctively understand what they mean. But more importantly, like a musical score where the composer wrote several sour notes, any mistake in the formula means the model is broken.

If I wrote Bulma's Formula of Life, and had some complicated abiogenesis design that did i fact zap some protoplasm to life... but I forgot that even bacteria need something to eat, what good is my model? Even infants understand that if they don't eat, they die.
Similarly, these lying formulas behave as though a rocket propulsion equation doesn't need to "eat". It also "dies".

Learning the symbols to formulas is absolutely worthless if you carry with you the mistakes and biases of those teaching you. And if they can't learn that energy in a system is finite except as more energy is introduced, then no, I don't need their stupid formulas. They don't help prevent mistakes, they teach me that the math is somehow mistakeproof.
It isn't.
There is no substitute for work. I'd sooner write out I did manually, then hand it to someone else to claim credit for writing the formula, and they will also get the blame when it turns out they missed the details I was telling them over and over.

Obviously, you're not an engineer. What was it? 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Yes, being formally educated as an engineer  allows one to make less mistakes and fuckups. Something I sorely wish I had. So I was something more than a novice, but not able to pursue it professionally.

i.e. you aren't an engineer. Instead you just tinker around without understanding.
That is not engineering.

As I never learned what half these symbols mean, it's just distraction.

i.e. as you have no idea what you are actually doing, because you aren't engineering, it is just a distraction.

Learning the symbols to formulas is absolutely worthless if you carry with you the mistakes and biases of those teaching you.

Just like you choosing to remain wilfully ignorant of reality.
Still incapable of addressing trivial questions which destroy your delusional BS.

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

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

It's amateur engineering.
I learn everything by doing.

Meanwhile, you have learned nothing, ever, because you depend on the formula. I understand schematics, not formulas. Because that's how I was trained, starting with Legos and moving on to building shit for our farm.

Schematics, even old ones like this (I very much am aware that modern rockets don't use alcohol by volume 75%) represent reality far better than theoretical science expressed in formula. The formula shows what the scientist would like the be true. The schematic shows the construction as it is, fully understanding thar there is a very real possibility of "back to the drawing board."

Formulas are important only if you trust the science. If you think the science is garbage, if you know that your boards for that new deck will last only until wood rot sets in or nails have to be driven back in, then a schematic for a pool deck is far more helpful.
When those things happen, you do upkeep.

i.e. as you have no idea what you are actually doing, because you aren't engineering, it is just a distraction.

The finished results speak for themselves. We have a door gate. We have a dart board. We have an archery board. We have a plant arm that sorta almost reaches Audrey (it did in the dress rehearsal).
Do you have to occasionally re-nail or repaint parts of the dart board? Yes, we had to do that. Hell, we've needed to repair wood rot on our house with putty as we live in a zone of drought or excessive rain. I wouldn't trust you to work on my house. I can vizualize it, just by talking to you. You don't know how to hammer properly, so you use a nail gun. Which would be okay, except it means you have to fundamentals, and miss the part that needs to be connect in place. You think gravity, and not poor skill and the environment is the cause for a structure falling. If you got as much rain as we do, you would understand why a shed with extra wood is more important than a scientific formula. That formula does not account for 147 rainfall days rusting or warpimg whatever you've built. Schematics  understand that real world objects are based on the design, but are constrained by reality. Your formulas don't seem to have a grip on that.

You act like forces are the final say, yet ignore local climate, available resources, etc.

It's amateur engineering.
I learn everything by doing.

The problem is you don't actually learn.

Meanwhile, you have learned nothing, ever, because you depend on the formula.

No, we have learned, including how to apply the formula.

I understand schematics, not formulas. Because that's how I was trained, starting with Legos and moving on to building shit for our farm.

i.e. you have no understand. You can follow instructions someone else made, but you can't make anything new with any understanding.

The finished results speak for themselves.

No, they don't.
The path to get there does.
If you need to continually tinker around, that shows a lack of understanding.

Again, if engineers actually behaved like you suggest loads of people would be dead.

Now again, care to stop with all the BS and get back to the issue at hand?
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Obviously, you're not an engineer. What was it? 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration?

LOL! You think that Edison was an engineer.  That's so cute.

Yes, being formally educated as an engineer  allows one to make less mistakes and fuckups. Something I sorely wish I had.

You do understand that it's never too late to get an education.  But, then again, you have to be able to trust the science, which obviously you can't.

But engineering is actually about the spark, the ability to see something and say "I think I need to adjust that 45 degrees" or "if I swing this door, the tension will cause it to sag, because I haven't tightened the bolt here enough." 

No, engineering is more about calculating and designing rather than actually building or doing.  That's what the fabricators and technicians are for.

As I never learned what half these symbols mean, it's just distraction.

So you like to work harder, not smarter.  Got it.

These formulas are like musical notation or braille, in that a person cannot instinctively understand what they mean. But more importantly, like a musical score where the composer wrote several sour notes, any mistake in the formula means the model is broken.

Not quite.  Those formulas are tools that engineers use to design their product.  Yes, engineers make lots of mistakes (sometimes disastrously so) because some of these products are very complicated and not always well understood.

Similarly, these lying formulas behave as though a rocket propulsion equation doesn't need to "eat". It also "dies".

Huh?  Of course rocket propulsion systems need to consume propellant.  I don't think that anyone has denied that.

Learning the symbols to formulas is absolutely worthless if you carry with you the mistakes and biases of those teaching you.

It's not about learning symbols.  It's about learning how those formulas relate to the real world.

And if they can't learn that energy in a system is finite except as more energy is introduced, then no, I don't need their stupid formulas.

Scientists already know about how energy is conserved and/or converted in open, closed and isolated systems.  Obviously you (and many FE'ers) don't.

They don't help prevent mistakes, they teach me that the math is somehow mistakeproof.
It isn't.

For the most part, much of the math is pretty well settled.  The mistakes generally come from not understanding how to properly apply the math.

There is no substitute for work.

Of course not.  How do you think that those fancy formulas get validated?  I'll give you a hint: it's by making the bloody thing and testing it in the real world.

Schematics, even old ones like this (I very much am aware that modern rockets don't use alcohol by volume 75%) represent reality far better than theoretical science expressed in formula. The formula shows what the scientist would like the be true. The schematic shows the construction as it is, fully understanding thar there is a very real possibility of "back to the drawing board."

Ummm...  You do realize that engineers used lots and lots of fancy formulas to design and draw those schematics, don't you?  And those same engineers will go back to those fancy formulas to try to fix any unforeseen problems that inevitably crop up during testing.  That's how engineering works.

You act like forces are the final say, yet ignore local climate, available resources, etc.

And you act like local climate, available resources, etc. don't impart forces of their own.

No, they used the formulas only to explain to other scientists/engineers how it worked.

These engineers often had an idea in their head, a flash of genius, and drew out the model. Then they made it, and adjusted from there. Then to show the model to patent office or other experts, they wrote out page after page of stuff. If you write the theory formula first, you will have to rewrite it when something goes wrong. Nobody wants to do that kind of unnecessary work, so the formula only comes first if one needs to check through some issue (e.g. the rocket isn't launching... so I need to work out the amount of thrust needed). Since those formulas mean nothing to me (again, lack of background in writing formulas), I just work through the process visually. Trial and error always trumps formula writing, because after all, that equation could be wrong.

When you make a pie, some people follow the recipe exactly. They are unable to function without those numbers of cups. And if something goes wrong, they don't know what to do. Others (like me), find out some proportion was off, and they know from working with pie, so they add more butter or flour, depending on whether it is too dry or too sticky.

And you act like local climate, available resources, etc. don't impart forces of their own.

Yes, but these are factors not forces. We don't sit and study these like you seem to with forces. When baking a pie, you probably have a recipe adjustment written down for over a certain elevation baking. I just make the adjustments based on results. If it doesn't taste right, I make the next pie differently. Yes, you might the pie right the first time. But because you didn't make those mistakes yourself, you will have to keep rereading the same page. If you lose that page, you won't be able to make your pie again.

Since those formulas mean nothing to me (again, lack of background in writing formulas), I just work through the process visually.

Please don't project your own lack of understanding of the engineering process on actual engineers.  Designing the world's first liquid fueled ballistic missile is a far cry from fixing the gate to your garden.

Trial and error always trumps formula writing, because after all, that equation could be wrong.

*sigh*  What makes you think that the two are mutually exclusive?  Use the formulas to work out your design, build it, test it, use some more formulas to figure out how to make it better, build the better version, test it again, lather, rinse, repeat.  That's the development cycle.

No, they used the formulas only to explain to other scientists/engineers how it worked.

No. They use formula to design and build it.

e.g. if you are building a building, you can use formulae to determine the weight of various parts, to determine what kind of support it needs, to design a building which can then be built and stand first time, rather than have a bunch of people go into it to use it and have it collapse and kill them all.

If you write the theory formula first, you will have to rewrite it when something goes wrong. Nobody wants to do that kind of unnecessary work

No, if you start with the formula, you can make it right the first time, or at least very close to it.
If you don't, you need to go through multiple iterations to get something that works.

Is that really the level of insanity you want to go for?
That people don't want to put in the "unnecessary work" to get something to work right the first time, but are willing to put in the unnecessary work of making loads of iterations and having them fail?

Since those formulas mean nothing to me

Because you refuse to understand how reality works.

We don't sit and study these like you seem to with forces.

People do sit and study these factors to try to understand what adjustments need to be made for various locations.

When baking a pie, you probably have a recipe adjustment written down for over a certain elevation baking. I just make the adjustments based on results.

i.e. smart people understand the adjustments needed and make them to end up with a decent pie the first time.
You, with no understanding at all, just waste the first pie, and then make adjustments based upon that, possibly ruining several more.
Yet you want to pretend your stupidity and wilful ignorance is the smart way?

Now again, care to stop with all the BS and get back to the issue at hand?
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 20, 2024, 05:36:59 AM

Since those formulas mean nothing to me (again, lack of background in writing formulas), I just work through the process visually.

Please don't project your own lack of understanding of the engineering process on actual engineers.  Designing the world's first liquid fueled ballistic missile is a far cry from fixing the gate to your garden.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 20, 2024, 05:36:59 AM

Trial and error always trumps formula writing, because after all, that equation could be wrong.

*sigh*  What makes you think that the two are mutually exclusive?  Use the formulas to work out your design, build it, test it, use some more formulas to figure out how to make it better, build the better version, test it again, lather, rinse, repeat.  That's the development cycle.

And you think every engineer makes things the same way?  The formulas I see are useful only for theoreticals. That is, when I use a formula, I am usually doing one of two things: predicting or rehearsing. Both of these are garbage in terms of real engineering. Rehearsing is where you recite other people's math with other people's assumptions and other people's mistakes. Predicting is even worse, that idea that on paper if I people continue growing population at the same rate, there will be not land in 50 years. But they don't! Trends change.
A schematic, on the other other hand is a 2D model of what you intend to create in the physical world. I have not the training to make a ballistic missile, I would need the computer guidance expertise, and some expertise in missile propulsion. You're trying to act like "What do you know, you're a yokel from a small town." Well I apparently know enough about the rocket science predictions to know why they are wrong. I could not build a rocket but I could certainly tell you why you know even less about science and engineering than me, if you're convinced this scheme to go to space in rockets works. Btw, while I have no rocket experience, I have built some miniature roller coasters than use cranks to move steel marbles. There's nothing wrong with my ability to build things. I just don't have the training or desire to build a ballistic missile. All the same, the most difficult part is the guidance system. The propulsion part should simply be pressuring gas (an ICE) or explosive force through the opening against the ground causing an opposing upward force. The theory isn't difficult, it's the execution. Which is the final problem of  formula. While it looks good on paper, if the design is off, the device will instead blow up in your face. Literally. No thanks!

Schematics will always be a better engineering tool than some science major's theory in formula. Besides, I quite literally gave you a formula earlier about why friction does in fact exist in space and you guts rejected it, because it didn't fit with your ideas.

Schematics will always be a better engineering tool than some science major's theory in formula. Besides, I quite literally gave you a formula earlier about why friction does in fact exist in space and you guts rejected it, because it didn't fit with your ideas.

because you literally attributed air friction to slowing down a pendulum, air:  which isn't in space.
there's no air.
no air.

amazing!

there could be string friction.
but you didn't say that.
you said air.

spectacular!


keep saying worng things and we will reject it.

The formulas I see are useful only for theoreticals. That is, when I use a formula, I am usually doing one of two things: predicting or rehearsing. Both of these are garbage in terms of real engineering.

You sure do love spouting delusional BS.
A big part of engineering is predicting. e.g. predicting if this building will be able to hold all the weight and stand, or if it will not be able to an instead collapse and kill everyone inside.

Real engineers (not BS tinkerers like you) design things based upon these theoreticals so only theoretical people's lives are put in danger rather than real people.
They use these to make schematics to then build things in the real world.

Well I apparently know enough about the rocket science predictions to know why they are wrong.

No, you don't, as repeatedly demonstrated.
Instead you use your wilful ignorance to pretend they are wrong while being entirely incapable of explaining why, instead resorting to the same refuted BS.

There's nothing wrong with my ability to build things.

A trained monkey can build things.
The issue is your ability to understand (and from an engineering perspective your ability to design).

The propulsion part should simply be pressuring gas (an ICE) or explosive force through the opening against the ground causing an opposing upward force. The theory isn't difficult, it's the execution.

Which you have gotten wrong again.
It isn't it pushing against the ground that causes an upwards force.
It is that explosive force generating an upwards force.

Schematics will always be a better engineering tool than some science major's theory in formula.

No, that is the better tool for the trained monkey that doesn't think about how things work and just follows instructions to put them together.

Besides, I quite literally gave you a formula earlier about why friction does in fact exist in space and you guts rejected it, because it didn't fit with your ideas.

Which formula would that be?
Do you mean the one where you continually appealed to the pivot for a pendulum which doesn't exist in space?
Or the "friction" that occurs a rocket engine is on, propelling the rocket forwards, which isn't there when you claim it should magically be stopping?
That isn't rejecting it because it doesn't fit with our ideas. That is rejecting because it doesn't apply to the situation being discussed.


Now again, care to stop with all the BS and get back to the issue at hand?
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Schematics will always be a better engineering tool than some science major's theory in formula.

Who drew the schematics and what information did they use to draw them?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that plans come from mathematical or scientific theory. Often when you draw plans, you just make the design. Then you add the formulas to make sure things work right. If you aren't trained to do the formulas, or think they might actually be wrong, then the schematic doesn't include them.

To make a rollercoaster, for instance, I draw a gradual uphill slope (15° for 250 ft), then a sudden downhill slope (60° down), followed by three smaller hills, and a right curve back to the start point. I then write the width of the tracks, the length between each crosspiece of the track (unless we're doing a solid hill of wood), the width/length/height of the cart, the slope of each hill, etc. I could make midair swerves or loop the coaster upside-down (btw, I'd love to see "gravity" included in such a formula, which probably instead deals in momentum and maybe tension), but as far as I'm concerned, these lower the safety and structural integrity of the ride. The ride could hang upside-down if the amount of energy produced by previous slopes is wrong, or simply force itself apart if the load-bearing calculation is off. Make no mistake, there are formulas. But only a fool trusts those formulas with their life or those of others. If the math doesn't account for something, the ride will kill someone. Sensible amateur engineers realize that if they haven't the math/science background enough to make kinetic energy and momentum calculations much less load-bearing calculations, they don't make anything they can't trust not to fall apart. Scrupulous engineers are skilled enough to make it, and even if the formula might be imperfect, subject it to constant repairs, knowing that no formula ever accounts for things like wear and tear. Arrogant engineer thing that just because they know enough to launch ballistic missiles, they can continue to launch things upwards indefinitely into "space".

Icarus was a legend about hubris for a reason. In reality, it isn't that the sun would melt your wings but that (lack of) air pressure is a barrier to decent lift, and it only gets worse, not better.

Oh sure, you can show me that propulsion "works" in a vacuum, but the nagging question of whether you aren't just wasting fuel remains.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that plans come from mathematical or scientific theory. Often when you draw plans, you just make the design. Then you add the formulas to make sure things work right. If you aren't trained to do the formulas, or think they might actually be wrong, then the schematic doesn't include them.

This highly depends on who is doing it.
If you are doing it well, you start with a rough idea of what you want. That is not the schematic/plans.
Then you use the formulae to make sure each part will work, potentially even building a virtual model to put through things like finite element testing and forms of analysis to make sure it will survive.
Then you make the detailed schematics from that.

The detailed schematics don't need the formulae, they need the material requirements.

To make a rollercoaster, for instance, I draw a gradual uphill slope (15° for 250 ft), then a sudden downhill slope (60° down), followed by three smaller hills, and a right curve back to the start point.

That isn't a schematic.
That is a drawing, like a child does of a house.

btw, I'd love to see "gravity" included in such a formula

You mean as it is when you factor in the strength needed for the lift to lift the moving component against gravity? And to determine how quickly it accelerates and what speed it reaches?

as far as I'm concerned, these lower the safety and structural integrity of the ride. The ride could hang upside-down if the amount of energy produced by previous slopes is wrong, or simply force itself apart if the load-bearing calculation is off.

i.e. if you don't use the formulae, you can kill people.
Real engineers use them. And they include safety margins to account for things like differences between each batch of material and wear and tear. They also will sometimes include specific inspection requirements about what constitutes a point where it is unsafe, and that still includes safety margins.
Idiots don't.

Arrogant engineer thing that just because they know enough to launch ballistic missiles, they can continue to launch things upwards indefinitely into "space".

You mean arrogant fools like you think it is magically impossible, even though they can't explain why and need flee from trivial questions.

In reality, it isn't that the sun would melt your wings but that (lack of) air pressure is a barrier to decent lift, and it only gets worse, not better.

That isn't your reality. That is your fantasy.

Oh sure, you can show me that propulsion "works" in a vacuum, but the nagging question of whether you aren't just wasting fuel remains.

Given propulsion works, no you aren't.
You can get up to space with a rocket, assuming it has enough fuel.
Importantly, you can also get to orbital velocity.

Spamming the same BS video that wants to lie to claim propulsion can't work in a vacuum because there is nothing to push doesn't help you.
It just shows your dishonesty.
You are willing to use whatever BS you can find to pretend your delusional fantasy is true and reality is wrong, even after you basically admit that the content of the video is pure BS.

Now again, care to stop with all the BS and get back to the issue at hand?
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that plans come from mathematical or scientific theory. Often when you draw plans, you just make the design. Then you add the formulas to make sure things work right. If you aren't trained to do the formulas, or think they might actually be wrong, then the schematic doesn't include them.

To make a rollercoaster, for instance...

Why do you keep bringing up making things that are nothing like rockets to compare to making rockets?  How would you make a large rocket?

even more basic - how does a redbull motorcycle daredevil know what speed, ramp angle, wind resistance is required?

do calculations?
not according to bulma - just jump man!




and it's not like riflemen do it.
it's not like intercepting iron dome rockets do it.
it's not like large manufactruers do some basic math before wasting 100,000$ prototyping.
a little preplanning is "stupid" apparently.

spectacular!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 24, 2024, 05:50:16 AM

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that plans come from mathematical or scientific theory. Often when you draw plans, you just make the design. Then you add the formulas to make sure things work right. If you aren't trained to do the formulas, or think they might actually be wrong, then the schematic doesn't include them.

To make a rollercoaster, for instance...

Why do you keep bringing up making things that are nothing like rockets to compare to making rockets?  How would you make a large rocket?

 I wouldn't. That's why I don't use it, even for analogy.

There is too big a risk of making the casing too weak, and the contents inside explode, as here.

I look at the process of engineering as risk vs reward mindset. There's no reason to attempt to build things that have high risk and no reward. You wouldn't be able to fly to the next world through space, so there is no reward, just alot of wasted money being embezzled.

I have no problem with the idea there may be other worlds. But the way we would get to them is through warp holes, not launching ourselves into "space" like madmen just because La Voyage Dans La Lune thinks being fired from a gun seems nice.

Looked fake then, still is fake. Invent a Stargate, and we'll talk about interplanetary travel.

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2024, 01:55:16 PM

Why do you keep bringing up making things that are nothing like rockets to compare to making rockets?  How would you make a large rocket?

 I wouldn't. That's why I don't use it, even for analogy.

There is too big a risk of making the casing too weak, and the contents inside explode, as here.

That's what those fancy formulas that you don't like are for.  It's called engineering.

Invent a Stargate, and we'll talk about interplanetary travel.

Yes, let's look to science fiction to solve interplanetary travel.  We'll probably have to get the zero point module power source figured out so that we can power the Stargate.

I wouldn't. That's why I don't use it, even for analogy.
There is too big a risk of making the casing too weak, and the contents inside explode, as here.

Because you have no idea what you are doing.
Other people, that do know what they are doing, can make it without such a large risk.

There's no reason to attempt to build things that have high risk and no reward.

Good thing they do have a reward.
They are able ot put satellites in space, and able to send space probes to other planets (and even land on some).

You wouldn't be able to fly to the next world through space

That is just your BS claim which you have NEVER been able to justify.
Instead you keep fleeing from questions which show you can't.

Again, if you wish to support that dishonest BS of yours, you need to answer these simple questions:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

And if you want to appeal to gravity, you need to show that the orbit intersects Earth.

Warp holes?!


Are you thinking people should make them or fall into them?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 25, 2024, 06:54:01 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2024, 01:55:16 PM

Why do you keep bringing up making things that are nothing like rockets to compare to making rockets?  How would you make a large rocket?

 I wouldn't. That's why I don't use it, even for analogy.

There is too big a risk of making the casing too weak, and the contents inside explode, as here.

That's what those fancy formulas that you don't like are for.  It's called engineering.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 25, 2024, 06:54:01 AM

Invent a Stargate, and we'll talk about interplanetary travel.

Yes, let's look to science fiction to solve interplanetary travel.  We'll probably have to get the zero point module power source figured out so that we can power the Stargate.

 We have a Large Hadron Collider apparently breaking tiny holes in the fabric, every time atoms are split or whatever. That's not that big a stretch.

Btw, if you don't think NASA has been using science fiction as the model for what they can do, you haven't been paying attention.

We have a Large Hadron Collider apparently breaking tiny holes in the fabric, every time atoms are split or whatever.

Citation please.

Btw, if you don't think NASA has been using science fiction as the model for what they can do, you haven't been paying attention.

If you think that NASA is Space Force, then you don't know NASA or Space Force.  Also, the similarity of the logos was pointed out and mocked years ago.

https://www.sciencealert.com/higgs-particles-and-tiny-black-holes-could-have-destroyed-our-universe

Basically, they hint that LHC can create Higgs particles and cause micro black holes... for a fraction of a second.

Simply allowing this to become stable is not enough of a stretch to even be called science fiction, whereas I've repeatedly explained how trying to use "escape velocity" to just sorta continue momentum outside atmosphere is a pipe dream.

NASA, Space Force, same difference. All part of the same agenda trying to explore Mars. The point being if you ask any Trekkie how scientifically accurate Star Trek is, they are convinced it's close to real science. Just more proof that people believe in the science they want, not what is actually true.