Offline wpeszko

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #360 on: March 18, 2020, 06:08:45 PM »
Quote from: totallackey link=topic=15702.msg207590#msg207590

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.
So, yeah, rockets push off the hot gases in their burn chambers.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 06:17:50 PM by wpeszko »

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #361 on: March 18, 2020, 06:36:22 PM »
Quote from: totallackey link=topic=15702.msg207590#msg207590

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.
So, yeah, rockets push off the hot gases in their burn chambers.
So yeah...burn chambers (i.e., nozzles) are open to a vacuum...

So the hot gasses are incapable of performing work....

Because gas released to a vacuum does 0 work...

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #362 on: March 18, 2020, 06:41:30 PM »
Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.
Are you sure?
If you're sitting on a swing and swing your feet forward, it will result in movement.
I've seen kids do it, I've done it myself.
(Also works on a swivel chair.  ;D)
The swing requires a start.

You will move wildly about with an impetus one direction or another

But simply sitting on the swing at a standstill and moving your legs will not start the swing moving for and then aft of the pivot point.
Pushing the mass of your feet forward (at speed) will push your body back.
And not because you're "pushing against air", but because one mass (feet) accelerates one way so the other mass (rest of body) most accelerate the other way.

The effect is of course limited due to relatively light feet and short legs.

iC
After a swing starts, you can continue the motion of swing and even increase intensity by the action you describe, but there is a pushing motion involved and it is directed at the seat of the swing.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #363 on: March 18, 2020, 07:09:04 PM »
The swing requires a start.
No it doesn't, why would it? It's being started by your movement.
If you don't have a swing ready, try it on a office chair on wheels (I just confirmed it myself).
Start completely at rest, feet down. Quickly straighten your legs, moving your feet up and forward.
Your chair will move in in the opposite direction. Assuming of course, it is free moving on wheels.

You will move wildly about with an impetus one direction or another
I will move in exactly the opposite direction from where I swung my legs.
At lest under perfect conditions. If it's some lopsided rope swing or swinging not in line with your center of mass, it won't work that well.

But simply sitting on the swing at a standstill and moving your legs will not start the swing moving for and then aft of the pivot point.
It will not move you very far, but it will get you started.

After a swing starts, you can continue the motion of swing and even increase intensity by the action you describe, but there is a pushing motion involved and it is directed at the seat of the swing.
If you really want to get the swing going, there will be several techniques involved. Leaning your whole body forward and backward, applying leverage to the rope, ...
But that was not my point. Kicking out your legs with the swing at rest will push it the other way.
Just as pushing gas away from where the fuel is burned inside the rocket, will push the rocket the other way.
No initial movement needed, no atmosphere needed, just action-reaction.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #364 on: March 18, 2020, 07:48:11 PM »
I understand perfectly.
That's one for the sig.

Just proclaiming you to understand something doesn't make it so.
And just using your magic catch-phrase "does no work" doesn't make a point for you.
iCare has explained ad nauseum while Joule's result does not apply to rockets and his example of the swing is one I was thinking of using.
You can get yourself moving on a swing simply by moving your legs. Not because your legs are pushing against the air but because you are shifting your mass which causes a reaction. Which is how rockets work.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #365 on: March 18, 2020, 09:33:44 PM »
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

Hogwash, the bullet remains the same size at all times



The same way the piston in rings expand to fill the cylinder.

Hogwash, there's nothing on a bullet that can expand

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

The bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

Which gasses, pushing off the bullet, cause the gun to recoil.

So you agree the expanding gases push against the back of the bullet, and the inside of the casing as well?

I understand perfectly.

Not so sure about that...
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 09:41:52 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #366 on: March 19, 2020, 07:30:39 AM »
I understand perfectly.
That's one for the sig.

Just proclaiming you to understand something doesn't make it so.
And just using your magic catch-phrase "does no work" doesn't make a point for you.
iCare has explained ad nauseum while Joule's result does not apply to rockets and his example of the swing is one I was thinking of using.
You can get yourself moving on a swing simply by moving your legs. Not because your legs are pushing against the air but because you are shifting your mass which causes a reaction. Which is how rockets work.

Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #367 on: March 19, 2020, 08:07:09 AM »
Magic  happens in defiance of the laws of science .
icare will have to show the scientific experiment that proves his ad nauseum "explanation".

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #368 on: March 19, 2020, 08:18:13 AM »
Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .
Yes. And only applies in certain circumstances.
iCare understands this stuff better than me and he has very clearly explained why a rocket operating does not meet the criteria for this law to apply. If you don't understand that then I don't know what we can do about that, but just repeating the phrase regardless adds nothing to this debate.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #369 on: March 19, 2020, 08:47:14 AM »
Okay let's be honest, if you link me a article from the internet that says the moon landing is fake, I can also link you articles that prove the moon landing was real. So you can't prove anything with articles.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #370 on: March 19, 2020, 10:40:00 AM »
The swing requires a start.
No it doesn't, why would it? It's being started by your movement.
As I recall, sitting on a swing when I was younger, I would need to push my feet off the ground to get started.

Younger than that, I would need a push from somebody else.
If you don't have a swing ready, try it on a office chair on wheels (I just confirmed it myself).
Start completely at rest, feet down. Quickly straighten your legs, moving your feet up and forward.
Your chair will move in in the opposite direction. Assuming of course, it is free moving on wheels.
Yeah, the force is coming from the hip and transmitted to the focal point on the seat of the chair and from there, to the wheels.
You will move wildly about with an impetus one direction or another
I will move in exactly the opposite direction from where I swung my legs.
No...
At lest under perfect conditions.
As you admit now.
If it's some lopsided rope swing or swinging not in line with your center of mass, it won't work that well.
Center of mass for swing is located on the seat of the swing.

Force for movement is transmitted through the hips.
But simply sitting on the swing at a standstill and moving your legs will not start the swing moving for and then aft of the pivot point.
It will not move you very far, but it will get you started.
Nope.

You aadmitted differently above.
After a swing starts, you can continue the motion of swing and even increase intensity by the action you describe, but there is a pushing motion involved and it is directed at the seat of the swing.
If you really want to get the swing going, there will be several techniques involved. Leaning your whole body forward and backward, applying leverage to the rope, ...
But that was not my point. Kicking out your legs with the swing at rest will push it the other way.
Just as pushing gas away from where the fuel is burned inside the rocket, will push the rocket the other way.
No initial movement needed, no atmosphere needed, just action-reaction.

iC
Too bad the videos here clearly demonstrate a rocket requires a pressurized environment to work.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #371 on: March 19, 2020, 10:43:56 AM »
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

Hogwash, the bullet remains the same size at all times.
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #372 on: March 19, 2020, 10:53:15 AM »
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?

Tell us what you think happens as the bullet travels down the length of the barrel.

Does it expand or contract lengthwise? Does it expand or contract across the diameter of the barrel?

Does it change in size again when it leaves the barrel?

Are you referring to Internal Ballistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ballistics

 
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 10:57:58 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #373 on: March 19, 2020, 11:02:45 AM »
Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .
Yes. And only applies in certain circumstances.
iCare understands this stuff better than me and he has very clearly explained why a rocket operating does not meet the criteria for this law to apply. If you don't understand that then I don't know what we can do about that, but just repeating the phrase regardless adds nothing to this debate.

It's a law of physics and applies to all situations  - it applies to reality in all situations involving expansion of gas into a vacuum.  It's ok if you don't understand physics. 
Ask iCare to provide you with the scientific experimental results which allow him to issue the statement that laws depend on his criteria and therefore don't apply to " certain situations". That's all he has to do.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #374 on: March 19, 2020, 11:03:20 AM »
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?

Tell us what you think happens as the bullet travels down the length of the barrel.

Does it expand or contract lengthwise? Does it expand or contract across the diameter of the barrel?

Does it change in size again when it leaves the barrel?

Are you referring to Internal Ballistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ballistics
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

However, in the interest of maintaining focus on the OP and remaining on topic, I will simply reiterate this:

As demonstrated by the video evidence presented here, and as expressed by Joules when he found that gas does 0 work when released to a vacuum, rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Rockets require a pressurized environment to work.

Proven fact.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #375 on: March 19, 2020, 11:09:20 AM »
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #376 on: March 19, 2020, 11:16:21 AM »
As I recall, sitting on a swing when I was younger, I would need to push my feet off the ground to get started.
Younger than that, I would need a push from somebody else.
Please stop confusing general principles with specific personal experiences.
It is of course more effective to push off the ground by directly applying the strength of your muscles or getting a push from another person.
Especially when you are a child and your feet are very light, your legs are very short and your coordination is less than perfect.
It is also easier to apply "swinging techniques" once the swing has stared swinging.
This does not alter the fact, that when one mass (feet) is accelerated one way, an equal force will accelerate another mass (rest of body) the other way.

I will move in exactly the opposite direction from where I swung my legs.
No...
No explanation, deserves no response.

At lest under perfect conditions.
As you admit now.
I don't "admit" it as I didn't hide/deny it before.
I'm sorry, but I keep forgetting, that I need to point out the obvious to avoid misunderstandings.
I had assumed that we all know, that the real world (including experiments) is rarely (if ever) perfect.
Are you aware, that for Joule's Law of Free Expansion, there is a relevant difference between "real" in contrast to "perfect" gases?

If it's some lopsided rope swing or swinging not in line with your center of mass, it won't work that well.
Center of mass for swing is located on the seat of the swing.
It certainly is not. For a sitting body the center of mass is usually somewhere between navel and sternum.
Which makes sense, as most of ones bodily mass is in the upper body.

Force for movement is transmitted through the hips.
It will not move you very far, but it will get you started.
Nope.
No explanation, deserves no response.

You aadmitted differently above.
What do you think I admitted?
It will certainly get you started under perfect conditions. => It works.
Under non-perfect conditions it may not work as well or not at all, but that doesn't change anything.

Under perfect conditions I can easily light a candle with a match. In a storm I likely can't.
Not being able to light a candle with a match in a storm does not prove, it's impossible to prove a candle with a match.

Too bad the videos here clearly demonstrate a rocket requires a pressurized environment to work.
It is not bad, because they don't.
That is your interpretation of the video and that interpretation has been convincingly disputed by several people.

iC
Edited: Added clarification to fix perceived offense.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 09:34:25 AM by iCare »
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #377 on: March 19, 2020, 12:11:07 PM »
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #378 on: March 19, 2020, 12:16:54 PM »
icare will have to show the scientific experiment that proves his ad nauseum "explanation".
No, he will not. Why would I need to provide prove for what as been proven over and over again?
The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).
The correct application of those laws and the findings of those experiment all line up to prove that rockets do not care about their environment. => They work in a vacuum.

Your interpretation of the laws/experiments and the way you apply them to how rockets are incorrect - that is what I have pointed out and explained.
As mentioned before: Even if rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, it would not be because of the reasons you have given.

Taking the example of Free Expansion again:
  • No work does not equal no force.
  • Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
  • You cannot simply ignore the difference between a closed container and opening towards a vacuum.
  • The law/experiment have requirements/a specific setup, that are different from how rockets are built/work.
Joule's Law does not say, that rockets couldn't work in a vacuum.

So it is not up to me to show why the laws are what they are.
It is up to you to show how the breaks in your logic can be fixed.
If you can't it is likely because you are wrong.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #379 on: March 19, 2020, 12:19:15 PM »
Too bad the videos here clearly demonstrate a rocket requires a pressurized environment to work.
It is not bad, because they don't.
That is your interpretation of the video and that interpretation has been convincingly disputed by several people.

iC
Yeah, the videos do.

Your main argument against the videos is that Joules somehow restricts the temperatures to a constant, stating that rockets increase the temperature and therefore it Joules doesn't apply.

Well, the rockets do increase the temperature, causing rapidly expanding gasses.

What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?

They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...

There goes your argument.