Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tumeni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The view from my bedroom window
« on: December 12, 2019, 02:10:28 PM »
How would it get "all wet" without water adhering to it?
1. A tiny bit of surface tension does not constitute evidence of large scale gravitation.

I didn't claim that it did.

All Thork (EDIT - J-man) asked for was "...a spinning ball where water adheres to it. "

... and I provided him with an example of one. He didn't ask for one with "large scale gravitation".

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The view from my bedroom window
« on: December 12, 2019, 01:45:56 PM »
If the world was a ball you wouldn't be able to see the light from the lighthouse.

Why not?

I'm still waiting for a scientist to create a spinning ball where water adheres to it.

You don't need a scientist for this. Find a Grand Kugel, like this one;

"It is best after it has been still for awhile and the exposed surface is dry. That way you can get a grip on it to get it going. Once it is all wet, it is slippery and hard to influence "

How would it get "all wet" without water adhering to it?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The view from my bedroom window
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:33:00 PM »
From my window i can see the LIGHT from a lighthouse in the north of France called "Gatteville Lighthouse" this lighthouse is 75 meters high, and from google they say its the 3rd highest traditional lighthouse in the world.  I cannot find any information if the 75 meters is it’s height above sea level.

The focal height is defined as the height of the lamp from water level, and this is 72m for the lighthouse in question. 75m stated as the tower height, per

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The view from my bedroom window
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:12:29 PM »
OP states outright that they can see the light from the lighthouse.

FE steps in to say "You can't see (things) that far"

But the OP is not necessarily seeing the lighthouse. They state they are seeing the light from it.

"It is impossible to see 148km through the air."

I can see the Moon during the day. That's further than 148km. That's through "the air"

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 11, 2019, 11:31:01 PM »
How many FE experiments have you reproduced ...

In order to reproduce any one, it would have to have been performed in the first place.

Can you point to a few that have been documented already?

It looks soo fake it must be real. No more, please no more.

You (EDIT not you, but totallackey) asked for amateur footage. Do you accept that what has been provided is amateurs videoing, and members of the public watching, these launches and landings? If not, why not?

If not, can you actually prove any fakery, beyond your disbelief?

Amateur footage - last one, unless anyone asks for more

2) Even if earth were round you would not see curvature at 30k feet; I suggest you go do some homework and then get on with your life.

My "homework" took me to geometrical descriptions of a Spherical Cap. This geometry dictates what can be seen from a set height above a spherical surface. Any sphere will do.

An alternative approach to "looking for curve" is to determine what landmarks and land features can be clearly discerned from that height, ideally mapping these out 360 degrees around the craft.

Armed with these, look at a map of the area, and chart the limits of what can be seen, matching this with the limit determined by the SC geometry. Do the features at the limit of observation match those that would be expected at the extremity of the cap? Or not? 

Air pressure provides a constant 14lbs psi at sea level = 14lbs psi resistance .

.. but it's not resisting.

Surely this is self-evident from the plumes of smoke, steam and AIR being driven at high speed away from the engine?

14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .

... which is not providing any resistance at all to the rocket exhaust. That air is getting blown far, far away, and the result is that air to the above and side of the engine is being drawn in - rapidly - to fill the void.

The air below the engine at start up has been ejected out of the side of the building, with the air from above and side of the engine also being driven out when it gets in the way of the exhaust.

Thought experiment; a single particle of rocket exhaust leaves the engine and hits a single particle of air. How does that transfer forward motion back to the body of the craft? 

Nobody has filmed any of this, private citizen wise...


That's just the first four I found, within a few minutes. Shall I go on?

Got half a dozen more lined up in my YT watch history - all amateur, all showing the public watching this, right in front of them

The reactive force of thrust requires that external pressure.

I refer back to reply #99. There is little or no resistive pressure. The rocket exhaust is driving the air away from the engine. You can see this creating a pressure differential, causing air from above and from the side of the engine to be drawn in, and then also forced downward by the exhaust. The result being the huge mass of air, steam and smoke being driven out of the building.

What external pressure?

The videos both appear to be using amateur rocket engines, the type that can be bought over the counter in a modelling shop, or one that specialises in aircraft models and amateur rocketry.

The fact that these, which are built with a solid propellant, are difficult to start up in a vacuum, is not of itself a proof that all rockets, of all types, behave in a similar way. The ones used here appear to rely on an electrical starter (certainly those I've used in the past have done this). Once started, even they can clearly be seen running in the vacuum.

The fuel used in, for instance, the Lunar Module, was hypergolic (DiNitrogen Tetroxide and AeroZine 50). It needs no external starter, and relies simply on the combination of two fuel elements. Place them in contact with each other, and combustion results, with no ignition process or system. This is a different kind of engine to the amateur ones above.

As a for-instance of another type, the SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage uses a Merlin engine fuelled by a combinaton of RP-1 and liquid oxygen, both of which are a bit out of the reach of the amateur.

The ignition system uses a TEA-TEB as an igniter fluid. The mixture is pyrophoric, and ignites spontaneously when it comes to contact with oxygen (including the liquid supercooled oxygen used in the primary fuel mix). Essentially, throw some of this into the path of the primary fuel mix, and this lights it up.

nothing passes the sniff test when it comes to NASA

... yet we've just been talking about SpaceX. Not NASA.

You take issue with NASA's photos, yet SpaceX don't do photos (very much). They just launch stuff for folk who pay them to do so. They bring honkin' big first stages back to Earth and re-use them, which nobody had done before them. They have a queue of more customers waiting to pay them. This is all plain to see, quite obvious, and most of it is done in full view of the public. You can go to Florida and watch it for yourself, the next time they bring a first stage back to Canaveral. 

Yet your opinion is that it's all fake. OK.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 07, 2019, 10:30:26 PM »
The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true.

Where is this "said"?

I would recommend reading the steps of the Scientific Method.

From which books?

Further to earlier posts, here's the most recent SpaceX first stage coming back in to port;

As I said earlier, if they're not actually doing what they claim to be doing, why bother building all this stuff?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 07, 2019, 07:04:00 PM »
When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.

So, when Norwood set out from the Tower of London to York, in the 1600s, armed with his chain and notebook, you would agree that he was following Zetetic method?

The flow of hot gas requires a resistance (eg water or atmospheric pressure or a launch pad ) to produce the reactive force that is thrust.

Yet the atmosphere is shown not to resist. Large amounts of air are seen and heard to be driven AWAY from the rocket exhaust, providing no resistance. Rockets are loud for the same reason thunderclaps are loud - they move large volumes of air.

Here's an engine test. Is the air remaining under the engine, to provide resistance, or is it being driven away from it? Observe the shots within the building, and note the airflow from ABOVE the engine and from the side. The air is flowing from above and side to fill the partial vacuum left by the rocket exhaust pushing all the air below it away.  That air is exiting the building along with all the smoke, steam and exhaust product

Why do you think rocket launches are cancelled when there are windy conditions in the atmosphere ( spacehoax 9 yesterday I believe) ?

For the same reason long and high road bridges ban high-sided vehicles from the bridge in high winds, but still let small passenger cars go by.

Large objects present a bigger surface to the wind, and are more likely to be blown off course. 

A mass flow ( rocket exhaust ) does not produce a force until a resistive mass is encountered . That's why they do not produce thrust in a vacuum.

Yet we can see the mass flow driving the so-called resistive mass away from the engine. And, as you can see above, rockets do produce thrust in a vacuum

Another CRS-19

... and a compilation of the sonic booms from descending first stages;

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66  Next >