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 - thors_evil_twin

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 24, 2020, 04:24:34 PM »
Okay Boomer,

An enclosed/sealed system is not equal to a "closed" system.

Joules experiment took place in an enclosed/sealed chamber, that was the only kind of chamber he could construct in 1845.

A rocket may be defined as a closed system with respect to the rocket/burning fuel, during its ascent into orbit it may be several closed systems.
1. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel, boosters
2. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel
3. cargo capsule, main vehicle, partial payload of fuel
4. cargo capsule, main vehicle
5. cargo capsule

Each one of these could be treated as a closed system. FYI with each lose of a component the remaining components accelerate.

So when a scientist refers to a closed system, the definition is not a single entity, and it's parameters are defined by the nature of the question.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 22, 2020, 12:46:12 PM »
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Two guesses
#1 a hose does no work in a vacuum
#2 show us and experiment of a hose in space.

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 20, 2020, 01:50:04 PM »
Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the chamber and then move?

Answer = 2

Wrong, it would immediately. Do you what I find totally lacking in our conversations? Any kind of conversion. I and 99.9999999999999% of the human population have no issue with Newton's Laws of motion being applied to the motions of things, rockets, cars, airplanes etc. We also have no issues with Joules expansion experiment. Where we all get mystified, is when you claim and experiment done in a closed box is equal to a body in motion.

nuff said

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 19, 2020, 02:49:47 PM »
When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Okay how would these behave differently in a vacuum, Newton's 3rd law would still apply right?




5
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 12, 2020, 04:54:07 PM »
A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.

Reviewing this image below ... How are the two scenarios equal to one another? In the rocket scenario where is the container that is required for it to be equatable to Joule's expansion experiment?

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 12, 2020, 02:25:09 PM »
Like this???




7
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:01:13 PM »
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.

Here is the long answer for you to ignore.

From (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/rocket.html)
"In a rocket engine , fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. ... There are two main categories of rocket engines; liquid rockets and solid rockets."


8
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 09, 2020, 06:15:22 PM »
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

This might be relevant. Here is a snippet from (http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1515)

"Let’s look at another example, the chemical rocket. The rocket works by throwing mass out of the back at high velocity. It is expelling mass past the system boundaries (the rocket) into its environment (space). By Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the rocket moves forward.

So the chemical rocket is clearly an open system….. unless you expand the system borders to include the entire universe. Then the rocket becomes a closed system because it can move about within the expanded system but that movement does not provide a net momentum change to the system (the entire universe and everything in it). All forces are now internal to the expanded system"


9
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 09, 2020, 05:21:48 PM »
Which scientific experiment allows iCare to state that these laws don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum ?

The laws of motion.
The first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.
The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.


10
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 09, 2020, 02:33:23 PM »
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?

Your claim that Joules 2nd law does not apply to rockets in a vacuum needs to validated by such an experiment . Otherwise your spouting bs .

Somerled, I believe that the burned of proof is in your court (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat). There have been many demonstrations of rocket motors working in vacuums if 50% to 90% and yes they are repeatable. There also been demonstrations of bullets being fires in a vacuum, i.e. work being done, mass being ejected. As previously stated the Joule's vacuum experiment is not analogous to a rocket in a vacuum, in as much space is an open system.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 05, 2020, 06:47:52 PM »
So it was hard to read on the other video, but I think the gauge was around 13 in. HG or about 50% vacuum.

I found a clip from the MythBusters that reports a full vacuum (~90% vacuum)



Again I ask how do you define a vacuum? Or where is the pressure in the chamber?

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 05, 2020, 04:33:41 PM »
Well that video of the gun being fired was inside a vacuum chamber, and work was done as the bullet punched right through the chamber wall. Where was the pressure in the chamber?

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 05, 2020, 04:08:45 PM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 05, 2020, 01:30:50 PM »
Post details of the repeatable scientific experiment that shows that a hot gas can produce work by expanding into a vacuum . That is all you have to do . Why won't you do this ?

No waffle, the video of a gun being fired in a vacuum is evidence of hot gases doing work in a vacuum.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 04, 2020, 07:48:07 PM »
So you and science cannot show the scientific experiment that proves a rocket can produce thrust in a vacuum .

Would a bullet fired in a vacuum work? Yes bullets are a projectile with all of Newton's Law obeyed. Imagine then, if a gun where fired in a vacuum or space, would there be a recoil?

Here is a gun being fired in a vacuum chamber.


FYI guns can be fired underwater too, check out the Slo-Mo Guys

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:53:58 PM »
I think that these two statements are contradictory, as they both state that internal pressure is greater then the outer pressure. Please enplane your logic for the requirement of resistance.

Internal pressure greater than outer results in thrust.
Internal pressure can only increase if there is an outer pressure to provide resistance. In a vacuum there is no outer pressure = no thrust .

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: StarLink and data from space
« on: March 03, 2020, 07:34:01 PM »
Especially, if you can watch FoxNews (real time) in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: February 26, 2020, 08:26:51 PM »
The mental reservation and equivocation exhibited in your writing today is quite astounding.

We seam to be arguing semantics. So I have pulled up a definition that we should all be able to agree to, and I believe that from Merriam Webster the definition that is applicable here is the second one, and as such there is a fair bit of wiggle room on how to define it. I would argue that 2a is logically false, how could any thing be "absolutely devoid of matter".

Definition of vacuum (from, Merriam Webster)
1 : emptiness of space
2   a : a space absolutely devoid of matter
   b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (such as an air pump)
   c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure
3   a : a state or condition resembling a vacuum : void the power vacuum in Indochina after the departure of the French— Norman Cousins
   b : a state of isolation from outside influences people who live in a vacuum … so that the world outside them is of no moment— W. S. Maugham

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 26, 2020, 05:53:50 PM »
Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.

How do the stars in the southern skies work? What would be the cause of an eclipse?

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: If you could who would it be.
« on: February 25, 2020, 09:35:34 PM »
Are we voting for should go???
#1 BoB
#2 Orphan Red
#3 Bob Nodel
#4 Mark Sargent

Pages: [1] 2  Next >