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: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 82  Next >
41
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM »
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Yup, the combustion process in the chamber is unaffected by whatever is outside it.

The gun propels the bullet forward, because the bullet is light, is designed to break away from the casing, and because it has rapidly-expanding propellant behind it. The gun does not move backward to the same extent in recoil because it is heavier than the bullet, and because it is being held in place by the human firing it.

The bullet would leave the barrel regardless of whether you fire the gun in atmosphere or vacuum. The propellant in the casing fires without interaction with its surroundings outside the casing


- -

If the rocket had a "bullet" in the path of the expanding propellant/exhaust product, the same would result. The mass of the "bullet" would be ejected at speed from the nozzle, and the mass of the rocket would receive a recoil-like "push" in the opposite direction. The propellant drives the "bullet" out of the rocket regardless of what is outwith the nozzle. It doesn't care if there's atmosphere or vacuum outside, it just pushes the rocket in the opposite direction to the exhaust regardless.

42
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 24, 2020, 10:54:36 AM »
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.

43
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 23, 2020, 05:05:28 PM »
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.

... which does not require a pressurised environment.


If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?

44
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 23, 2020, 01:14:12 PM »
A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.

How does it do that, other than by contact with the plume?

How can the parts of the plume which have moved away from contact with the rocket hold any influence on the rocket?

45
So how can you get it to turn 45 degrees to perspective, without seeing different sides of the Moon's day and night?

By your movement on the Earth's surface, dependent on the axial tilt at the time of year, the Moon's current position with respect to the ecliptic plane, and on the latitude of your observation point.

Again - model it for yourself in 3D with model Earth and Moon. Orient a camera with the orientation of an observer on the surface of your model Earth.   


46
You flatly refuse to answer.

Fully one-quarter of the replies here have been from me. Your statement does not compute.

47
It is apparent that some people will be under the Moon, while others are at another angle and see it low in the sky to their left or right, and must have different perspective views. So those people must see different sides of it.

No, no, no. You don't appreciate how far away it is, and how little the variance in observers' locations is compared to that distance.



Moon at apex, height = 240k miles
Maximum distance between observers = base of approx 8k miles

Draw it out to scale. 8mm base, 24cm height.

48
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 22, 2020, 01:24:15 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?

Having tried the following for myself, I can report that if you hold the garden hose around 1 foot / 30 cm from the nozzle, then, with no water flow, the hose hangs limp. Turn on the water, and this raises the nozzle and straightens the hose to some extent, dependent on water flow rate. Turn water off, hose hangs limp again.

Where it gets interesting is if you introduce a firm, unyielding surface below the water flow, close to the nozzle, and repeat. This does not affect the behaviour of the hose in any way, you get exactly the same results.

Leave the water on, and move the nozzle sideways, such that it is either over the brick wall or not, and the hose does not change in attitude. It gets no "push" off the wall. 

Conclusion; the influences of outside elements, whether air or a brick wall, are not causing the force which raises and straightens the nozzle and hose.

49
If the Moon's face is tidally locked to us then it won't tilt at any position around the observer:

Your diagram is a 2D representation, and takes no account of the observer being on any part of the Earth other than an idealised equatorial point, as well as not even attempting to model in 3D.

Get a globe, place a model Moon and Sun in their correct positions, and photograph the elements from the viewpoint of a real-world observer.

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: March 21, 2020, 01:41:09 PM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....

51
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 21, 2020, 12:22:40 PM »
Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

You provided it. See my previous post outlining the contradiction of your two paragraphs

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: March 21, 2020, 10:08:24 AM »
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

Why would it not add up? I've not looked at the figures, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Circumnavigating_the_globe

53
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 21, 2020, 12:06:34 AM »
Holding a pint of beer up involves work - that's why your arm tires after a while . Work is being done - upwards and downwards forces are opposing vector forces , They don't cancel each other out but are added together - opposite vectors are equal and you can hold the glass in a steady position but work is done.

In mechanics ( a rocket engine is a machine ) work is directly proportional to force as shown in the equation    W(work) = F(force) x d(distance object moves).

You don't see the contradiction between these two paragraphs, then?

The pint does. not. move, but you assert work is being done. F x d must therefore be 0, since d = 0.

You then claim W is greater than 0, but F times 0 must be equal to 0.

No?

54
Tom; visualise the positions of Earth, Moon and Sun at three points of a Scalene Triangle



Earth and Moon are at the ends of side C, with the sun at the point where sides A and B meet, with A and B proportionally far longer than this illustration.

Can you see that the face of the Moon, aligned with side A toward the Sun, might look as though it is pointing to a different place in the sky than your view along side B, especially if you are not aligned with the plane of the triangle?

55
If an Observer at E1 is viewing the Moon at M8, there is a different view than the overhead view.

Yes, the observer will see the Moon as in the outside ring, IF he is aligned with the "top" of the Earth, perpendicular to the Earth-Sun plane. If he is elsewhere on Earth, this view will vary according to latitude.


So Observer E8 must have a different view of the Moon than Observers E7 and E6.

Not a valid comparison. The time between the Moon moving from M8 to M7 is approx 3.5 days, whereas an observer on Earth would move from E1 to E8 in 3 hours

Please explain this with the RE theory of extreme perspective effects.

Not until you show that you understand what you're trying to debunk

EDIT - Forget the Rubiks Cube, get a desktop educational globe, and model it in 3D

56
As an object travels across the Hallway past us we must see different parts of it as it tilts, turns, and changes orientation to perspective. RE responds by saying that the Moon is physically tidally locked to the Earth, that the face is always pointing at us, and we are seeing perspective changes of the shadow upon the lunar surface as the Moon approaches and recedes from us.

No, RE does not "respond" to your hallway analogy with anything. RE does not state that the shadow changes due to the Moon approaching or receding. The change in the extent of the shadow is entirely due to the Moon's changing position IN ITS ORBIT with respect to the observer on Earth. Any change in orientation of the shadow is entirely due to the observer's changing position, where they are "moved" by being on Earth's surface, which is moving with respect to the Moon

If we are seeing different sides of the light and dark part of the Moon point upwards and downwards due to perspective, the phases can be illustrated as in the below diagram.

The phases can be illustrated without regard to the Moon tilt illusion (EDIT - but you have to realise that the inner ring of Moons show how it looks from that viewpoint, from above, and that the outer ring shows how the Moon would appear to an idealised observer, on top of the Earth, midway between E1 and E5. Anyone anywhere else will see it differently.)

An observer located at E1 observes the Moon traveling between points M8, M1, and M2 due to its movement.

No, absolutely not. The Moon moves across the sky for the observer due to Earth's rotation.

....it would suggest that observers at points E8 and E6 at the same moment in time should see different sides of the Full Moon (M7).

Why?

Yet, we know that all observers see a Full Moon at once. How can this be reconciled in the Round Earth Theory of extreme perspective changes that is invoked to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion?

It could be reconciled by you taking a course in Astronomy (EDIT or modelling it with a desktop, educational globe). Once again, you appear unable to reconcile a 2D drawing, from a top-down viewpoint, with what happens in 3D.

57
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 20, 2020, 05:51:45 PM »
A rocket exhaust is part of the rocket.
Just like your arm is part of your body.
If you use your arm to push off a wall, then you go the opposite direction.
The rocket exhaust is consistently pushing off a pressurized environment, it will continue to have an effect on the rocket.

Another analogy - if you use a garden hose, is the water that comes out of the hose part of the hose, in the same way that you regard the plume as part of the rocket?

Y/N

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 20, 2020, 03:30:31 PM »
Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

How do you know this for certain, and what distances do you think are represented by these lines?

59
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 20, 2020, 03:12:58 PM »
Of course it has an impact on the rocket.

How can it do that, once it has left the rocket, and is no longer in contact with it?

All the exhaust is contained in a plume, which is walled up inside the pressurized environment.
That plume is acting against the wall of the pressurized environment.
That is how jets and rockets move.

How can this influence the rocket, if the interaction of exhaust plume and environment takes place once the plume has left it?

60
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 20, 2020, 02:10:05 PM »
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .

So what actually happens there, specifically?

I presume you assert that molecules of expelled exhaust gas hit molecules of air, or whatever gas is outwith the nozzle. Is this what you assert?
Well, when you look at video of rocket launches you can see what is happening.

Just like any other object hitting another object.

There is a reaction between the objects.

How can that reaction, taking place outwith the rocket, influence the rocket itself?

Analogy; if I throw a ball out of the side window of my house, toward my neighbour's wall, the ball hits the wall. Does this have ANY influence on me or my house? 

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 82  Next >