Recent Posts

21
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on Today at 12:55:51 PM »
Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

It can cause it to potentially show a wrong reading, but not a significantly wrong reading, unless the thing is properly stuck but you can see in the video that it is not - as the air is pumped out the gauge is clearly shown to go down.

Quote
Plus, how do we know the guy is administering the proper amount of force in each of his taps?
How many newtons was he applying?
Did he deliver enough taps?
All these questions remain unanswered.

They are all silly questions and part of your diversionary tactic of trying to pretend that the gauge is malfunctioning when it clearly isn't.

Quote
Quote
And, as I said above, when the gas from the rocket is vented the gauge does not significantly change reading.
It changes, as you admit.
Adding adjectives like, "significantly," does not help your case.

But you've been arguing that the gauge is faulty, now you're seeing it as significant that the needle moves slightly? ???
I would expect the needle to move slightly, the rocket does vent some gas into the tube. But compared with full atmospheric pressure it's a tiny amount.

Quote
Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.
22
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Last post by somerled on Today at 12:55:39 PM »
Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .
No argument with that; quote Wikipedia: "Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's third law. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system."
"Expelling mass in one direction" (in this case gas produced by burning rocket fuel) works just fine in a vacuum. Why wouldn't?

The physical process of igniting rocket fuel with its own oxidizer does not happen in a vacuum .
First of all, burning rocket fuel is a chemical reaction.
And why wouldn't fuel ignite in a vacuum?
For something to ignite one needs needs: heat, fuel and an oxidizing agent (fire triangle)
And all of it is there in a rocket ...

No work would be done even if it did ignite .
Gases expanding into a vacuum are not forced or pushed - that would require a resistance to expansion or gas flow .
Whyever would "pushing" only work with resistance?
Simply arguing from common sense: If someone "pushes" you back, you don't get pushed back because there is "resistance behind you", but because he's pushing you from the front.
Force is not generate at its "target" but at its origin - that origin is within the rocket, regardless of atmosphere or vacuum outside.

There is no force produced anywhere . Hence there is no reaction - no reactive thrust to accelerate .
I have thoroughly addressed this - in my previous post and above. Gas goes one way (not freely, but forced) - rocket goes the other way. Action - reaction.

Hot gas expanding freely into the vacuum would merely raise the temperature since it cannot convert to kinetic energy. There is the conservation of energy .
Did you read my explanation, why free expansion does not apply for this case, at all?
If you think it is wrong, please let me know why. If you cannot tell why it's wrong, it's probably right.
"It cannot convert" is an unproven claim and - at best - a misconception. The chemical reaction is "pumping serious kinetic energy" into the gas.
When the gas expands into the vacuum no conversion into kinetic energy is needed - it has happened long before.

Rockets do not work by conservation of momentum , ridiculous statement.
It sad you're now down to derogatives.
Conservation of momentum is not the wording I would have chosen, but in the end it's true.
See above ...
Initial momentum zero (or anything else, if the rocket is already moving).
Momentum of gas leaving the rocket one direction vs. equal momentum of rocket going the opposite direction. => conservation of momentum

iCare has not clarified anything.
Well. I really tried to - and personally I think I did a fairly good job (I'm biased of course ...  ;) ).
On the other hand I don't see any indication that you put any effort into reading and analyzing my clarification ...
Makes me wonder, if it's not a lack of clarification on my side, but a lack of understanding on your side?

All either of you two have to do is show the details of the repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine can produce thrust in a vacuum .
Actually ... no.
First of all, I really don't feel the need to prove anything to you - as mentioned before, I'm here to further my understanding of the subject.
If it does the same for you - great. If you'd rather not learn from this discussion - your choice, your loss.

Secondly, my line of argument is logical deduction.
I have have - at great length - described my reasoning why rocket engines do produce thrust in a vacuum and shown the errors in your reasoning why they wouldn't.
Now it is your turn ... prove me wrong in what I wrote or accept that you can't.
When you've done your part and we have the theory worked out, we may talk about experiments to confirm or rebut the theory.

iC

Wiki is shoite  - use scientific definitions please. Your "take on things" is not based in science hence your logic is faulty . 

Watch the video posted by AATW . Watch professor Globehead fail in his attempts to ignite his rocket fuel with nozzle open to the vacuum . "Aha" says he " the fuel needs pressure to ignite". Well done prof , your learning. "I'll pressurise the rocket by sealing it,s nozzle under air pressure of 14psi."  Yeah right - turn the engine into a bomb - back to buffoon mode.

Thing about Newtons laws is that they were deduced from repeatable scientific experiment .Same with Joules' law concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum There is no acceleration possible without application of a force. This is not "my take " on things  , it's science .

In order to dispute these scientific laws you will have to show the repeatable experiments that prove these laws are erroneous .
23
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:17:19 PM »
I have seen some launches myself.

Quite the spectacle.

Can you provide some specific background as to what type of functions are used regarding rocket launches?

I don’t know what you mean.  There are a lot of “functions”.  Are you speaking calculations?  Guidance?  Simulations?  Can’t even begin to scratch the surface in a forum.  Kinematics alone would fill a textbook.
If you would be kind enough to start with just presenting one of them you found necessary to fulfill the requirements of your job duties.

Let's start with one on math.

Thanks.
24
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:15:17 PM »
(Once again deleted my post, as - despite quoting it - you did not reference any of the content.)
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.
I am not referring to the videos at all (nevertheless, my compliments to the people who went to all that effort), but to well established physical principles.
However, as you keep bringing those videos up: Rockets in an atmosphere also do not move right away, so that doesn't prove anything.
The videos prove that rockets won't move in a vacuum as there is no vacuum present once the rockets in these videos commence movement.

You should pay attention to these videos as they totally lay waste to your expressed written understanding of scientific principles in this subject.
I do not doubt you care deeply about the subject, but until you realize that gas freely expands when released into a vacuum, as the videos here conclusively demonstrate, we will agree to disagree.
Actullay I don't really care that much about the subject itself.
I enjoy looking into the matter, measuring my understanding against your arguments (few as they are)  and I can happily say, that our discussion has improved my understanding - especially when it comes to some finer details.
I have provided a detailed explanation why I think free expansion does not and cannot apply.
You haven't pointed out any fault in my line of argument and simply doubting my understanding without substantiating it in any way is ... less than convincing.
Rather gives the impression, that it is you who's doesn't understand and has run out of arguments.
That's a pity, I think I might have some more up my sleeve, but it's your turn ...

Take it or leave it ... I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

iC
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

The couple of them I have written here are sufficient and remain unchallenged.
25
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:09:07 PM »
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

Everything experiences friction  ???
Okay.

Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

That is why you tap on it, as the guy does on three separate occasions at 7:50, 8:11, and 8:25 time stamps.

Plus, how do we know the guy is administering the proper amount of force in each of his taps?

How many newtons was he applying with each tap?

Did he deliver enough taps according to the scientists we all revere?

All these questions remain unanswered...
Why would you need to "be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge" if the thing is malfunctioning?
Probably to mitigate the possibility of further damage, but who really knows...has there been any peer reviewed documents published on the scientific art of gauge tapping?

Do you need to be a professional in order to tap on a gauge?

Is there an apprenticeship program?
In the video as he expels the air you can clearly see the gauge going down, it is not malfunctioning.
He taps it in case any friction is affecting the reading but the gauge can clearly be seen working.
And, as I said above, when the gas from the rocket is vented the gauge does not significantly change reading.
It changes, as you admit.

Adding adjectives like, "significantly," does not help your case.

Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.
As he explains in the video, he made the tube long because of criticism about his first attempt that the tube was short and the rocket only worked because the gas from the rocket created enough pressure that the rocket could then work. The lack of movement of the gauge after the rocket has fired clearly demonstrates that criticism to be invalid.
In the previous paragraph you stated the gauge, "does not significantly change reading," now in this paragraph it's,"lack of movement of the gauge."

Highly disingenuous.
The video clearly shows the rocket working in a vacuum, I and iCare have explained how and he has explained much better than me why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.

Edit: Just calling conservation of momentum a "ridiculous statement" when it is a well understood and accepted law of physics is not an argument.
The video does not even show a rocket.
26
Flat Earth Community / Re: Death of Mike Hughes
« Last post by ChrisTP on Today at 11:13:01 AM »
Yea I wouldn't place blame on FE'ers just as I wouldn't place blame on regular people when an astronaut dies in an accident. Mike was an adult and I think regardless of what excuse he used to make/ride rockets it was ultimately his choice to do so and he would probably have found another reason/cause if he weren't a flat earther IMO. Obviously I didn't know the guy personally but from what I saw of his character he was doing it for enjoyment.
27
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets
« Last post by somerled on Today at 10:53:53 AM »
So I have worked for NASA and other organizations.  Can you explain to me how I have been fooled by them?  I have participated in dozens of tests and witnessed numerous launches.  I have calculated trajectories and return paths.  All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results.  If I make a mistake human life is at risk.  If I omit those basic considerations from my calculations nothing works out.  I grew up with relatives and friend’s relatives who all worked on the Apollo program, space shuttle, and space station.  I followed suit as an engineer working on shuttle, space station, and other projects. 

How have I been fooled?  Did my family and friends lie to me?  Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?

I'm sure you will be aware , since you worked there ,  that nasa uses flat earth geocentric coordinate system in it's rocket launches and space endeavors. Apparently it sometimes uses the heliocentric model occasionally for trajectories to the outer planets .
28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Last post by robinofloxley on Today at 10:41:47 AM »
Here is where we disagree. Because the distances on Bing maps match the distances that we have measured in real life, and it also has an interactive scale, does not mean the earth is round.

OK, you agree that distances on Bing maps match real life. In that case, let me try another approach. Let's for the sake of argument say that Bing maps is based on a flat earth. So basic rules of euclidean flat plane geometry apply.



I hope we agree that since both diagonals are the same length, as are the two sides and top/bottom, then we are talking about a rectangle and using Pythagoras from basic high school maths, sides abc form a right angle triangle and therefore a2 + b2 = c2

So now let's use the same technique from earlier to drop a pin at each corner of a rectangle on a Bing map. The pins are at (lat/long) (-45,+60), (-45,-60), (+45,+60) and (+45,-60). Now measure the distances. We should see the same result as before, a2 + b2 = c2. But we don't. Taking a to be 8398km and b to be 10010km should give a value for c of 13066km, but Bing tells us the distance is 15410km. A difference of 2344km, 18%.

There are two possibilities here. Pythagoras is broken or Pythagoras for some reason doesn't apply. And Pythagoras does not apply for non-eculidean geometry, i.e. this is not a flat plane. It doesn't prove the globe, but does show that whatever Bing are using as an underlying model for their distance calculations (and you've agreed these match reality), it isn't flat.

Personally I would go further. These same distance calculations almost perfectly match a spherical geometry with the earth's radius as given in many sources, so my money is on the underlying geometry being essentially spherical.

29
Suggestions & Concerns / FOI Request
« Last post by Baby Thork on Today at 10:15:06 AM »
The society has a shop.

That shop doesn't make any money. But still, people give money for flat earth goodies. Its a service that is provided. TFES makes no money at all from it. We all understand this.

But in the interest of transparency and general interest, how much stuff gets sold? Could TFES publish a breakdown of the purchases from the shop for 2019, please?



Also, why can't you access the store from the forum menu? That's where most people spend most of their time on this site.
30
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets
« Last post by panicp on Today at 09:44:04 AM »
So I have worked for NASA and other organizations.  Can you explain to me how I have been fooled by them?  I have participated in dozens of tests and witnessed numerous launches.  I have calculated trajectories and return paths.  All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results.  If I make a mistake human life is at risk.  If I omit those basic considerations from my calculations nothing works out.  I grew up with relatives and friend’s relatives who all worked on the Apollo program, space shuttle, and space station.  I followed suit as an engineer working on shuttle, space station, and other projects. 

How have I been fooled?  Did my family and friends lie to me?  Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?

You certainly not been fooled, lied to, duped, misled or any other bogus insult levelled at your engineering skills and abilities by these FET zealots.

As a scientist myself, it's infuriating enough to have scorn poured on theories which were developed hundreds of years before these "Dunning-Kruger" effected people were born and who have used the power and reach of social media to create an anti science backlash - just at a time when, more than ever, we need people to understand and use scientific principles in daily life.

Isn't it odd that Mad Mike Hughes who "didn't believe in science", but cherry picked a few tit-bits which he claimed he did believe in to make a rocket. Sadly, as his foolhardy scheme showed, he failed to take any advice from those people (NASA engineers) who actually understand the many pitfalls of rocket science - particularly, as he didn't believe in maths. In the end, he sadly checked out with his Darwin award strapped to his rocket - yet they will STILL come at and attack science and scientists as if we were public enemy no. 1. Of all ironies, without science, these guys wouldn't even have the internet to spread their nonsense.

I applaud your work in NASA and that if the many talented colleagues who continue to push the boundaries of what we can do. Cannot wait for Artemis. Sadly, the future 4k broadcasts from the moon, reporters on virgin galactic floating around showing the curve will be mocked as faked.

There is simply no arguing with bloody minded intransigence.