Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #400 on: March 20, 2020, 01:16:37 PM »
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.

So where's the force coming from, where Somerled says "It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force" .... ?
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 .
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 01:20:25 PM by totallackey »
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #401 on: March 20, 2020, 01:30:59 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?

 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #402 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
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #403 on: March 20, 2020, 01:55:11 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #404 on: March 20, 2020, 01:58:08 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.
Every video here proves that your reply is wrong.
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
When you can show me a rocket, in motion, in a vacuum, then maybe, you will find more meaningful conversation.

Nuff said...
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #405 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? 
=============================
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: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #406 on: March 20, 2020, 02:57:29 PM »



Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".


iC
[/quote]

Clarify this statement please iCare .


Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #407 on: March 20, 2020, 03:02:58 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?
Of course it has an impact on the rocket.

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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #408 on: March 20, 2020, 03:09:38 PM »
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.

No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #409 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?
=============================
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: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #410 on: March 20, 2020, 04:29:57 PM »
Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".
Clarify this statement please iCare .

Sure, no problem. I have already done so in response to one of your previous posts:
Joules law of free expansion of gas into a vacuum . No work is done therefore no force therefore no reaction therefore no acceleration .
Again, as explained before:
  • No work is not the same as no force applied. If you hold a weight stationary with your arm extended (for fun, imagine a mug of beer), no work is done, as the object doesn't move; however upward and downward forces are applied - in this case they cancel each other out.
  • Joule's law of free expansion does not apply, because it describes a completely different process.
 

I also referred to it in one of my recent posts:
"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.

To expand on this:
Depending on the temperature of a gas it's molecules will have a certain kinetic energy that has them "bouncing around randomly".
They bounce against (and reflect) each other, but they also bounce against the walls of a container that is enclosing them => manifesting as "pressure".
Heat the gas => more kinetic energy => more pressure (for cooling it's the other way round).
Enlarge the size of the container => less hits on the enclosure => less pressure (for reducing the size of the container it's the other way round).
Now, here it gets a bit tricky, as compressing/decompressing gas can actually change its temperature, but let's ignore that and look at Free Expansion only:
Forces are constantly being applied between molecules-molecules and molecules-enclosure due to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Everything is in balance and the gas molecules are pushing against all sides of the container equally.
Now the container is enlarged by opening the partition that contains "nothing" (a vacuum).
No work done, as the heat/kinetic energy of the gas/molecules does not change, but the same kinetic energy will still distribute them evenly throughout the enlarged volume (moving into the vacuum implies, there must be a force that is responsible for it to happen).
Simply because there is no resistance from the vacuum and consequently random movement will go on until a balanced state ("equilibrium") is reached.
The forces on the enclosing container and between molecules then balance each other out again. No work done (comparing initial and end state; in between things are "in a flow").
The only difference being, that the pressure is reduced proportionally to the enlarging of the volume. 
That would be how Free Expansion works.

If, however, you open the container, that balance is destroyed.
There will still be forces on the enclosure, but the balancing force is missing where the container is open.
(And that is not even taking into account, that in the case of a rocket engine the effect is amplified by the exothermic reaction as it generates heat and additional hot gas.)
=> Gas molecules will "leave" the container without exerting force on it. At the same time, gas molecules will still be "pushing" at the opposite side of the container.
=> Newton's Third Law. The container experiences a force in the opposite direction of the opening, equivalent to the force, that's expelling the gas molecules through the opening (strictly speaking, it's equivalent to the energy the expelled gas molecules take with them instead of counter-balancing the remaining forces).
=> Now the balance of forces is no longer internal to the container, but it is between the container (rocket) going one way and gas molecules going the other way.
This is, why you cannot ignore the effect of the enclosure/container. Expanding into a vacuum within the same container is not the same as "expanding" into any vacuum.
This is why Joule's Law of Free Expansion describes something different than what's happening to create thrust in a rocket.

This is also, why a rocket will work regardless of what is (or isn't) outside. The balance of forces (active-reactive) is not happening outside.

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.
No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

The active-reactive force cannot be created by outer pressure.
Outer pressure could push a rocket forward, like wind pushes a sailboat forward, but that would be regardless of the sails providing additional against the wind or simply being there.
If the rocket wasn't ignited yet, that outer pressure would still be there, applying force to the back of the rocket ... so why doesn't it move the rocket?
Because there is equal pressure from the environment all around the rocket; the effects of "outer pressure" cancel each out.
As to Joule's Law ... see above.

Did that clarify my statement?
I'll be happy to answer any remaining questions.

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #411 on: March 20, 2020, 04:46:02 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?
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.
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?
The rocket and the plume are one.

The plume is consistently in contact with the bell nozzles as long as it is running.

The plume is consistently maintained within itself as long as there is a pressurized environment to contain it.

No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #412 on: March 20, 2020, 05:25:37 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?
A rocket exhaust is part of the rocket.
Just like your arm is part of your body.
I usually try not bump into other subtreads, but as we have been disputing the same issue before:
No, it is not.
If you try to move your body away from your arm, you will (hopefully) fail and your arm will follow your body.
Rocket and exhaust are moving away from each other anyway, they are no longer part of each other.
What one does has no direct effect on the other.
One may consider them part of an (abstract) system, but that's a different story.

The rocket and the plume are one.
The plume is consistently in contact with the bell nozzles as long as it is running.
The plume is consistently maintained within itself as long as there is a pressurized environment to contain it.
No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
They are - see above - not.
Also "the plume" is not a static entity. As an abstract maybe, but in reality, the gas in contact with the rocket is constantly changing as it's moving away from the rocket being replaced with "new" gas.
So the plume is never contained within itself, as in any environment its "contents" are moving away from the rocket backwards and dissipating.
Without outside pressure, the plume will just dissipate more quickly (which doesn't matter, as thrust has been created before that), as it is not constrained by external pressure, but it will still be there.

"And no work" doesn't apply anyway.

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

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #413 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
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #414 on: March 20, 2020, 06:01:43 PM »
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?

The only issue with that is the video I originally posted about this shows the pressure gauge. Which you can see doesn't move after the rocket fires. Here are before and after stills from the video (again, attached, ffs can you please sort out your issue with the imgbb site.)

And the bloke explained how he made the tube long enough that the volume was big enough that the gas from the rocket was not enough to create any significant pressure in the tube. That is borne out by the lack of change in the gauge.

It's a silly argument anyway. The gas coming out of the rocket is, by definition, going away from the rocket at high speed. How can subsequent molecules push back off them to make the rocket move when the stream of gas is flowing in the same direction at the same speed?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #415 on: March 20, 2020, 11:52:12 PM »
Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".
Clarify this statement please iCare .

Sure, no problem. I have already done so in response to one of your previous posts:
Joules law of free expansion of gas into a vacuum . No work is done therefore no force therefore no reaction therefore no acceleration .
Again, as explained before:
  • No work is not the same as no force applied. If you hold a weight stationary with your arm extended (for fun, imagine a mug of beer), no work is done, as the object doesn't move; however upward and downward forces are applied - in this case they cancel each other out.
  • Joule's law of free expansion does not apply, because it describes a completely different process.
 

I also referred to it in one of my recent posts:
"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.

To expand on this:
Depending on the temperature of a gas it's molecules will have a certain kinetic energy that has them "bouncing around randomly".
They bounce against (and reflect) each other, but they also bounce against the walls of a container that is enclosing them => manifesting as "pressure".
Heat the gas => more kinetic energy => more pressure (for cooling it's the other way round).
Enlarge the size of the container => less hits on the enclosure => less pressure (for reducing the size of the container it's the other way round).
Now, here it gets a bit tricky, as compressing/decompressing gas can actually change its temperature, but let's ignore that and look at Free Expansion only:
Forces are constantly being applied between molecules-molecules and molecules-enclosure due to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Everything is in balance and the gas molecules are pushing against all sides of the container equally.
Now the container is enlarged by opening the partition that contains "nothing" (a vacuum).
No work done, as the heat/kinetic energy of the gas/molecules does not change, but the same kinetic energy will still distribute them evenly throughout the enlarged volume (moving into the vacuum implies, there must be a force that is responsible for it to happen).
Simply because there is no resistance from the vacuum and consequently random movement will go on until a balanced state ("equilibrium") is reached.
The forces on the enclosing container and between molecules then balance each other out again. No work done (comparing initial and end state; in between things are "in a flow").
The only difference being, that the pressure is reduced proportionally to the enlarging of the volume. 
That would be how Free Expansion works.

If, however, you open the container, that balance is destroyed.
There will still be forces on the enclosure, but the balancing force is missing where the container is open.
(And that is not even taking into account, that in the case of a rocket engine the effect is amplified by the exothermic reaction as it generates heat and additional hot gas.)
=> Gas molecules will "leave" the container without exerting force on it. At the same time, gas molecules will still be "pushing" at the opposite side of the container.
=> Newton's Third Law. The container experiences a force in the opposite direction of the opening, equivalent to the force, that's expelling the gas molecules through the opening (strictly speaking, it's equivalent to the energy the expelled gas molecules take with them instead of counter-balancing the remaining forces).
=> Now the balance of forces is no longer internal to the container, but it is between the container (rocket) going one way and gas molecules going the other way.
This is, why you cannot ignore the effect of the enclosure/container. Expanding into a vacuum within the same container is not the same as "expanding" into any vacuum.
This is why Joule's Law of Free Expansion describes something different than what's happening to create thrust in a rocket.

This is also, why a rocket will work regardless of what is (or isn't) outside. The balance of forces (active-reactive) is not happening outside.

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.
No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

The active-reactive force cannot be created by outer pressure.
Outer pressure could push a rocket forward, like wind pushes a sailboat forward, but that would be regardless of the sails providing additional against the wind or simply being there.
If the rocket wasn't ignited yet, that outer pressure would still be there, applying force to the back of the rocket ... so why doesn't it move the rocket?
Because there is equal pressure from the environment all around the rocket; the effects of "outer pressure" cancel each out.
As to Joule's Law ... see above.

Did that clarify my statement?
I'll be happy to answer any remaining questions.

iC

Where to start .
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)

So when W = 0 in the equation W = F x d then F must be zero also since solving for F = W/d = 0/d = zero . Always .

You can use W = F x d x cos theta for forces at an angle to each other but that makes no difference to the result

This renders your statement that "no work does not mean no force" is not true and is meaningless . Simple basics.

Heating gas is addition of thermal energy not kinetic energy .

Joules in his experiment heated his gas adding thermal energy- released his thermal energy through a hole/vent /throttle and no work was done . That's a law.

No work done = no force = no acceleration .

What you have made clear is that you don't understand basic physics . W = F x d .

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #416 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?
=============================
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: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #417 on: March 21, 2020, 07:19:19 AM »
The debate is no longer Tumeni . iCare has shown a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics . As you do too if you think that holding an object aloft requires no work , there is no contradiction . When W = 0 then F=0 .

In the case of the pint glass - work done to hold to hold the pint steady is equal and opposite to the work done by gravity acting in the opposite direction.

Sophistry will not alter the laws of physics.



Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #418 on: March 21, 2020, 10:23:38 AM »
Holding a pint of beer up involves work - that's why your arm tires after a while . Work is being done
You need to differentiate between "work" as used in everyday language and "work" as defined in science.
Your arm is not tiring, because you're doing work as defined in physics.
Actually your arm is tiring, because you are straining against work being done - the mug falling down.

- 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.
If it is steady, no work is done, because d=0; F doesn't matter (other than it must keep the mug stationary).
Adding opposing vectors of equal length is actually the same thing as "cancelling out", like (-1)+(+1)=0.

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)
The exhaust moves a distance (as it is moving away from the rocket) and obviously some force must be causing that. => Work is not 0.

So when W = 0 in the equation W = F x d then F must be zero also since solving for F = W/d = 0/d = zero . Always .
You are forgetting, that d=0 (object stationary). F can be anything, as  F(force) x 0 [d(distance object moves)] will always be 0.

This renders your statement that "no work does not mean no force" is not true and is meaningless . Simple basics. 
No, it proves my statement.
If d=0 then W=0, regardless of F. => No work for any value of F (including, but not only, 0).
No force will result in no work (as d doesn't matter in that case), but reverse conclusion cannot be made (as d, when 0, does matter).

Heating gas is addition of thermal energy not kinetic energy .
I was explicitly making a distinction between temperature of the gas and kinetic energy of its molecules. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules is proportional to the temperature of a gas.

Joules in his experiment heated his gas adding thermal energy- released his thermal energy through a hole/vent /throttle and no work was done . That's a law.
Could you please add a supporting reference for that?
All descriptions of Free Expansion and the related experiments explicitly I found state, that the container must insulate the gas to prevent any heating of the gas.

What you have made clear is that you don't understand basic physics . W = F x d .
See above, quite the opposite.
My statements are fully in line with the laws of physics.

The debate is no longer Tumeni . iCare has shown a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics . As you do too if you think that holding an object aloft requires no work , there is no contradiction . When W = 0 then F=0 .
See above.
The debate isn't over, just because you "decree" so and certainly not because of my alleged lack of knowledge, as I have repeatedly proven otherwise.
W=0 when F or d are 0. As d=0 for a stationary object W=0 regardless of F.

Sophistry will not alter the laws of physics.
Indeed, but as previously mentioned, it is not me using sophistry.
Wouldn't you rather call it sophistry, when someone claims "When W = 0 then F=0" glossing over the fact, that F needn't be 0 when d=0?

iC

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #419 on: March 21, 2020, 11:03:23 AM »
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.

Also the rest of your psuedoscience - thermal energy is not a force ,no matter how much you produce - that's basic physics . Mechanical  conversion required to produce a force (kinetic energy). Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .

Very adept at sophistry and posting the old wall of gobshoite though