Physics: WHAT If I Told You The Mass Into Space Is Irrelevant Since It Have NO Weight | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 61601942 Italy 08/13/2014 07:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. I pity the intelect that spawned this crap. Equalizing gas....hahahahahaha The gas is ignited Einstein, causing an EXPLOSIVE FORCE. "Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here." ....... OMFG you're kidding right. Nobody can be so dumbarse stupid as this? Or are you perhaps a youngster? Have you heard of an ignition chamber? Jeez I can feel my IQ evaporating just reading your crap. I hope to gawd you're a kid, because to think that there are adults with as little common sense as yourself, is very, very fucking scary. Science I have an experiment for you. Go to space. Place a handgrande next to your head. When it goes off, check whether your head moved. You suffer from Dunning/Kruger. You are beyond help. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You can't have weight without having a man made measuring scale. The only time you can be measured in terms of your mass, is by atmospheric pressure pushing against that mass whilst that mass pushes back. Put a scale there and you gain a man made measurement of your mass, called a weight measurement. No atmospheric pressure, no weight measurement. A vacuum chamber on Earth can only evacuate most NOT ALL of the atmosphere inside the chamber and yes I've done tests to prove I'm correct. I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. Aw fauck I just peed myself. hahahahaha Atmospheric pressure is dependent on hight above sea level. For instance at sea level the atmospheric pressure is the same everywhere, as long as it is at sea level. The sponge and the gold bar will have exactly the same atmospheric pressure exerted on it, as long as they are together. ........ You never finsihed school hey? Or if you did, you only took subjects like knitting and typing. Can I guess your race? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 61558019 United States 08/13/2014 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. Aw fauck I just peed myself. hahahahaha Atmospheric pressure is dependent on hight above sea level. For instance at sea level the atmospheric pressure is the same everywhere, as long as it is at sea level. The sponge and the gold bar will have exactly the same atmospheric pressure exerted on it, as long as they are together. ........ You never finsihed school hey? Or if you did, you only took subjects like knitting and typing. Can I guess your race? Hey, toy brain...:racist5: |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Explain in a supposed near vacuum? Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. Imagine this...... If Earth were able to suddenly expand in all directions larger then the orbit of the Moon....the Moon would be pushed one direction. The Earth would be pushed the other from the resistance of acceleration of the Moon. This all happens in the vacuum of space. Now, each particle of fuel expanding during combustion is "the Earth" in that scenario. As billions of tiny fuel particles expand, along with other gases expanding from heat, a net force is created. Does this help you understand it better? Let me try and make you understand it better. Go and put a balloon with a small amoutn of air inside of it and tie it, into a vacuum chamber and start evacuating the air pressure. You will find that the balloon will expand. It does this because it's trying to equalise the pressure that is being evacuated by filling the area with expanded gas. Your rocket will do exactly the same, no matter how it's dressed up. The only way to stop the rocket expanding would be to make it as strong as a compressed air cylinder and we all know how heavy just a small one of those are. Look. let's go the opposite way and think of a submarine. It cannot descend to any real depth unless it has a hull that is super strong. If it isn't, it will be crushed. Well on the way to your so called space, the opposite will happen, your rocket will expand. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59904660 United States 08/13/2014 07:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 I ignored them because everything requires atmospheric pressure to work, it's as simple as that. You ignored them because they work in a direction different than gravity towards Earth. You can't explain that with your air pressure BS. They can't explain it, because it does not exist and if they gave the real explanation of what it really is, then space is busted and so is a lot of the scientific bullshit bandied about. LOL so gravity does not exist, because science can't explain it. hahahahahahahaha Dude the force of gravity is observable. Just jump of a building to check. Therefore it exists. Whether we understand it, has got nothing to do with the fact that it exists. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2312772 United States 08/13/2014 07:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Earth isn't floating through space. You're told it's a spinning ball in space whizzing around a sun. Have a think about it. No, I mean really have a think about it. Don't just accept it. The Earth is not moving at all. It's as still as a statue and it is absolutely not a solid rotating sphere whizzing about in space around a huge sun. Yeah yeah, I know about all the calculations and the coriolis effect and Foucaults pendulum and Newtons measurements of so called planets and what not. Just question it for what it is. It's absolute crap, it really is. Go and look at the sun and the moon. stand there and really look at them, then ask yourself if it's possible that they are actually not in any space at all but actually in our very own atmosphere. It takes a person to think outside of the box to understand what I'm trying to say. If yu can't do that, then fine, stick to what they teach you. Anyone who has a thinking mind...seriously get out there and put that mind to work. Does it not set alarm bells ringing when we are constantly told to rely on so called thousands of years old scientists of Greece up to the likes of Newton hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Your Earth is not what you think it is. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 07:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. Imagine this...... If Earth were able to suddenly expand in all directions larger then the orbit of the Moon....the Moon would be pushed one direction. The Earth would be pushed the other from the resistance of acceleration of the Moon. This all happens in the vacuum of space. Now, each particle of fuel expanding during combustion is "the Earth" in that scenario. As billions of tiny fuel particles expand, along with other gases expanding from heat, a net force is created. Does this help you understand it better? Let me try and make you understand it better. Go and put a balloon with a small amoutn of air inside of it and tie it, into a vacuum chamber and start evacuating the air pressure. You will find that the balloon will expand. It does this because it's trying to equalise the pressure that is being evacuated by filling the area with expanded gas. Your rocket will do exactly the same, no matter how it's dressed up. The only way to stop the rocket expanding would be to make it as strong as a compressed air cylinder and we all know how heavy just a small one of those are. Look. let's go the opposite way and think of a submarine. It cannot descend to any real depth unless it has a hull that is super strong. If it isn't, it will be crushed. Well on the way to your so called space, the opposite will happen, your rocket will expand. It depends on the pressure of what you are trying to contain. A compressed air cylinder is holding air that has been compressed to multiple atmospheres. It takes a lot less to hold pressure that has a difference of 1 or 2 atmospheres. You're overgeneralizing. 1 atm is equal to about 33 feet in depth. Pretty much any submarine can attain that depth. Most spacecraft have the crew compartment pressurized to less than 1 atm. The fuel is often held at a higher pressure but has the strength to contain it. For example, if the fuel is being held at, just to pick a random number, 30 atmospheres of pressure then at sea level the container still has to be strong enough for the difference between 30 and the 1 atm outside. That is 29 atms of pressure. You're saying that it can't withstand the one more atm when in space? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 07:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Earth isn't floating through space. You're told it's a spinning ball in space whizzing around a sun. Have a think about it. No, I mean really have a think about it. Don't just accept it. The Earth is not moving at all. It's as still as a statue and it is absolutely not a solid rotating sphere whizzing about in space around a huge sun. Yeah yeah, I know about all the calculations and the coriolis effect and Foucaults pendulum and Newtons measurements of so called planets and what not. Just question it for what it is. It's absolute crap, it really is. Go and look at the sun and the moon. stand there and really look at them, then ask yourself if it's possible that they are actually not in any space at all but actually in our very own atmosphere. It takes a person to think outside of the box to understand what I'm trying to say. If yu can't do that, then fine, stick to what they teach you. Anyone who has a thinking mind...seriously get out there and put that mind to work. Does it not set alarm bells ringing when we are constantly told to rely on so called thousands of years old scientists of Greece up to the likes of Newton hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Your Earth is not what you think it is. You think the Sun and the Moon are in the atmosphere? Simple geometry now proves you wrong! I get it now, you're just here to provide humor, right? |
emerald_glow
User ID: 53523886 United States 08/13/2014 07:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Wait a minute, OP....before or without answering your question, lets clear up this first: Quoting: emerald_glow Why would anything be "irrelevant" that has no weight???? That which has no weight is that which surrounds an object. As such, space itself is the master force. Everything else is less then. Hard to understand but the vacuum in space is actual the most harmonized form of existence. Everything else is a disturbance in balance. Look at it in reverse like a film negative. If the object was a vacuum and space was a solid...... This is how the expanse of space has it's bending force on matter. If something had no weight, it becomes a part of the general space expanse. The infinite expanse does has a force. An equalizer of matter and energy. Thus, weight, heat, light....it is ALL an unbalance of the web of existence. Space is an ocean, matter is a bubble. The vacuum dissipates entropic energy. The vacuum reassembles anti-entropic energy. How about if we substitute the word "vacuum" with "ether". I can egree most of it then. Except that there are gases lighter than air, that actually gravitation has no effect on. Like a balloon filled with Helium or Hydrogen. It is still "matter" but has no weight. Kind of borderline between matter and ether Weight is a condition of force exerted upon an object in proportion to distance and mass of the agitator(s). It is a relationship value between the object which has weight in relation to the parent object (Earth) Emerald_Glow |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. Imagine this...... If Earth were able to suddenly expand in all directions larger then the orbit of the Moon....the Moon would be pushed one direction. The Earth would be pushed the other from the resistance of acceleration of the Moon. This all happens in the vacuum of space. Now, each particle of fuel expanding during combustion is "the Earth" in that scenario. As billions of tiny fuel particles expand, along with other gases expanding from heat, a net force is created. Does this help you understand it better? Let me try and make you understand it better. Go and put a balloon with a small amoutn of air inside of it and tie it, into a vacuum chamber and start evacuating the air pressure. You will find that the balloon will expand. It does this because it's trying to equalise the pressure that is being evacuated by filling the area with expanded gas. Your rocket will do exactly the same, no matter how it's dressed up. The only way to stop the rocket expanding would be to make it as strong as a compressed air cylinder and we all know how heavy just a small one of those are. Look. let's go the opposite way and think of a submarine. It cannot descend to any real depth unless it has a hull that is super strong. If it isn't, it will be crushed. Well on the way to your so called space, the opposite will happen, your rocket will expand. It depends on the pressure of what you are trying to contain. A compressed air cylinder is holding air that has been compressed to multiple atmospheres. It takes a lot less to hold pressure that has a difference of 1 or 2 atmospheres. You're overgeneralizing. 1 atm is equal to about 33 feet in depth. Pretty much any submarine can attain that depth. Most spacecraft have the crew compartment pressurized to less than 1 atm. The fuel is often held at a higher pressure but has the strength to contain it. For example, if the fuel is being held at, just to pick a random number, 30 atmospheres of pressure then at sea level the container still has to be strong enough for the difference between 30 and the 1 atm outside. That is 29 atms of pressure. You're saying that it can't withstand the one more atm when in space? We are talking about a small vacuum chamber here. Now imagine a rocket ging up into thinner and thinner atmosphere? Thinner means it's more expanded molecules. there are less molecules higher up because they are expanded and take up more space. Anything going into that will by nature expand into it. To put it bluntly, the walls of the rocket would have no external compression on the outside, meaning the inside will simply expand due to the pressure inside. If you think 1 atmosphere is nothing, then I suggest you put a window clamp onto a window and try and get it off. The size and strength of you and you won't budge it. That's because you evacuated the pressure from within the clamp and now the atmospheric pressure outside is trying to equalise that pressure but can't because the clamp has ealed to the window due to the pressure of atmosphere pushing against it. Unless the rocket was made of super strong steel like a comopressed air cylinder, it's going nowhere and we all know what rockets are made out of, as we are told. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 07:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Earth isn't floating through space. You're told it's a spinning ball in space whizzing around a sun. Have a think about it. No, I mean really have a think about it. Don't just accept it. The Earth is not moving at all. It's as still as a statue and it is absolutely not a solid rotating sphere whizzing about in space around a huge sun. Yeah yeah, I know about all the calculations and the coriolis effect and Foucaults pendulum and Newtons measurements of so called planets and what not. Just question it for what it is. It's absolute crap, it really is. Go and look at the sun and the moon. stand there and really look at them, then ask yourself if it's possible that they are actually not in any space at all but actually in our very own atmosphere. It takes a person to think outside of the box to understand what I'm trying to say. If yu can't do that, then fine, stick to what they teach you. Anyone who has a thinking mind...seriously get out there and put that mind to work. Does it not set alarm bells ringing when we are constantly told to rely on so called thousands of years old scientists of Greece up to the likes of Newton hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Your Earth is not what you think it is. You think the Sun and the Moon are in the atmosphere? Simple geometry now proves you wrong! I get it now, you're just here to provide humor, right? Ok, in very simple terms, you tell me how simple geometry proves the sun and moon are where we are told? No scientic mumbo jumbo, just laymans terms so people understand it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 07:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: --Voltaic-- Imagine this...... If Earth were able to suddenly expand in all directions larger then the orbit of the Moon....the Moon would be pushed one direction. The Earth would be pushed the other from the resistance of acceleration of the Moon. This all happens in the vacuum of space. Now, each particle of fuel expanding during combustion is "the Earth" in that scenario. As billions of tiny fuel particles expand, along with other gases expanding from heat, a net force is created. Does this help you understand it better? Let me try and make you understand it better. Go and put a balloon with a small amoutn of air inside of it and tie it, into a vacuum chamber and start evacuating the air pressure. You will find that the balloon will expand. It does this because it's trying to equalise the pressure that is being evacuated by filling the area with expanded gas. Your rocket will do exactly the same, no matter how it's dressed up. The only way to stop the rocket expanding would be to make it as strong as a compressed air cylinder and we all know how heavy just a small one of those are. Look. let's go the opposite way and think of a submarine. It cannot descend to any real depth unless it has a hull that is super strong. If it isn't, it will be crushed. Well on the way to your so called space, the opposite will happen, your rocket will expand. It depends on the pressure of what you are trying to contain. A compressed air cylinder is holding air that has been compressed to multiple atmospheres. It takes a lot less to hold pressure that has a difference of 1 or 2 atmospheres. You're overgeneralizing. 1 atm is equal to about 33 feet in depth. Pretty much any submarine can attain that depth. Most spacecraft have the crew compartment pressurized to less than 1 atm. The fuel is often held at a higher pressure but has the strength to contain it. For example, if the fuel is being held at, just to pick a random number, 30 atmospheres of pressure then at sea level the container still has to be strong enough for the difference between 30 and the 1 atm outside. That is 29 atms of pressure. You're saying that it can't withstand the one more atm when in space? We are talking about a small vacuum chamber here. Now imagine a rocket ging up into thinner and thinner atmosphere? Thinner means it's more expanded molecules. there are less molecules higher up because they are expanded and take up more space. Anything going into that will by nature expand into it. To put it bluntly, the walls of the rocket would have no external compression on the outside, meaning the inside will simply expand due to the pressure inside. If you think 1 atmosphere is nothing, then I suggest you put a window clamp onto a window and try and get it off. The size and strength of you and you won't budge it. That's because you evacuated the pressure from within the clamp and now the atmospheric pressure outside is trying to equalise that pressure but can't because the clamp has ealed to the window due to the pressure of atmosphere pushing against it. Unless the rocket was made of super strong steel like a comopressed air cylinder, it's going nowhere and we all know what rockets are made out of, as we are told. Thank you for proving you didn't understand the example. The pressure in a vacuum is never going to be less than 0. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 07:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Earth isn't floating through space. You're told it's a spinning ball in space whizzing around a sun. Have a think about it. No, I mean really have a think about it. Don't just accept it. The Earth is not moving at all. It's as still as a statue and it is absolutely not a solid rotating sphere whizzing about in space around a huge sun. Yeah yeah, I know about all the calculations and the coriolis effect and Foucaults pendulum and Newtons measurements of so called planets and what not. Just question it for what it is. It's absolute crap, it really is. Go and look at the sun and the moon. stand there and really look at them, then ask yourself if it's possible that they are actually not in any space at all but actually in our very own atmosphere. It takes a person to think outside of the box to understand what I'm trying to say. If yu can't do that, then fine, stick to what they teach you. Anyone who has a thinking mind...seriously get out there and put that mind to work. Does it not set alarm bells ringing when we are constantly told to rely on so called thousands of years old scientists of Greece up to the likes of Newton hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Your Earth is not what you think it is. You think the Sun and the Moon are in the atmosphere? Simple geometry now proves you wrong! I get it now, you're just here to provide humor, right? Ok, in very simple terms, you tell me how simple geometry proves the sun and moon are where we are told? No scientic mumbo jumbo, just laymans terms so people understand it. You and a friend separated in distance measure angle to the Moon at the same time. Use geometry to find the distance the lines from those angles intersect. The sun is similar. If either were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere as they'd be far too close. They both ARE. That also proves you wrong. Getting more techie, you can bounce a radio signal off the Moon and measure the time for the return. HAM radio enthusiasts do this often. With the total time and the known speed of light you know the distance to the Moon. There are even other methods. The ancient Greeks knew the distance to the Moon. The question is, why do you seem intent on moving backward? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 08:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Let me try and make you understand it better. Go and put a balloon with a small amoutn of air inside of it and tie it, into a vacuum chamber and start evacuating the air pressure. You will find that the balloon will expand. It does this because it's trying to equalise the pressure that is being evacuated by filling the area with expanded gas. Your rocket will do exactly the same, no matter how it's dressed up. The only way to stop the rocket expanding would be to make it as strong as a compressed air cylinder and we all know how heavy just a small one of those are. Look. let's go the opposite way and think of a submarine. It cannot descend to any real depth unless it has a hull that is super strong. If it isn't, it will be crushed. Well on the way to your so called space, the opposite will happen, your rocket will expand. It depends on the pressure of what you are trying to contain. A compressed air cylinder is holding air that has been compressed to multiple atmospheres. It takes a lot less to hold pressure that has a difference of 1 or 2 atmospheres. You're overgeneralizing. 1 atm is equal to about 33 feet in depth. Pretty much any submarine can attain that depth. Most spacecraft have the crew compartment pressurized to less than 1 atm. The fuel is often held at a higher pressure but has the strength to contain it. For example, if the fuel is being held at, just to pick a random number, 30 atmospheres of pressure then at sea level the container still has to be strong enough for the difference between 30 and the 1 atm outside. That is 29 atms of pressure. You're saying that it can't withstand the one more atm when in space? We are talking about a small vacuum chamber here. Now imagine a rocket ging up into thinner and thinner atmosphere? Thinner means it's more expanded molecules. there are less molecules higher up because they are expanded and take up more space. Anything going into that will by nature expand into it. To put it bluntly, the walls of the rocket would have no external compression on the outside, meaning the inside will simply expand due to the pressure inside. If you think 1 atmosphere is nothing, then I suggest you put a window clamp onto a window and try and get it off. The size and strength of you and you won't budge it. That's because you evacuated the pressure from within the clamp and now the atmospheric pressure outside is trying to equalise that pressure but can't because the clamp has ealed to the window due to the pressure of atmosphere pushing against it. Unless the rocket was made of super strong steel like a comopressed air cylinder, it's going nowhere and we all know what rockets are made out of, as we are told. Thank you for proving you didn't understand the example. The pressure in a vacuum is never going to be less than 0. Who said it was? Just forget it, I can see where you are going. A simple twist of it all. Dont bother explaining anything else to me, it'll be overlooked. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Earth isn't floating through space. You're told it's a spinning ball in space whizzing around a sun. Have a think about it. No, I mean really have a think about it. Don't just accept it. The Earth is not moving at all. It's as still as a statue and it is absolutely not a solid rotating sphere whizzing about in space around a huge sun. Yeah yeah, I know about all the calculations and the coriolis effect and Foucaults pendulum and Newtons measurements of so called planets and what not. Just question it for what it is. It's absolute crap, it really is. Go and look at the sun and the moon. stand there and really look at them, then ask yourself if it's possible that they are actually not in any space at all but actually in our very own atmosphere. It takes a person to think outside of the box to understand what I'm trying to say. If yu can't do that, then fine, stick to what they teach you. Anyone who has a thinking mind...seriously get out there and put that mind to work. Does it not set alarm bells ringing when we are constantly told to rely on so called thousands of years old scientists of Greece up to the likes of Newton hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Your Earth is not what you think it is. You think the Sun and the Moon are in the atmosphere? Simple geometry now proves you wrong! I get it now, you're just here to provide humor, right? Ok, in very simple terms, you tell me how simple geometry proves the sun and moon are where we are told? No scientic mumbo jumbo, just laymans terms so people understand it. You and a friend separated in distance measure angle to the Moon at the same time. Use geometry to find the distance the lines from those angles intersect. The sun is similar. If either were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere as they'd be far too close. They both ARE. That also proves you wrong. Getting more techie, you can bounce a radio signal off the Moon and measure the time for the return. HAM radio enthusiasts do this often. With the total time and the known speed of light you know the distance to the Moon. There are even other methods. The ancient Greeks knew the distance to the Moon. The question is, why do you seem intent on moving backward? Explain it in very simple terms without using fantasy. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 08:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 It depends on the pressure of what you are trying to contain. A compressed air cylinder is holding air that has been compressed to multiple atmospheres. It takes a lot less to hold pressure that has a difference of 1 or 2 atmospheres. You're overgeneralizing. 1 atm is equal to about 33 feet in depth. Pretty much any submarine can attain that depth. Most spacecraft have the crew compartment pressurized to less than 1 atm. The fuel is often held at a higher pressure but has the strength to contain it. For example, if the fuel is being held at, just to pick a random number, 30 atmospheres of pressure then at sea level the container still has to be strong enough for the difference between 30 and the 1 atm outside. That is 29 atms of pressure. You're saying that it can't withstand the one more atm when in space? We are talking about a small vacuum chamber here. Now imagine a rocket ging up into thinner and thinner atmosphere? Thinner means it's more expanded molecules. there are less molecules higher up because they are expanded and take up more space. Anything going into that will by nature expand into it. To put it bluntly, the walls of the rocket would have no external compression on the outside, meaning the inside will simply expand due to the pressure inside. If you think 1 atmosphere is nothing, then I suggest you put a window clamp onto a window and try and get it off. The size and strength of you and you won't budge it. That's because you evacuated the pressure from within the clamp and now the atmospheric pressure outside is trying to equalise that pressure but can't because the clamp has ealed to the window due to the pressure of atmosphere pushing against it. Unless the rocket was made of super strong steel like a comopressed air cylinder, it's going nowhere and we all know what rockets are made out of, as we are told. Thank you for proving you didn't understand the example. The pressure in a vacuum is never going to be less than 0. Who said it was? Just forget it, I can see where you are going. A simple twist of it all. Dont bother explaining anything else to me, it'll be overlooked. At least you finally admit you're ignoring the explanations. It is clear you have no intention of even trying to understand. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 08:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 You think the Sun and the Moon are in the atmosphere? Simple geometry now proves you wrong! I get it now, you're just here to provide humor, right? Ok, in very simple terms, you tell me how simple geometry proves the sun and moon are where we are told? No scientic mumbo jumbo, just laymans terms so people understand it. You and a friend separated in distance measure angle to the Moon at the same time. Use geometry to find the distance the lines from those angles intersect. The sun is similar. If either were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere as they'd be far too close. They both ARE. That also proves you wrong. Getting more techie, you can bounce a radio signal off the Moon and measure the time for the return. HAM radio enthusiasts do this often. With the total time and the known speed of light you know the distance to the Moon. There are even other methods. The ancient Greeks knew the distance to the Moon. The question is, why do you seem intent on moving backward? Explain it in very simple terms without using fantasy. You asked for simple, I gave you simple. In fact, I gave you THREE simple explanations. If you still can't understand it, then that is YOUR problem. There are plenty of references out there that explain it in greater detail. But I think you don't really want to know. Far easier to remain in your fantasy world. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/13/2014 08:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Ok, in very simple terms, you tell me how simple geometry proves the sun and moon are where we are told? No scientic mumbo jumbo, just laymans terms so people understand it. You and a friend separated in distance measure angle to the Moon at the same time. Use geometry to find the distance the lines from those angles intersect. The sun is similar. If either were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere as they'd be far too close. They both ARE. That also proves you wrong. Getting more techie, you can bounce a radio signal off the Moon and measure the time for the return. HAM radio enthusiasts do this often. With the total time and the known speed of light you know the distance to the Moon. There are even other methods. The ancient Greeks knew the distance to the Moon. The question is, why do you seem intent on moving backward? Explain it in very simple terms without using fantasy. You asked for simple, I gave you simple. In fact, I gave you THREE simple explanations. If you still can't understand it, then that is YOUR problem. There are plenty of references out there that explain it in greater detail. But I think you don't really want to know. Far easier to remain in your fantasy world. The truth is, none of them can be calculated. There's simply no genuine reference point to actually do so, unless it's all made up to fit , which is all this space science junk is. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47938245 United States 08/13/2014 08:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 You and a friend separated in distance measure angle to the Moon at the same time. Use geometry to find the distance the lines from those angles intersect. The sun is similar. If either were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere as they'd be far too close. They both ARE. That also proves you wrong. Getting more techie, you can bounce a radio signal off the Moon and measure the time for the return. HAM radio enthusiasts do this often. With the total time and the known speed of light you know the distance to the Moon. There are even other methods. The ancient Greeks knew the distance to the Moon. The question is, why do you seem intent on moving backward? Explain it in very simple terms without using fantasy. You asked for simple, I gave you simple. In fact, I gave you THREE simple explanations. If you still can't understand it, then that is YOUR problem. There are plenty of references out there that explain it in greater detail. But I think you don't really want to know. Far easier to remain in your fantasy world. The truth is, none of them can be calculated. There's simply no genuine reference point to actually do so, unless it's all made up to fit , which is all this space science junk is. What part of you and a friend separated in distance measure the angle to the Moon at the same time do you not understand? You then have the distance you're separated by and two angles. Basic geometry can give you the lengths of the other two sides of the triangle. There is nothing made up there. What part of if they were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere at the same time do you not understand? The problem here is YOU, not the explanations. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/14/2014 06:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 I'll ask you one more time. Prove to me how they calculate the sizes and distances of the moon and sun to come up with the clap trap they come up with. Explain it in very simple terms without using fantasy. You asked for simple, I gave you simple. In fact, I gave you THREE simple explanations. If you still can't understand it, then that is YOUR problem. There are plenty of references out there that explain it in greater detail. But I think you don't really want to know. Far easier to remain in your fantasy world. The truth is, none of them can be calculated. There's simply no genuine reference point to actually do so, unless it's all made up to fit , which is all this space science junk is. What part of you and a friend separated in distance measure the angle to the Moon at the same time do you not understand? You then have the distance you're separated by and two angles. Basic geometry can give you the lengths of the other two sides of the triangle. There is nothing made up there. What part of if they were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere at the same time do you not understand? The problem here is YOU, not the explanations. Just explain it all as if you and your friend were doing this caluclation Here's what I want from you. I want you to simply explain how you and your friend communicate a calculation based on your positions and by what means to come up with the the size of the sun and rthe moon and also the distance of both. Let me make this a little clearer. I do not want you to mention Eratoshenes or Newton or any other historical name to aid you. I want YOU to tell me how you would do the calculations with the tools you have. After all, it's 2014, it should be a piece of piss, right? So, in laymans terms for those who do not want to see a bunch of bullshit calculations and formulas, just give out the basics and how it comes to be correct. One more thing. You need a reference point to be able to even begin to do this, so what is your reference point and how did you determine this reference point. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 61480573 Canada 08/14/2014 08:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 58351648 United States 08/14/2014 08:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States 08/14/2014 08:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 You asked for simple, I gave you simple. In fact, I gave you THREE simple explanations. If you still can't understand it, then that is YOUR problem. There are plenty of references out there that explain it in greater detail. But I think you don't really want to know. Far easier to remain in your fantasy world. The truth is, none of them can be calculated. There's simply no genuine reference point to actually do so, unless it's all made up to fit , which is all this space science junk is. What part of you and a friend separated in distance measure the angle to the Moon at the same time do you not understand? You then have the distance you're separated by and two angles. Basic geometry can give you the lengths of the other two sides of the triangle. There is nothing made up there. What part of if they were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere at the same time do you not understand? The problem here is YOU, not the explanations. Just explain it all as if you and your friend were doing this caluclation Here's what I want from you. I want you to simply explain how you and your friend communicate a calculation based on your positions and by what means to come up with the the size of the sun and rthe moon and also the distance of both. Let me make this a little clearer. I do not want you to mention Eratoshenes or Newton or any other historical name to aid you. I want YOU to tell me how you would do the calculations with the tools you have. After all, it's 2014, it should be a piece of piss, right? So, in laymans terms for those who do not want to see a bunch of bullshit calculations and formulas, just give out the basics and how it comes to be correct. One more thing. You need a reference point to be able to even begin to do this, so what is your reference point and how did you determine this reference point. Are you really as dense as you're appearing? You know the distance that the two people are separated. You both measure angles to the Moon at the same time. You then have 3 parts of a triangle (one side and two angles). You use geometry to figure out the lengths of the other two sides. Anybody else can visualize it from that. The math works and more importantly it gets an answer that agrees with the multiple other methods one can use. They are all consistent. If you still can't get it then I can only assume either you don't want to or you're just trolling. And no, you don't need a reference point. All you need is the distance between the two observers and the angles measured. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/14/2014 10:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | E=MC2 is nonsense. The trouble with all this nonsensical science to do with space, speed of light and all the rest of it, is that it's supposedly backed up by these put forwrd into the limelight, geniuses that are no more than puppets parroting fictional bullshit. Weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure on mass/density. Take away atmospheric pressure and you take away weight measurement. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/14/2014 10:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, since OP is convinced rockets do not work in space, I guess the satellites he uses for his phone just magically align themselves in orbit w/o small rockets. Quoting: --Voltaic-- There are no man made objects in your fictional space. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom 08/14/2014 10:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Not easy to explain is it unless you use your text book given bullshit calculations that are merely bunkum. The truth is, none of them can be calculated. There's simply no genuine reference point to actually do so, unless it's all made up to fit , which is all this space science junk is. What part of you and a friend separated in distance measure the angle to the Moon at the same time do you not understand? You then have the distance you're separated by and two angles. Basic geometry can give you the lengths of the other two sides of the triangle. There is nothing made up there. What part of if they were in the atmosphere then they wouldn't be visible for an entire hemisphere at the same time do you not understand? The problem here is YOU, not the explanations. Just explain it all as if you and your friend were doing this caluclation Here's what I want from you. I want you to simply explain how you and your friend communicate a calculation based on your positions and by what means to come up with the the size of the sun and rthe moon and also the distance of both. Let me make this a little clearer. I do not want you to mention Eratoshenes or Newton or any other historical name to aid you. I want YOU to tell me how you would do the calculations with the tools you have. After all, it's 2014, it should be a piece of piss, right? So, in laymans terms for those who do not want to see a bunch of bullshit calculations and formulas, just give out the basics and how it comes to be correct. One more thing. You need a reference point to be able to even begin to do this, so what is your reference point and how did you determine this reference point. Are you really as dense as you're appearing? You know the distance that the two people are separated. You both measure angles to the Moon at the same time. You then have 3 parts of a triangle (one side and two angles). You use geometry to figure out the lengths of the other two sides. Anybody else can visualize it from that. The math works and more importantly it gets an answer that agrees with the multiple other methods one can use. They are all consistent. If you still can't get it then I can only assume either you don't want to or you're just trolling. And no, you don't need a reference point. All you need is the distance between the two observers and the angles measured. Ok, I get the two people at a certain distance on Earth. Ok, now for the triangle bit. Tell me how this works to get size and distance of the so called sun and moon? We know the distance of the two people, fair enough. Now for the dodgy bit of making this triangle. |
Dr. Astro
Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 08/14/2014 10:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, since OP is convinced rockets do not work in space, I guess the satellites he uses for his phone just magically align themselves in orbit w/o small rockets. Quoting: --Voltaic-- There are no man made objects in your fictional space. Wrong. Just a few examples. I've observed countless satellites in space. |