Post by: Starlight on 16/02/2020 13:21:27
1 revolution per 24 hrs that is spinning very fast , ~1000mph !It is fast compared to the speed of an automobile.
Members have given you all the information you need to know why the oceans don't fly off into space. Stop fighting it and absorb the information!
You mean fake information just like those fake UFO's at area 51 where they use jet engines for propulsion and illusion !
Or perhaps fake moon landings with only 2-3 stage rockets that wouldn't reach the moon .
Fighting it ? I look for the truth only and 1000 mph centrifugal force is greater than gravity and the fact is water has little inertia .
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 13:34:25
Yes, OK 1000 mph is pretty fast.A centrifuge force is stronger than the weaker force of gravity !Yes, but only because it spins very fast.
A centrifuge that only spun at one revolution per day wouldn't achieve much.
1 revolution per 24 hrs that is spinning very fast , ~1000mph !
But it isn't speed that relates to force. What gives rise to fcre is acceleration, and that's the rate of change of speed.
So, let's have a think about how fast the speed of something at the surface of the Earth changes.
A point on the equator is doing about 1600 km/hr
And 12 hours later it will have gone halfway round the world and be traveling in the opposite direction at 1600 km/hr
So the change is 3200 km/hr
And it takes 12 hr to make that change so the rate of change is 3200/12 km/hr/hr
Putting tat into more conventional units
32000 km/hr is about 8900 m/s
12 hrs is 43200 sec
So the acceleration is about about 0.2 m/s/s (I say "about", because the precise calculation is a bit different, it takes account of the fact that the acceleration is in 2 dimensions, rather than 1 but it doesn't make much difference. Kryptid gave the accurate formula, but it's not obvious where that comes from.)
But the acceleration due to gravity is about 10 m/s/s
So you hardly notice the effect of centrifugal force.
I take it you don't think that the 1000 MPH is fake, and I guess you accept that there are 24 hrs in a day.
Those are the only numbers I needed.
Now you can see roughly how to calculate the acceleration I hope you can see there's no need for "fakery".
Post by: Starlight on 16/02/2020 13:57:12
I take it you don't think that the 1000 MPH is fake, and I guess you accept that there are 24 hrs in a day.
Those are the only numbers I needed.
Now you can see roughly how to calculate the acceleration I hope you can see there's no need for "fakery".
Fake science seems to be a talent for science and I'm afraid I don't buy into things that do not conform to simple logic and simple physics .
If some of the water bulges at the equator then there is no reason for the water North and South of the equator not to join the bulge as water mixes with water the same as light mixes with light .
Air pressure can't be a factor or there'd be bulges appearing and vanishing as the air pressure changed around the globe .
Water as you must be aware as very little inertia so gravity wouldn't hold the water north and south of the equator , ignoring the centrifuge force .
Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: chiralSPO on 16/02/2020 14:09:11
Maybe try thinking about it this way:
Consider the spinning dish example you provided. Sure, the water slips right off and flies away. Why doesn't the outer edge of the plate slide off too? Surely the same laws of inertia apply to glass and to water?
Well, of course the problem is that we haven't spun the dish nearly fast enough to overcome the strong chemical bonds holding the plate together--take it up to a few million rpm, and I'm sure the plate will fall apart pretty quickly.
If the Earth spun faster and faster, yes the bulge would grow taller and taller, and eventually, the earth could spin fast enough to overcome the gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 14:18:59
Fake science seems to be a talent for science and I'm afraid I don't buy into things that do not conform to simple logic and simple physics .That's why I explained it with simple logic and simple physics.
So what's your excuse for still not believing it?
there is no reason for the water North and South of the equator not to join the bulgeYes there is.
A very simple reason.
It's held back by gravity.
Is science hiding a bigger earthHow could they?
There have been maps (and globes) of the Earth for longer than we have had modern science.
Water as you must be aware as very little inertiaAn entire ocean of water has, obviously, a lot of inertia.
But that's hardly relevant.
It's not being held in place by inertia, gravity is holding it in place.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/02/2020 15:17:15
Why ? Because the answers given do not seem to fit in with the physics given .
They do, but some bizarre reason, you don't accept them.
Yet it is enough centrifuge force to deform the Earths spherical shape !
Any centrifugal force would be enough to deform the Earth's shape at least somewhat. The Earth is about 12,756 kilometers wide across the Equator and about 12,714 kilometers wide from pole-to-pole. That means the Earth is only a mere 0.33% wider around the Equator than around the poles. That's a very tiny distortion, proportionately-speaking.
You may have specific math to back science claims but the magnitude of force that would be needed to reform the earths shape is much more than you are suggesting exists .
Please demonstrate this. I'm not just going to take your word for it.
Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?
You've got to be kidding me...
Post by: evan_au on 16/02/2020 20:01:24
Quote from: Starlight
Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?I'll have none of your Northern chauvinism here, laddie!
As a proud Southerner, I can confidently assure you that:
- Starlight tells you that you are mistaken - just take a look out your window tonight and search for the Magellenic Clouds or the Southern Cross. And yet I can see them on any clear night.
- There are no commercial supersonic airliners operating today, and yet last year I was able to fly from Sydney (Australia) to Helsinki (Finland) in a tiring but bearable time. So the scale of the globe is not in question.
The size of the Earth was first calculated with reasonable accuracy by Eratosthenes around 200BC.
- And he calculated it on a North/South axis, within about 1% of the modern figure
- You have had 2 millennia to catch up.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenistic_world
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2020 20:44:27
You can look up and see "the man in the moon" upside down.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2020 21:43:19
Quote
Air pressure can't be a factor or there'd be bulges appearing and vanishing as the air pressure changed around the globe .It is significant when predicting tides. The published tables relate to standard atmospheric pressure and if you are worried about critical keel clearance or the volume of water that will flood a harbour bar, you need to subtract or add a bit for extreme pressure variations.
Post by: Starlight on 18/02/2020 14:24:36
So what's your excuse for still not believing it?
If the Earth was spinning at ~1000 mph , any object on the surface would ''flirt'' off the earth . Centrifuge force as always been a linear force associated with outer edges .
Science in my opinion disguises this by using revolutions instead of speed !
Also they faked the moon landings so nothing surprises me with science and the means they take to cover truths .
Post by: Starlight on 18/02/2020 14:29:33
Is science hiding a bigger earthQuote from: chemistHow could they?
CGI and a piece of cardboard with a circle cut out in the middle to give the impression of a spherical earth through a camera .
Post by: Starlight on 18/02/2020 14:36:51
Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?Quote from: kryptidYou've got to be kidding me...
Not at all ! Would you know ?
Bare in mind knowing would take the highest level of security clearance !
Why not the earth we are shown is actually only a crater full of water on a much bigger rock ?
I am not kidding like other members do with their questions !
Post by: Starlight on 18/02/2020 14:40:40
A trip to the other side of the equator sorts this out beyond doubt.
You can look up and see "the man in the moon" upside down.
I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight . My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .
Post by: Kryptid on 18/02/2020 14:41:24
If the Earth was spinning at ~1000 mph , any object on the surface would ''flirt'' off the earth .
Don't just claim this: demonstrate it. Where are the calculations to back up your assertions? All you have provided so far are arguments from incredulity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Science in my opinion disguises this by using revolutions instead of speed !
The centrifugal force equation is routinely tested in college courses:
If it was wrong, we would know it. Students everywhere would be able to see it for themselves.
Also they faked the moon landings so nothing surprises me with science and the means they take to cover truths .
So basically that means you can throw out any and all evidence that you disagree with under the guise of "conspiracy". That kind of mindset does not lend itself well to learning.
Not at all ! Would you know ?
Occam's razor very, very strongly suggests that the Earth has the appearance and size that modern science accepts it to have. Unless, of course, you can actually provide verifiable evidence that there is a conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the planet.
Post by: Origin on 18/02/2020 17:38:26
I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight . My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .Holy frijole! I am equal parts horrified and amused by the profound lack of knowledge of our home planet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2020 18:58:46
I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight . My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Post by: Starlight on 19/02/2020 12:28:06
Don't just claim this: demonstrate it. Where are the calculations to back up your assertions?
Harry Potter opened up his book of spells to cast a magic spell on the audience !
Sciences way of denial and illusion , they always say you need calculations which is simply not true .
Post by: Starlight on 19/02/2020 12:29:43
I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight . My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .Holy frijole! I am equal parts horrified and amused by the profound lack of knowledge of our home planet.
Lack of knowledge or lack of truth ?
It isn't like I am trying to build a bridge over water here !
Post by: alancalverd on 19/02/2020 16:12:48
My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .Who are you? Donald Trump? No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head. In Trump's case, of course, it's a halo that only the truly gifted (with the taxpayer's money) can see.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2020 16:31:35
Sciences way of denial and illusion , they always say you need calculations which is simply not true .
Then how do you know that the existing equations are wrong? I even posted a video demonstrating that the validity of the equations are tested regularly.
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2020 17:16:13
If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.
If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
Thank you.
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2020 17:38:36
• Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
Post by: Starlight on 19/02/2020 17:42:43
My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .Who are you? Donald Trump? No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head.
;) Maybe I am !
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Starlight on 19/02/2020 17:46:32
Starlight, are you honestly pursuing truth or have you convinced yourself of something, and are now trying to convince the rest of us?
If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.
If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
Thank you.
The math people learn of course works if it is designed to present illusion !
Do you personally know ?
Have you ever personally observed the Earth from space ?
The truth is not observed by most people , we only have a belief system and believe what we are taught is true .
The physics suggests otherwise !
Post by: Starlight on 19/02/2020 17:51:36
A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:
• Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
Inertia of course is the answer to all your questions but the difference is , water has very little inertia . If it didn't flirt off the planet , there is still no reason why it wouldn't all bulge at the equator as water mixes with water . The only difference being an increase in volume .
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2020 17:54:48
This is more mildly more entertaining than the flat earth conspiracies, but essentially the same.Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?Quote from: kryptidYou've got to be kidding me...
Not at all ! Would you know ?
Bare in mind knowing would take the highest level of security clearance !
Why not the earth we are shown is actually only a crater full of water on a much bigger rock ?
I am not kidding like other members do with their questions !
*sigh*
Look. With your eyes. There are ways of measuring the curvature of the earth. No scientists or governments or wizards or whatever can keep you from observing the truth with your own eyes. (and if you think we can... why trust anything? you may as well consider yourself a brain in a jar)
Take long exposure pictures of the stars at night, and you'll see them precessing around a point. Drive (or fly) north (or south) a few hundred miles, and take another picture... the angle of the point above the horizon will depend more on your latitude than any other factor (assuming the horizon is flat). And you can calculate the radius of the earth based on how many miles you travelled, and how many degrees the point has moved by (this will be best if you can get many data points).
See here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69392.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73016.0 (starting with reply 19)
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2020 18:01:27
A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:
• Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
Inertia of course is the answer to all your questions but the difference is , water has very little inertia . If it didn't flirt off the planet , there is still no reason why it wouldn't all bulge at the equator as water mixes with water . The only difference being an increase in volume .
No, inertia isn't the answer.
Get a lazy susan (or similar device), place objects on it, and give a spin. See what the relationship is between mass and how easily they fly off. (best to compare objects that are similarly slippery--obviously a wet piece of ice will move more easily than a piece of putty. I recommend using balls so that they can roll in basically the same way, rather than comparing how different materials and shapes slide)
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2020 19:16:08
water has very little inertiaThat simply isn't true.
Anyone who has carelessly dived into water knows that.
So, why do you start from something which we all know to be false as the "reason" for stuff?
Post by: Colin2B on 19/02/2020 23:02:59
No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head.Nail on head.
Lack of knowledge or lack of truth ?You lack both
The OP has revealed belief in a number of conspiracy theories. There have been numerous studies of serial conspiracists, as they are known, revealing the psychological problems lying behind these beliefs.
Such theories have much in common with myths and primitive belief systems eg cargo cult, basically if I can’t understand it, then there must be a conspiracy.
Such beliefs do not have anything remotely like a rational scientific basis and as such do not belong in New Theories.
We do respect anyone’s right to believe what they want, however, this is a science site and we do not have to engage with your misunderstandings in the main physics sections. If you wish to discuss your beliefs you may do so in this section, if you have a genuine alternative science hypothesis you may post it in New Theories. However, based on your lack of understanding of basic physics and maths you may not post in any other section of this site. Thank you for your cooperation.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2020 06:13:50
The math people learn of course works if it is designed to present illusion !
Please explain how the math could be an illusion when college students can check both it and the physical results for themselves in lab classes. Did you even watch the video?
I'm also still waiting for you to explain how you know the centrifugal force equation is wrong.
Post by: Starlight on 20/02/2020 14:39:56
However, based on your lack of understanding of basic physics and maths you may not post in any other section of this site. Thank you for your cooperation.
Bish bash bosh !
Here is the cover up .
I think you must be kidding Colin ?
Why wouldn't you want me post in other sections when there is obvious other posts in your main sections with less understanding than I have !
Quite clearly science does not want to discuss their own lies .
They never landed on the moon !
There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module . The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the module .
:-\
Such liars are science , money launders ...... ???
oh my this isn't pretty , it isn't April the first is it ?
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/02/2020 15:30:13
Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.
And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers, but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.
Post by: Starlight on 20/02/2020 15:57:12
There may be some with less knowledge than you, but if they are willing to learn new information, we allow (and encourage) them to ask questions, posit hypotheses, and discuss in the general forum.
Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.
And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers, but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.
Convince me they landed on the moon ?
Please do not underestimate my knowledge on present and past scientific information , especially in concerns to physics and engineering specifics .
I know general relativity and special relativity , it is not a murderous subject to learn !
We have to build bridges over water as we have to use propulsion to lift a rocket off the ground . We also have to have an escape velocity so the momentum of the rocket takes the rocket into space as propulsion fails once there is no atmosphere to push against .
We also have to use parachutes for a return descent into the atmosphere for the slowing down process , i.e the ''breaks''
On the moon there is no atmosphere so a parachute won't work .
''Flames'' emitted from a module in free fall would be in free fall with the module and have no effect on the velocity of the free fall .
??????????????????????????????????????
Drawing.png (55.61 kB . 827x536 - viewed 6866 times)Did they leave the camera man behind ? Is that flames I see on the launch platform ?(no oxygen)
You will never have encountered somebody with my scientific vigor before ! If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory as you've not been able to provide scientific argument to convince all the readers .
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/02/2020 16:21:33
You will never have encountered somebody with my scientific vigor before ! If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory as you've not been able to provide scientific argument to convince all the readers .LOL you've done nothing ban-worthy yet. That was just a warning. We don't ban as a method of censorship. You are most welcome to air your ignorance in the "That CAN'T be True" section.
And yes, I see your scientific knowledge is lacking (vigor, yes, knowledge, not so much)
You clearly don't know anything about even the simplest Newtonian mechanics. (forget relativity until you can distinguish between force and acceleration)
Rockets don't have to push off of an atmosphere or any such thing.
Rockets/satellites etc. only experience free fall when they are in orbit (earth's gravity is almost as strong in LEO as on the ground, the experience of microgravity is due to orbiting being a special type of falling.
The astronauts brought oxygen with them to breath, surely they also brought oxidizer for their fuel to burn. (my recollection is that they used hydrazine/N,N-dimethyl hydrazine fuel and N2O4 oxidizer (both are liquids, and will spontaneously combust when brought into contact with each other, generating hot gasses, which can then be directed by . the thruster to push the module)
N2O4 (liquid) + 2 N2H4 (liquid) ——> 3 N2 (gas) + 4 H2O (gas)
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/02/2020 16:23:31
But be warned: if you become abusive or start posting nonsense in the main sections, or open more than one account, one of the mods will ban you
Post by: The Spoon on 20/02/2020 16:34:11
Post by: The Spoon on 20/02/2020 16:42:02
There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module . The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the module .This shows a profound lack of understanding of any kind of science or engineering principle. The same as your other sock accounts.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2020 17:00:38
I know general relativity and special relativity
Not very well.
We also have to have an escape velocity so the momentum of the rocket takes the rocket into space as propulsion fails once there is no atmosphere to push against .
It works just fine in a vacuum due to conservation of momentum.
''Flames'' emitted from a module in free fall would be in free fall
No they wouldn't. They are travelling significantly faster than the free fall velocity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2020 19:42:35
If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victoryThat would be consistent with your inability to make reasoned decisions.
Post by: Janus on 20/02/2020 22:02:09
The descent module engine had a exhaust velocity of roughly 3000 m/s. In order to get it up to this speed before leaving the engine, it had to accelerate it over a very short distance, accelerating up to that high a speed over such a short distance requires a high acceleration, (to accelerate something to 3000 m/s over 1 meter would require an acceleration of 4,500,000 m/s^2. This is over 2.7 million times greater than the acceleration due to gravity near the moon. Accelerating a mass that much requires a great deal of force, which in turn produces a equal reaction force on the engine accelerating the mass.
There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module . The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the module .
Accelerating just 1kg at this rate require 4.5 million Newtons of force; Enough to support 2.7 million kg against the pull of the Moon's gravity. The extra 1.6 m/s^2 due to the Moon's gravity and the object being in free fall pales in comparison. And it isn't even a factor, All it does is increase the downward velocity of the exhaust towards the Moon. And while this doesn't add to the upwards thrust felt by the rocket, neither does it subtract. (Even it it did, 1.6 m/s^2 subtracted from 4.5 million m/s^2 wouldn't even be noticeable for all practical purposes.
For science to be lying about as many things as you say it is, and be able to maintain the lie, a large fraction the population of the world would have to be in on it, for most of which there would be no benefit from the lie, and thus they would have no reason not to spill the beans,
Post by: Starlight on 21/02/2020 11:58:18
Rockets don't have to push off of an atmosphere or any such thing.
I don't believe you ! Please provide evidence of a rocket propulsion in a test vacuum?
The problem is relativity which all of you are ignoring . A constant flow of exhaust gases is not the same as a recoil system such as the gun on a tank .
An object trying to descent onto the moon surface using a constant propulsion will crash onto the moon as both the object and constant emission is in free fall .
:o
Post by: Starlight on 21/02/2020 12:04:06
The OP is just trolling for giggles. I wonder who it it could be...
I was born under a wondering star !
You want to play guess who ?
Trolling for giggles or revealing the truths ?
Am I an insider ?
module -v(e)=free fall
exhaust gases -v(e) = free fall
There is no breaking system on a rocket falling to the moon , F=ma
module axis -y
exhaust gases axis -y
There is no +v(e) of the module .
The propulsion is not independent of the module , the module and exhaust gases fall as one unit .
74857b7d-6c30-434d-b102-626c40812839.png (17.98 kB . 246x384 - viewed 12391 times)Almost forgot ! You've not explained the camera man left behind ..
Post by: Starlight on 21/02/2020 13:05:45
No different than the American Indians except the outsiders are a future version of ourselves with much more complex technology .
:o
Why would the admiral say such a thing about a new land if it were not true ?
Post by: Origin on 21/02/2020 13:08:41
I don't believe you ! Please provide evidence of a rocket propulsion in a test vacuum?How about the Apollo missions?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:16:06
Please provide evidence of a rocket propulsion in a test vacuum?OK
https://www.space.com/38444-mars-thruster-design-breaks-records.html
But I have a different question for you- how could a rocket NOT generate thrust in a vacuum?
Imagine that I have a tank of compressed air in a big vacuum chamber.
I hang it from a wire in the middle of the tank and, obviously, it just hangs there. There's no forces on it.
On the inside of the tank the air presses on the walls.
And all those forces balance out- there's as much push up as there is down; as much to the left as there is to the right, and so on.
Now imagine I cut a small hole in the left hand wall of the tank.
The air rushes out of the hole.
And, because that bit of the tank wall is no longer there, the air is no longer pushing on that bit of teh tank. But it's still pushing on the right hand wall.
So there is no longer a balance between the forces.
There's more force on the right hand wall than on the left.
There's a net force on the tank pushing it to the right.
That's what drives a rocket.
https://howthingsfly.si.edu/propulsion/rocket-propulsion
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:20:38
Why would the admiral say such a thing about a new land if it were not true ?
Why has only one person ever seen it?
Post by: Starlight on 21/02/2020 16:36:23
how could a rocket NOT generate thrust in a vacuum?[ Invalid Attachment ]
When the rocket and the stick is falling !
Post by: Starlight on 21/02/2020 16:39:03
Why would the admiral say such a thing about a new land if it were not true ?
Why has only one person ever seen it?
Hmmmm , I doubt only one person has seen it !
Post by: chiralSPO on 21/02/2020 16:54:38
I don't believe you ! Please provide evidence of a rocket propulsion in a test vacuum?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocket+in+vacuum take your pick
better yet, you can build some of these setups at home and give it a go!
I dare you to test your ideas experimentally.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/02/2020 17:29:30
exhaust gases -v(e) = free fall
It's not in free fall. You've already been told this.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 17:48:21
Why did you post that rather than an answer to the question?how could a rocket NOT generate thrust in a vacuum?[ Invalid Attachment ]
When the rocket and the stick is falling !
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 17:48:56
Why has only one person reported seeing it?Why would the admiral say such a thing about a new land if it were not true ?
Why has only one person ever seen it?
Hmmmm , I doubt only one person has seen it !
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2020 08:46:37
Why would the admiral say such a thing about a new land if it were not true ?For the same reason he altered his logbook to make it appear he was the first to fly to the N pole.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2020 12:54:13
If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victoryAs will we all, a victory in sanity...
Post by: Starlight on 23/02/2020 16:53:03
If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victoryAs will we all, a victory in sanity...
Sanity is just an expression and an illusion of ones own perception !
Logic is the application of information using ones own mind to process that information !
Relativity would not ''allow'' a rocket module to land on the moon safely using conventional thinking .
Additionally nobody as yet given specific thought to the Suns path and the fact that Australia would be down under and observe no Sunlight from a Sun that ''hung'' above a Northern hemisphere .
I'd like to see what sort of backwards answers you're going to provide to this as science is never straight forward .
Good luck with the thinking , can't wait to read the future responses ,
???
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2020 17:46:07
Relativity would not ''allow'' a rocket module to land on the moon safely using conventional thinking .
You don't understand relativity, as it prevents no such thing.
Additionally nobody as yet given specific thought to the Suns path and the fact that Australia would be down under and observe no Sunlight from a Sun that ''hung'' above a Northern hemisphere .
It doesn't "hang" above the northern hemisphere. Look up the axial tilt of the Earth.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2020 17:54:06
Additionally nobody as yet given specific thought to the Suns path and the fact that Australia would be down under and observe no Sunlight from a Sun that ''hung'' above a Northern hemisphere .Nobody said that the Sun hangs over the Northern hemisphere.
It pretty much spends its time nearly over the equator.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2020 17:55:51
I'd like to see what sort of backwards answers you're going to provide to this as science is never straight forward .It was sorted out 300 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery
Post by: Starlight on 23/02/2020 19:22:22
It pretty much spends its time nearly over the equator.
That's an impossibility as from the UK I can observe the Suns angle and path , the telemetry not seemingly inline with the equator .
Post by: Origin on 23/02/2020 20:04:31
That's an impossibility as from the UK I can observe the Suns angle and path , the telemetry not seemingly inline with the equator .So you have no idea what the significance of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are? Really?
So you are just trolling you can't really be this uniformed.
Post by: chiralSPO on 23/02/2020 20:10:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2020 21:17:07
seeminglyIt seems that way to me, but then again, I'm clever.
Post by: The Spoon on 23/02/2020 22:52:10
Post by: chiralSPO on 24/02/2020 01:09:42
The OP is just trolling and is a sock. Best ignored - he just wants attention.
Agreed.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 09:55:32
Post by: Starlight on 24/02/2020 13:18:14
Every reader on every science forum knows calling the poster a troll is sciences first line of defense ! ???
So you are just trolling you can't really be this uniformed.
Capricorn one ? Wasn't that a movie of fake astronauts ?
I go off what I observe and from my geometrical position I observe the Suns path and it doesn't seem to travel the way science says it travels .
Quite clearly the Sun's path is from the East and travels across the middle east . The middle east being the most arid land . You can observe the path using a google searched world map , noticing the arid land path of the Sun .
Post by: Colin2B on 29/02/2020 15:33:21
Quote from: OP
More false information.Every reader on every science forum knows calling the poster a troll is sciences first line of defense ! ???
So you are just trolling you can't really be this uniformed.
If you look at our New Theories section you will see that we rarely brand anyone a troll, in fact we have a reputation for being very tolerant of new ideas.
Most of our New Theorists have a single, original hypothesis which they are putting up for consideration. That idea may be subject to scrutiny, but they will not be branded troll.
The OP in this thread does not have a single original hypothesis, but has copied from many pseudoscience and conspiracy sites often without understanding what is being copied, and it is very unlikely that s/he believes them. That is trolling or serious mental illness.
Quote from: OP
Capricorn one ? Wasn't that a movie of fake astronauts ?Fiction, a story, a myth. You need to be able to distinguish between fiction and reality, something you are poor at doing.
Quote from: OP
You can observe the path using a google searched world map , noticing the arid land path of the Sun .Why are you using a googled map? Do you believe it to be accurate? I thought you said world maps had been falsified, so why do you believe this one?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 15:49:56
You can observe the path using a google searched world map , noticing the arid land path of the Sun .Do you mean the equator?
That's pretty much what you expect from a spherical Earth, the equator is generally hotter than the rest- though there are other factors like altitude.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 15:51:00
Capricorn one ? Wasn't that a movie of fake astronauts ?Yes, it's just a story.
So what?
Why did you bring it up?
Post by: Paul25 on 21/03/2020 10:19:20
Post by: Malamute Lover on 10/07/2020 01:37:57
I know general relativity and special relativity , it is not a murderous subject to learn !
In that case you should be able to offer an informed opinion on whether or not the relativistic interval represents a physical quantity. And support your opinion.
BTW where did you study non-linear tensor analysis and which textbook did you use?
PS The centrifugal acceleration at the equator is about .003g the angular velocity being a mere.0007 rpm (1/1440)