Flat Earth

[Przemax]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

This is garbage the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere, that's what moves the rocket.

This is garbage. The inertia of the exploding fuel pushes the rocket forward. Atmosphere gets in the way and slows things down.

I need to further investigate the subject honestly. A first thought is that you cant make any pressure to press against in a vacuum. Pressure is pressing against something. In the gun thought experiment you press the shooter against the bullet in opposite directions. I must admitt Im puzzled by this and need to think this through.

If theoreticly we would shoot the bullets or some other heavy mass by microexplosions, maybe it would be possible to accelarate in the vacuum a little bit. But then the mass of the bullets would be so huge that it would defeat the purpose in the first place. There is a change im missing something here.

[nomad13666]

I bet you're so technically inept you can't even tie your own shoelaces.

I bet you're so dim, you believe the earth is flat.

Oh wait...

I bet you're so dim, you believe your fudge tunnel is a mangina.

Oh wait...

[nomad13666]

[notbatman]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

This is garbage the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere, that's what moves the rocket.

This is garbage. The inertia of the exploding fuel pushes the rocket forward. Atmosphere gets in the way and slows things down.

You believe garbage, that or you're a piece of shit liar. Either way you stink!

[Deep In The Mines LLC]

If Earth was flat, we'd be hearing about people dropping into unlimited space, oh right and there probably would be some pictures of that too, plus there's a good chance all of the water in earth would've "leaked" out and dropped into the unlimited space.

Also rip oxygen we'd all be dying of lack of air.

[nomad13666]

[notbatman]

If Earth was flat, we'd be hearing about people dropping into unlimited space, oh right and there probably would be some pictures of that too, plus there's a good chance all of the water in earth would've "leaked" out and dropped into the unlimited space.

Also rip oxygen we'd all be dying of lack of air.

I see you have NOT been following along, outer space as presented by NASA and the various "global" space agencies is a hoax and a lie. We've got a dome above our heads and beyond it is water.

[BADecker]

If Earth was flat, we'd be hearing about people dropping into unlimited space, oh right and there probably would be some pictures of that too, plus there's a good chance all of the water in earth would've "leaked" out and dropped into the unlimited space.

Also rip oxygen we'd all be dying of lack of air.

I see you have NOT been following along, outer space as presented by NASA and the various "global" space agencies is a hoax and a lie. We've got a dome above our heads and beyond it is water.

Flat earth as presented by flat earth people is a bigger lie.   

[BADecker]

Nice one lol  

Good ol' Shitfly-bait BADecker.

At least he's fun to point to and laugh at.

Kinda like this goofball.

100,000 Nomad planets per star would not be that helpful for interstellar colonization

Our galaxy may be awash in homeless planets, wandering through space instead of orbiting a star. There may be 100,000 times more "nomad planets" in the Milky Way than stars, according to a new study by researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), a joint institute of Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

If the planets were evenly distributed over a cubic light year then there would be one Pluto or larger size planet every 2200 astronomical units or one for every cubic two light week volume.

This situation would not be like islands in the Pacific Ocean for Polynesian colonization. The reason is that there is almost no friction in space. If we have a colonization ship that gets up to 5 to 20% of the speed of light, then it would make no sense to spend fuel to slow down at a nomad planet and then use the same amount of fuel to speed up again. Other consumable supplies should be carried onboard and recycled as efficiently as possible.


Read more - click the link.

[Nomad planets.    ]

[notbatman]

Nice one lol  

Good ol' Shitfly-bait BADecker.

At least he's fun to point to and laugh at.

Kinda like this goofball.

100,000 Nomad planets per star would not be that helpful for interstellar colonization

Our galaxy may be awash in homeless planets, wandering through space instead of orbiting a star. There may be 100,000 times more "nomad planets" in the Milky Way than stars, according to a new study by researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), a joint institute of Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

If the planets were evenly distributed over a cubic light year then there would be one Pluto or larger size planet every 2200 astronomical units or one for every cubic two light week volume.

This situation would not be like islands in the Pacific Ocean for Polynesian colonization. The reason is that there is almost no friction in space. If we have a colonization ship that gets up to 5 to 20% of the speed of light, then it would make no sense to spend fuel to slow down at a nomad planet and then use the same amount of fuel to speed up again. Other consumable supplies should be carried onboard and recycled as efficiently as possible.


Read more - click the link.

[Nomad planets.    ]

You're gonna need one of these with the giant pile of garbage you keep pushing.

[nomad13666]

Nice one lol  

Good ol' Shitfly-bait BADecker.

At least he's fun to point to and laugh at.

Kinda like this goofball.

100,000 Nomad planets per star would not be that helpful for interstellar colonization

Our galaxy may be awash in homeless planets, wandering through space instead of orbiting a star. There may be 100,000 times more "nomad planets" in the Milky Way than stars, according to a new study by researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), a joint institute of Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

If the planets were evenly distributed over a cubic light year then there would be one Pluto or larger size planet every 2200 astronomical units or one for every cubic two light week volume.

This situation would not be like islands in the Pacific Ocean for Polynesian colonization. The reason is that there is almost no friction in space. If we have a colonization ship that gets up to 5 to 20% of the speed of light, then it would make no sense to spend fuel to slow down at a nomad planet and then use the same amount of fuel to speed up again. Other consumable supplies should be carried onboard and recycled as efficiently as possible.


Read more - click the link.

[Nomad planets.    ]

[Przemax]

Instead of throwing shit and insults at eachother. Why not make some science? Like this video explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBYADIjWYbc

Quote from: notbatman on February 01, 2017, 04:17:06 PM
I bet you're so technically inept you can't even tie your own shoelaces.

I bet you're so dim, you believe the earth is flat.

Oh wait...

Notbatman is far superior than you technicaly so by making him look stupid you make yourself look even more stupid.

And yes he is right that you need to have an atmosphere to push against for a rocket to make thrust movement. I was considering the other option and I found it utterly stupid to lift yourself by the belt. And thats what basicly the science says when they claim you can accelerate rockets in the vacuum. To have a force (and in the case of a rocket its a bounce aka elasticity force) that newton described in his third law of motion you need two masses one thrown against another. In case of a bullet its a force created by explosions, making a gas particles rapidly move hitting both the shooter and the bullet very very fast. The force created that way is created by a pressure wave. The wave is measured by the hertz. Those are measurement of occurance of a particles hitting both masses in a unit of time.

When you create an explosion in the vacuum the particles goes into all directions evenly. Some of them bounce of up and down evenly so those are irrelevant. What is interesting to us if the force is directed towards direction of desireable acceleration. For particles to do that they would have to hit the back of the engine once and go back into space not creating a bouncing force aka pressure.

I saw this experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6158lBjGo

All I can say is that a vacuum in a tube is not a vacuum in a space. The exploded gas particles can still bounce of the perimeter of the tube. The guy doing the experiment accidently proved my and notbatman point here. The thrust pressure he created makes a bounce force a lot weaker in the vacuum. The only thing that saves the globe argument in that experiment is that the particles are bouncing of the perimeters of the glass. I would suggest making 2 more experiments with larger and even larger tube to see if the force of a thrust is weaker each time we increase the size of the tube. That would suggest that if a tube is an infinatly large, like they suggest the space is, the force of a rocket thrust is infinatly smaller getting close to zero.


What does that mean:

1. Space is not a vacuum - Thats my position. Whats the difference does it make? Huge. If space is not a vacuum all the model of official gravity is just what it is. A piece of junk.

2. Space does not exist - The position of a notbatman.

3. You are an ignorant pricks and fuck off. Go believe your voodoo magic.

4. Nasa fakes all their footages and there could be some leprehauns, dwarfs and unicorns in the space - quite hard to fake absolutely everything.

[Przemax]

Notbatman is far superior than you technicaly so by making him look stupid you make yourself look even more stupid.

Oh no. It's retarded

Thats all cool my more retarded friend


Make love not war.
Make science not shit.
Make shuttthefuck up instead of retardation.

Im just giving you a science. But a Nietzche once have said that. "How do you want to disprove something with proofs, when the mob believed something without a proof". You people are just a sheepy mob. Prove me Im wrong

[MiSKLaCH]

[please...]
Im just giving you a science. But a Nietzche once have said that. "How do you want to disprove something with proofs, when the mob believed something without a proof". You people are just a sheepy mob. Prove me Im wrong

You keep arguing with those crazy, insane, sick pile of shit (read:flat earthers) spreading bullshits about hollow earth, space that is not a vacuum, official gravity is piece of junk... 
Why should we prove that you're wrong when you do it perfectly by yourself?

You reached, and probably surpassed, FE's level of madness. You are a typical psychotic disorder case.

[Przemax]

[please...]
Im just giving you a science. But a Nietzche once have said that. "How do you want to disprove something with proofs, when the mob believed something without a proof". You people are just a sheepy mob. Prove me Im wrong

You keep arguing with those crazy, insane, sick pile of shit (read:flat earthers) spreading bullshits about hollow earth, space that is not a vacuum, official gravity is piece of junk...  
Why should we prove that you're wrong when you do it perfectly by yourself?

You reached, and probably surpassed, FE's level of madness. You are a typical psychotic disorder case.

Ill just quote myself here to answer you, because there is noone else with any argument other than - you are stupid because I say so.

3. You are an ignorant pricks and fuck off. Go believe your voodoo magic.

Have you done any experiments or have any interpretation on the facts? Do you have any knowledge of physics of the pressure? If no. Fuck off.

official gravity is piece of junk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Many people believe its a piece of junk from a various different point of view. And mind that its an official model of explanation, not that a gravity exists. Its just a matter of a definition and its implications.

[MiSKLaCH]

Ill just quote myself here to answer you, because there is noone else with any argument other than - you are stupid because I say so.

3. You are an ignorant pricks and fuck off. Go believe your voodoo magic.

Have you done any experiments or have any interpretation on the facts? Do you have any knowledge of physics of the pressure? If no. Fuck off.

Have you? Should I better trust official science or, maybe, some random weirdos on the interwebs like you? Have you got a graduation in physics? If no, fuck off!

official gravity is piece of junk...  

Many people believe its a piece of junk from a various different point of view. And mind that its an official model of explanation, not that a gravity exists. Its just a matter of a definition and its implications.

Many people like you, which pontificate about things they cannot understand... please, do yourself a favour... stop it!

[Przemax]

Ill just quote myself here to answer you, because there is noone else with any argument other than - you are stupid because I say so.

3. You are an ignorant pricks and fuck off. Go believe your voodoo magic.

Have you done any experiments or have any interpretation on the facts? Do you have any knowledge of physics of the pressure? If no. Fuck off.

Have you? Should I better trust official science or, maybe, some random weirdos on the interwebs like you? Have you got a graduation in physics? If no, fuck off!

official gravity is piece of junk...  

Many people believe its a piece of junk from a various different point of view. And mind that its an official model of explanation, not that a gravity exists. Its just a matter of a definition and its implications.

Many people like you, which pontificate about things they cannot understand... please, do yourself a favour... stop it!

By your wish added to ignore. I suggest you do the same and we would be both happy.

[TooQik]

Instead of throwing shit and insults at eachother. Why not make some science?

[...snip...]

Przemax, if you really want to get into the science of how rockets work here's a good link:

http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html

For the portion specific to how thrust is created you'll need to scroll down about half way and you'll see a section titled A Closer Look At Thrust.

[MiSKLaCH]

By your wish added to ignore. I suggest you do the same and we would be both happy.

Another one has failed and fled!

NEEEXT! 

[Przemax]

Instead of throwing shit and insults at eachother. Why not make some science?

[...snip...]

Przemax, if you really want to get into the science of how rockets work here's a good link:

http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html

For the portion specific to how thrust is created you'll need to scroll down about half way and you'll see a section titled A Closer Look At Thrust.

Ill take a look. Thanks. But what this have to do with what I had written? Where have I made a wrong assumptions? Im not saying that there cant be made any pressure inside a propulsion engine by burning up the fuel. Im just proposing the idea that its a very small amount of pressure from the engine in supposed vacuum, making it only faasible to make a spacecraft change its directions not a speed especially when the fuel is mixed with some heavy particles like some metals.

And I go as far as here to make your version of story the most feasible. I dont know why I do that. You give me some engineering principles when I tell you physical properties. Explain me how does engineeres go about the physics stuff. Its wrong to assume that everyone is a constructor of rockets. Im not. I had just better education (post soviet) than the westerners in a general science.

And I dont view vacuumless space like high density space but even the tiniest vacuumlessnes is a heavy nut to crack to physics.


Edit after reading the summary:

The analysis in this section is basically a force and momentum analysis. But to do a complete thrust analysis we would have to look at the thermal and fluid dynamics of the expansion process, as the exhaust gas travels through the rocket nozzle.

Are you a cheater or you just try to confuse me? They say they dont analyse the most important thing that im talking about..... They dont talk about how a gas moves. Shit man...... Thats the most important here. Its like saying - we will talk about the computer build without analysing its motherboard.

We assume that we assume that we assume that our assumption is assumpted and computed based on the assumptions. Great science.... Hats off. Its not a surprise that they dont like people like me just disturbing their jerking circle of assumptions creating some stupid shit like dark matter.