Jump to content
Blackout

Steph Curry says moon landing is a hoax

Recommended Posts

Hmm. Days later and all I see are direct and indirect comments at Villain, but what I can't seem to find are any takers explaining how rockets are able to work in the endless vacuum of space in order to get to the moon in the first place. Seems like folks would rather just skip right to the reflectors, as if rockets with no thrust capability in a vacuum isnt a clear problem. 👍

 

#CoolStoryBro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Hmm. Days later and all I see are direct and indirect comments at Villain, but what I can't seem to find are any takers explaining how rockets are able to work in the endless vacuum of space in order to get to the moon in the first place. Seems like folks would rather just skip right to the reflectors, as if rockets with no thrust capability in a vacuum isnt a clear problem. 👍

 

#CoolStoryBro

Nobody is under any obligation to indulge the conceit that you are clever or to entertain alternative facts mislabeled as opinions. I know that making substantive debate impossible and then bitching when nobody will engage you in substantive debate is the unassailable prerogative of the half-bright snowflake, but you are not entitled to anybody's attention and frankly can get ****ed. You want this to be another thread about you? This is what that looks like.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 2:22 AM, Villain The Foe said:

So lets see what these words mean then. 

Definition of "Belief": A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Definition of "Opinion": An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

When you look for synonyms for "Belief" one of the words you will come across is...."Opinion"

Well, what's the definition of "Synonym"?: A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example "opinion is a synonym of belief".

But in order to pacify you, lets run with your narrative that my thoughts are stupid and that they're just my beliefs and not at all opinions...as if there's vast difference between the two.

Lets force that narrative to make sense, even though we both know that words mean things.  

I dont participate in the "woke" or other frivolous hashtag movements. Generally in society today, smart folks who've earned degrees generally learned only the ways of Einstein & Darwin and their pseudoscience. I looked into other places and found a different type of science with actual observable experiments to back them up, kinda like Tesla's work and his understanding of vibration, waves, frequency of waves and certain types of energy waves like electromagnetism, which when you review it, it then makes perfect sense how God can "speak" things and "it was so", or how the craters (which all happen to be damn near perfectly circular) developed on the Moon. So I absolutely agree, folks do have limitations on their understanding of the natural world. Many don't have a clue to be honest, its just that many people simply dont know what they dont know, and the things that they may find out they ignore in an effort not to feel uncomfortable in society. I can empathise with that...to a degree. 

And as for Russia, when Tzar Nicholas II and his family were assassinated by mercenaries under the false cover, or outer shell, named Bolshevik Marxism back in 1918, the controllers and agenda of Russia changed up unto this day. And that can be said for damn near every country today. Anyway, what should have happened was the monarchy was supposed to find the next emperor within that bloodline (Which follows the male), and Since Nicholas II children were also murdered and his father Alexander III only had one son (Nicholas II), you would have to go back to Nicholas II Grandfather, Alexander II to find the next male line which was Grand Duke Cyril Valdmirovich...who was named "Emperor in exile". His son Grand Duke Vlad Kirillovich became the head of the house of Romanov. And his daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the head of the house today and could lay claim as actually being the Empress of Russia today if the monarchy was ever restored. However, if they require a male emperor (as tradition would have it) then you would have to go even further back to Nicolas II's Great Grand Father, Nicolas I and then follow the lineage through Nicolas I's son, Grand Duke Michael Nikolaevich. You'd end up today with Prince Andrew Andreyevich, President of the Romanov family. 

But that's a story not to be told in any further detail on Jetnation though, given that it touches on the political arena which isnt allowed on the site. Point being, what you "think" Russia would or wouldn't do is only based on what you've learned from your television. Some things you have to just look into for yourself...or just continue to assume that Villain is taking this "#woke" nonsense too far lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/5/2019 at 9:48 AM, Villain The Foe said:

This is a poor angle to take. Here's why. If it was simply that easy to "google" that info, then why are you presenting info that could be refuted so easily? You're more interested in attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message. The bottomline is this, it doesnt matter where I found the information, for as long as the info is verifiably true. Yet you'd rather attempt to hurt my feelings instead. 

Have you verifiably proven that there's a retroreflector on the moon placed there by astronauts?  No. 

When Lasers are allegedly shot at the moon and are "bounced back" with those lasers, are those pulses stated to be "invisible to the naked eye"? Yes. 

In otherwords, this goes into the "opinion's" category. You believe something that can't be proven independently. And I disagree with that opinion, yet can use science to support my position. Here's that science. 

We live within atmosphere, it's all around us. Rockets can push off of that atmosphere which is the resistance that allows Rockets to propel upwards into the sky by establishing thrust. Here's the problem. Space is a "vacuum", in otherwords there is no atmosphere to push against. Rockets require atmosphere and oxygen to work, space has neither. If there is no atmosphere to push off of, where the hell is the thrust coming from? Furthermore, if they were simply able to use the energy created from pushing off while in earth's atmosphere, how were they able to stop or navigate once outside of earths atmosphere? 

How about you take the time to figure that out, and get back to me. Oh, and if you decide to go the "Newton's 3rd law route" I'll make sure to quickly destroy it. So please, show how my position of rockets is faulty. And if you cant do that, then how about trying not to attack me, the person. 

 

Furthermore, what I do possess is the knowledge that you, BroadwayJoe12, cannot prove that there is a reflector on the moon or that anyone has ever stepped foot on it because you cant even prove that rockets can establish thrust in the supposed "endless vacuum of space". 

Fact: Information used as evidence to support an idea or opinion.

Facts are not necessarily truths. Here's an example. Plenty of folks believe that Jesus Birthday is on December 25. It's a fact because society believes it. However, the truth is, the Bible never once mentions Jesus birthday. Not once, yet folks believe it. 

 

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific experiments have not only proven that in an adequate sized vacuum there is nothing for a rocket to push against, but because it's a vacuum, that also means that there's no oxygen in order to maintain the combustion process which is what is use to push against the atmosphere that isnt in a vacuum, unless oxygen and nitrogen are also held on board in order to mix for combustion. But even if so, how can thrust be established in such an endless massive vacuum???

 

I answered you. Now watch you respond by attacking my character again. 

timecubeflierimg.gif

  • Post of the Week 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Nobody is under any obligation to indulge the conceit that you are clever or to entertain alternative facts mislabeled as opinions. I know that making substantive debate impossible and then bitching when nobody will engage you in substantive debate is the unassailable prerogative of the half-bright snowflake, but you are not entitled to anybody's attention and frankly can get ****ed. You want this to be another thread about you? This is what that looks like.

Tl;dr. You dont even know what words mean. 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

 

timecubeflierimg.gif

My face after reading this and thinking I knew the answer. 

adam-gase-crazy-eyes-jets-meme.jpg?quali

Only to find out that this is much deeper than I could have ever imagined

Adam-Gase.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 2:18 PM, Villain The Foe said:

Hmm. Days later and all I see are direct and indirect comments at Villain, but what I can't seem to find are any takers explaining how rockets are able to work in the endless vacuum of space in order to get to the moon in the first place. Seems like folks would rather just skip right to the reflectors, as if rockets with no thrust capability in a vacuum isnt a clear problem. 👍

 

#CoolStoryBro

Simply asking this question let’s me know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just because you don’t understand the difference between your standard jet engines and rocket engines that utilize oxidizers concomittantly with their fuel doesn’t make it false. Your lack of knowledge doesn’t make it black magic. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 7:21 PM, BroadwayJoe12 said:

Simply asking this question let’s me know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just because you don’t understand the difference between your standard jet engines and rocket engines that utilize oxidizers concomittantly with their fuel doesn’t make it false. Your lack of knowledge doesn’t make it black magic. 

 

 

Then please, explain it. Im all ears and I have no problem skipping all the theatrics and getting right to the explanation.

I've waited a month for you to explain how rockets work in the endless vacuum of space. Im still waiting. 

You say I lack knowledge and I dont know what im talking about....well, im here to call your bluff. 

School me. Provide that knowledge via an explanation, given that the onus is on the one with the knowledge, right? 

 

I'll continue to wait, while you to finish tap dancing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Then please, explain it. Im all ears and I have no problem skipping all the theatrics and getting right to the explanation.

I've waited a month for you to explain how rockets work in the endless vacuum of space. Im still waiting. 

You say I lack knowledge and I dont know what im talking about....well, im here to call your bluff. 

School me. Provide that knowledge via an explanation, given that the onus is on the one with the knowledge, right? 

 

I'll continue to wait, while you to finish tap dancing. 

I already did, and it only took one sentence. It's not my fault that you cannot grasp the concept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

I already did, and it only took one sentence. It's not my fault that you cannot grasp the concept. 

Then take this "L" with you on the way out and please dont quote me on this again unless you're providing an actual explanation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Then take this "L" with you on the way out and please dont quote me on this again unless you're providing an actual explanation. 

 

Jet fuel /= rocket fuel. Rockets, unlike the internal combustion engines you are probably familiar with, do not require the oxygen content of our atmosphere for their combustion process. e.g the giant ass tanks of hyper chilled / compressed liquid oxygen and hydrogen that you see attached to any and all rocket ships. This is pretty basic engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

Jet fuel /= rocket fuel. Rockets, unlike the internal combustion engines you are probably familiar with, do not require the oxygen content of our atmosphere for their combustion process. e.g the giant ass tanks of hyper chilled / compressed liquid oxygen and hydrogen that you see attached to any and all rocket ships. This is pretty basic engineering.

What I wrote in Feb 5th.

On 2/5/2019 at 4:48 PM, Villain The Foe said:

 

Scientific experiments have not only proven that in an adequate sized vacuum there is nothing for a rocket to push against, but because it's a vacuum, that also means that there's no oxygen in order to maintain the combustion process which is what is use to push against the atmosphere that isnt in a vacuum, unless oxygen and nitrogen are also held on board in order to mix for combustion. But even if so, how can thrust be established in such an endless massive vacuum???

The question wasnt about oxygen mixtures but about establishing thrust in an endless vacuum. Lol

You literally sat here and claimed how I lack knowledge yet what you just wrote not only didnt address the question that ive asked multiple times, but your response, which is what you claim I had no understanding of, I wrote in a quote over a month ago. 

Im good bro lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

What I wrote in Feb 5th.

The question wasnt about oxygen mixtures but about establishing thrust in an endless vacuum. Lol

You literally sat here and claimed how I lack knowledge yet what you just wrote not only didnt address the question that ive asked multiple times, but your response, which is what you claim I had no understanding of, I wrote in a quote over a month ago. 

Im good bro lol

Thrust. Mass flow. Newton’s third law. Just because you refuse to believe it, doesn’t make it untrue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

Thrust. Mass flow. Newton’s third law. Just because you refuse to believe it, doesn’t make it untrue. 

Didnt I tell you on Feb 5th what I'd do if you used Newton's third law?

On 2/5/2019 at 4:48 PM, Villain The Foe said:

Oh, and if you decide to go the "Newton's 3rd law route" I'll make sure to quickly destroy it. So please, show how my position of rockets is faulty. And if you cant do that, then how about trying not to attack me, the person.

Now let me do that since Im a man of my word.

Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.

Pretty simple and straightforward law, correct?

Well, here's your problem. Object A for you is the rocket, but where is your object B if object A is operating in a vacuum, meaning that there IS NO exerting force of equal magnitude from an object B (like atmosphere for example) into the direction of the rocket? Thrust, mass etc. are all irrelevant if there's no object B to push against. 

In order for Newton's law to work, it requires something called "resistance". It's paramount that you have it.

Example. I have a car and obviously I can drive it from point A to point B given the resistance of the wheels by the asphalt when I press on the gas. However If I place the car on a rolling road in order to "remove the resistance", this is what I get. 

No matter how much more I provide the car with gas (or thrust), the car will not move because resistance or "reaction" has been removed from the equation. Which is exactly what the "endless vacuum of space" does.

This didnt take me a month, nor did it require me to tap dance around the question by talking about how much knowledge you lack, trying to make the convo about you through ridicule. People who do that usually dont have the answers, which is why none of the nonesense in this thread offended me and all I had to do was call your bluff by asking you to explain.

As for me, I simply explaned, then provided a real world example. Not just theories or philosophies without proof. 

Look, here's what you need in order to prove me wrong using Newton's third law. You simply need to find the "object B" of the equation, then explain it while also showing a real world example. If you can do that, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected. That would do much more in support of your position than this statement: "Just because you refuse to believe it, doesn’t make it untrue". We're not talking beliefs here. We're talking about where the heck is the resisting object B to a law that you just introduced as a solution to this problem.

Until then, let me pick up my aluminum hat and go sit back in the dunce corner while I patiently wait for any one of you guys to finally stop trying to insult Villain but instead impart some of your knowledge on the subject. 

Im simply here questioning the reality of things. All these smart people around here should have no issue providing facts, truths along with real world examples without repeating over and over again how uninformed I am, correct?

See you in April.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 12:57 PM, dbatesman said:

 

timecubeflierimg.gif

The Time Cube is my jam. My favorite part is where Ray calls for the murder of all teachers. Which, as a teacher, warms my heart. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 12:34 AM, Villain The Foe said:

Didnt I tell you on Feb 5th what I'd do if you used Newton's third law?

Now let me do that since Im a man of my word.

Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.

Pretty simple and straightforward law, correct?

Well, here's your problem. Object A for you is the rocket, but where is your object B if object A is operating in a vacuum, meaning that there IS NO exerting force of equal magnitude from an object B (like atmosphere for example) into the direction of the rocket? Thrust, mass etc. are all irrelevant if there's no object B to push against. 

In order for Newton's law to work, it requires something called "resistance". It's paramount that you have it.

Example. I have a car and obviously I can drive it from point A to point B given the resistance of the wheels by the asphalt when I press on the gas. However If I place the car on a rolling road in order to "remove the resistance", this is what I get. 

No matter how much more I provide the car with gas (or thrust), the car will not move because resistance or "reaction" has been removed from the equation. Which is exactly what the "endless vacuum of space" does.

This didnt take me a month, nor did it require me to tap dance around the question by talking about how much knowledge you lack, trying to make the convo about you through ridicule. People who do that usually dont have the answers, which is why none of the nonesense in this thread offended me and all I had to do was call your bluff by asking you to explain.

As for me, I simply explaned, then provided a real world example. Not just theories or philosophies without proof. 

Look, here's what you need in order to prove me wrong using Newton's third law. You simply need to find the "object B" of the equation, then explain it while also showing a real world example. If you can do that, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected. That would do much more in support of your position than this statement: "Just because you refuse to believe it, doesn’t make it untrue". We're not talking beliefs here. We're talking about where the heck is the resisting object B to a law that you just introduced as a solution to this problem.

Until then, let me pick up my aluminum hat and go sit back in the dunce corner while I patiently wait for any one of you guys to finally stop trying to insult Villain but instead impart some of your knowledge on the subject. 

Im simply here questioning the reality of things. All these smart people around here should have no issue providing facts, truths along with real world examples without repeating over and over again how uninformed I am, correct?

See you in April.

 

 

 

Newton's third law doesnt require an object B, it states:

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The very act of propelling something outward moves you forward in the opposite direction. (Similiar to air escaping from a balloon)  It's not terriblly efficient due to the mass of the fuel which is why they use gravity assist to pick up speed and rely on the friction less vacuum to maintain the speed. 

I like your posts though and agree that people attacking you instead of directly refuting what you are saying undermines the presentation of thier case, however it doesnt make them wrong.

Fwiw, I also dont trust the government or media at all, however I believe the collective incompetence of each entity would prevent such a large scale conspiracy from being maintained for so long if they could even pull it off 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CTM said:

Fwiw, I also dont trust the government or media at all, however I believe the collective incompetence of each entity would prevent such a large scale conspiracy from being maintained for so long if they could even pull it off 

And if there's one thing the government ever got "right", it was NASA.  While the Soviets were just trying to win the race by any means necessary, NASA put together a plan that required an enormous amount of trial and error, redundancies in their systems, and astronaut input.  They knew they needed to get it right, not just try to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CTM said:

Newton's third law doesnt require an object B, it states:

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The very act of propelling something outward moves you forward in the opposite direction. (Similiar to air escaping from a balloon)  It's not terriblly efficient due to the mass of the fuel which is why they use gravity assist to pick up speed and rely on the friction less vacuum to maintain the speed. 

I like your posts though and agree that people attacking you instead of directly refuting what you are saying undermines the presentation of thier case, however it doesnt make them wrong.

Fwiw, I also dont trust the government or media at all, however I believe the collective incompetence of each entity would prevent such a large scale conspiracy from being maintained for so long if they could even pull it off 

FIrst, let me begin by saying that I appreciate you addressing the topic based on your understanding and providing that understanding while not addressing me. 

With that said, I'll provide my rebuttal. 

Newton's third law absolutely requires an object B, and I will be quoting from #1. the Physics Classroom: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. 

And #2. Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law

"Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.

This law represents a certain symmetry in nature: forces always occur in pairs, and one body cannot exert a force on another without experiencing a force itself. We sometimes refer to this law loosely as action-reaction, where the force exerted is the action and the force experienced as a consequence is the reaction.(<<<<<<<<<This sentence here goes to your balloon comment. The air going out of the balloon has enough force to push against the air outside of it, hence moving. It's no different)

Continuing: "We can readily see Newton’s third law at work by taking a look at how people move about. Consider a swimmer pushing off from the side of a pool, as illustrated below."

image.png.b2e6c8b37a2808224318573c68f5c067.png

Essentially the example of the swimmer is in fact proving that you need resistance for Newton's third law to be relevant. 

To conclude, if a rocket is in a vacuum then there is no object B to interact with. Also, I'll even go as far as what you said here: "It's not terriblly efficient due to the mass of the fuel which is why they use gravity assist to pick up speed and rely on the friction less vacuum to maintain the speed."

The problem with this situation here is when a rocket stops and then has to start again. If a rocket used its thrust to establish a speed within our atmosphere (Thrust pushes off of the atmosphere to create the upward motion) and maintained that speed in the "friction-less" vacuum of space then two problems occur. #1. how does a rocket "stops or slows" its motion in the friction-less vacuum of space?, and #2. If for some reason it has come to a stop then how can it then use its thrust again to get back home in a friction-less vacuum? 

Remember, Newton's third law needs resistance in order to promote the direction of acceleration. If there is no resistance out in space then there is no way to stop/slow down, and if stopped there is no way to accelerate again because there is no resistance to push against in friction-less space. Forces come in pairs. Object A and Object B. Eliminating any of the forces and everything fails, which is what I showed in my car example. 

 

I appreciate you and your approach and have no problem at all listening to and continuing this conversation with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Villain The Foe

Well I guess object B for you would be the force (energy (which is matter)) of the combustion. So the force of the combustion pushes against the mass of the space craft. Remember that the energy from combustion wants to escape in every direction so its exerting force in all directions simultaneously but can only exhaust out of the one hole at the bottom. This exerts force in the opposite direction propelling it forward based on newton3

Anymore technical of an explanation I'll have to find links as this wasnt a core field of study for me (software engineer) so my knowledge is cursory at best. (And dated !)

I do promise you that you have some gaps in understanding on how all of this works, but it does indeed work, even of it's likely to be found to be a primitive means of travel in 50-100 years 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CTM said:

@Villain The Foe

Well I guess object B for you would be the force (energy (which is matter)) of the combustion. So the force of the combustion pushes against the mass of the space craft. Remember that the energy from combustion wants to escape in every direction so its exerting force in all directions simultaneously but can only exhaust out of the one hole at the bottom. This exerts force in the opposite direction propelling it forward based on newton3

Anymore technical of an explanation I'll have to find links as this wasnt a core field of study for me (software engineer) so my knowledge is cursory at best. (And dated !)

I do promise you that you have some gaps in understanding on how all of this works, but it does indeed work, even of it's likely to be found to be a primitive means of travel in 50-100 years 

The combustion in the rocket is to create thrust, which is only 1 force, not 2. Combustion is the ignition to create the force or thrust. That force is rendered useless until it seeks resistance. Newton's third law says so. Remember, combustion is used to create the thrust which is required to push against an opposing force (atmosphere). 

You need an opposing force. A rocket has never pushed against itself. You can see that with the balloon example. The air escaping a balloon has enough force to push against the air outside surrounding the ballon which causes the motion. The air inside the balloon doesnt push on itself to cause the motion. Neither do rockets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. off to google 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

The combustion in the rocket is to create thrust, which is only 1 force, not 2. Combustion is the ignition to create the force or thrust. That force is rendered useless until it seeks resistance. Newton's third law says so. Remember, combustion is used to create the thrust which is required to push against an opposing force (atmosphere). 

You need an opposing force. A rocket has never pushed against itself. You can see that with the balloon example. The air escaping a balloon has enough force to push against the air outside surrounding the ballon which causes the motion. The air inside the balloon doesnt push on itself to cause the motion. Neither do rockets. 

The force of the combustion pushes on the mass of the rocket.

Somewhat similarly the balloon doesnt want to be expanded, so the air pressure inside the balloon wants to escape. The force is the air escaping (say if you undid the knot) is what propels the balloons forward, not the air its pushing against 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 5:59 PM, CTM said:

Okay. Here's my challenge to this, and all I ask is this...that you really think about what im saying here, in simple, real world terms. 

 

This physicist said:

#1. "Many people — maybe most people — have the misconception that a rocket works by pushing on something. If you’ve ever watched a rocket launch, this seems like a reasonable assumption — it looks like the rocket is pushing against the ground. Since in space there is nothing to push against, how can a rocket work?"

Here's his problem. I dont know anyone who thinks that a rocket pushes on the ground. Why? Because once it's off the ground then what is it pushing on? 

Rockets push on the atmosphere, which is all around us. The reason why it needs to is because in order to move the weight of the rocket, you need thrust with enough force to act against the atmosphere in order to put the weight of the rocket in motion. 

#2. "Others have mentioned Newton’s third law, but the practical application is this: If you throw something away from you, you move in the opposite direction. This principle is easy to demonstrate. If you sit on a raft in a swimming pool, and throw something — say, a basketball — away from you, you and the raft will float off in the opposite direction. The basketball isn’t pushing on anything, and neither air nor gravity has anything to do with this effect."

It sounds like he's saying that Newton's 3rd law isnt at play here (Bolded above), and if so then here's his problem. This is actually Newton's third law in action. How? Easy. My motion by throwing the ball creates a force that transfers through the raft that im sitting in onto the body of water that we're floating on top of. Since water is fluid and it doesnt take much force to push against water as the resistance (or object b) then that the reaction of that action causes me and the raft to move in the direction of acceleration opposite of where I threw the basketball (Just like the girl in the swimming pool pushing away from the wall under water). However, If I tried to sit on the ground and throw a ball, guess what, im not going anywhere. Why? Because it would require much more force to cause a reaction of movement given that the ground will not give way to such a reaction like water would do, and I havent created enough pressure or force from throwing the ball and having that force transfer on the ground in order to travel away from the direction of the basketball. He's using Newton's 3rd law (body & raft's force against water) while trying to dismiss the law by concentrating on the basketball which is also under Newton's 1st and 3rd law. 

https://www.livestrong.com/article/80145-laws-motion-apply-basketball/

 

#3. "If you were floating free in interstellar space, with nothing at all near you, while holding a basketball (hopefully you have a spacesuit on), and you throw the basketball away from you, you will go zipping off in the opposite direction. Rockets work on exactly the same principle, but instead of throwing away basketballs, they throw away hot gasses. Most rockets work by mixing a fuel and an oxidizer in a combustion chamber and igniting them, and allowing the hot gasses to be expelled through a nozzle, like so:

image.png.8a31a19f11dddd38d45009933909e8ba.png

Throwing the hot gasses out through the nozzle has exactly the same effect as throwing the basketball did for you while sitting on the raft. The gasses aren’t pushing against anything — when the rocket engine expels the hot gasses backward, the rocket moves forward.

There are other types of rocket engines, but it all comes down to the same principle — through some process, they throw something out the back, and that causes them to move forward."

 

Multiple problems here. #1. He's comparing a situation of sitting on a raft in water to the vacuum of space, while disregarding the fact that the motion of the ball came from the force of me throwing it away from me, however that force generated flowed through the raft and pushed on the water which cause me and the raft to move given that we indirectly pushed against the water as well. In a friction-less vacuum that doesnt work. I can throw the ball away, sure, but there will be no transference of motion to the vacuum of space causing me to move given that I never pushed off of the ball...but the water. 

 

If that was the case, then everytime I throw a basketball I should be flying in another direction on earth, but that clearly doesnt occur. This amateur physicist is confusing what's really going on if you dont catch what he's saying. Think about it. I can throw the basketball in one experiment while in the raft, and then without the ball, do the motion of throwing the ball and watch how I will have the same reaction on the raft, proving that the motion of me and the raft has nothing to do with the basketball itself, but the force created frim my throwing motion acting on the water which is acting as a resistance.

Water was the object b to the raft and myself...which were the object A. You need an object B in space, there is no way to get around Netwon's 3rd law....if it was possible then it wouldnt be a law it would just be wrong. 

 

Great find though, It took me a few minutes to think about that one! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CTM said:

The force of the combustion pushes on the mass of the rocket.

Somewhat similarly the balloon doesnt want to be expanded, so the air pressure inside the balloon wants to escape. The force is the air escaping (say if you undid the knot) is what propels the balloons forward, not the air its pushing against 

When air exits the balloon it does so in an even manner inside of the balloon, so there is no alternative force inside the balloon causing this motion when all pressure inside is looking to escaping evenly. There is no inside pressure pushing the balloon in a direction.

To prove this, every high pressure tank would essentially start flying around given all of the pressure on the inside of it. Yet that never happens until thrust or the escaping of gases occur. 

So, if the gas pressure inside a tank is being released then it's losing pressure not gaining or establishing pressure inside to push it forward. It is the thrust coming into contact with air or atmosphere on the outside thats causing newton's 3rd law. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 2:15 PM, Villain The Foe said:

However, If I tried to sit on the ground and throw a ball, guess what, im not going anywhere. Why? Because it would require much more force to cause a reaction of movement

Yea dude, that's the math. In simple terms,  the mass you are expelling vs the mass of the object being moved + the friction. The same arguement you are holding your hat on (space is a frictionless vacuum) is what make it possible to move be newton3 with limited fuel.

I can assure you if you were sitting in a metal box on the ground and were able to expel a significant enough amount of mass ya'd move 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 9:00 PM, Blackout said:

 

What about big foot?

I’m right here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CTM said:

Yea dude, that's the math. In simple terms,  the mass you are expelling vs the mass of the object being moved + the friction. The same arguement you are holding your hat on (space is a frictionless vacuum) is what make it possible to move be newton3 with limited fuel.

We've spent a couple days talking about Newton's 3rd law, and the law states that " For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That statement means that in every interaction  ("every" CTM), there are a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects". This is a law, not a theory like relativity, not a debate, but a law. It doesnt change in order to fit a narrative. You need a pair of forces, period. You cant use a law to prove something while changing everything about the law. No matter what anyone says, Newton's law is clear. You need a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. 

I have to hang my hat on "friction-less vacuum" for 2 reasons. #1. You actually presented the "friction-less" term in your original response and I felt that it was a much more accurate description than just saying what I was saying previously "The endless vacuum of space". The 2nd reason is of course the definition of "friction": The resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another. So for the vacuum of space to be "friction-less" its yet another proof that newton's 3rd law cannot be in action in such an environment. 

Matter of fact, the physicist article you linked even says it in the very first paragraph. Quote: "Since in space there is nothing to push against, how can a rocket work?" This is arguably the only thing that the guy got right in the article given that you cannot push against something that isnt there (I will address the theory of the rocket "pushing on itself" below)

Quote

I can assure you if you were sitting in a metal box on the ground and were able to expel a significant enough amount of mass ya'd move 

This is absolutely true. Why? Because with enough force you would be able to enter a state of "friction" which will initiate the reaction. What you seem to be forgetting is the fact of something called "friction-less". Friction-less means that no matter how much force you expell, there simply isnt any thing there to establish friction with. This is how you can test cars with tremendous horse power yet they wont even move in a "friction-less" environment. The proof is staring you right in the face.

Just look with your eyes. The resistance has been removed from under the car so the car does not move. This demonstration would be no different if you removed resistance from rocket thrust. Saying that a rocket pushes on itself to set it in motion is like me saying that car wheels push on the car and not the ground to put the car in motion. No. Netwon's 3rd law can be proven in experiments such as the one above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Websites, SEO & Social Media

Mile Social
×