| Users Online Now: 2,270 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,162,735 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,625,335 | Threads Today: 444 | Posts Today: 8,077 |
| 01:17 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,270 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,162,735 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,625,335 | Threads Today: 444 | Posts Today: 8,077 |
| 01:17 PM | ||
Physics: WHAT If I Told You The Mass Into Space Is Irrelevant Since It Have NO Weight | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739  United States08/13/2014 08:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 The colors come from the other gasses. You said yourself that it isn't 100% hydrogen and helium. Gravity keeps them together. It still works weather you believe in it or not. If "gravity" holds gaseous planets together and makes them perfect spheres then why are the rings the exception to the rule? The rings are orbiting. The compositions of both Jupiter and Saturn are 99% hydrogen and helium. Scientists say the core of Saturn consist of "metallic" hydrogen. What is that? Quoting: Jesus Christ is the way Hydrogen that has been heavily compressed into a solid. First result on Google [link to en.wikipedia.org] [link to en.wikipedia.org] The surface gravity of this planet is slightly higher than earth's. Yes, and? Jupiter is next door with a similar composition but yet its gravitational force is 2.5 times that of the earth and saturn. Its mean density is twice that of Saturn. Same composition so to speak but it became an apple instead of an orange. Jupiter is bigger and more massive. In a sense, they do. All orbiting objects pass through the equatorial plane. That is how orbits work. Why is it that search engines don't work for you? How does a planet have large amounts of compressed hydrogen in a metallic state not characteristic of the element Except when highly compressed by gravity but yet the mean density is 2/3rds of water? Quoting: Jesus Christ is the way It looks like you have somebody that is heavily into theory and throwing jello at a wall hoping some of it will stick. Quoting: Jesus Christ is the way They have theories. Much of it is verified by observation, some not yet. If they have observations that point toward something else then they modify their theory to accomodate. That is how science works. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 08:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Jesus Christ is the way Here are my observations about the second largest planet in the solar system, Saturn. Its mean density is .687gm/cmcubed. That means if it could be setting in a galactic ocean then it would float. Its composition is 96% hydrogen and 3% helium. Jupiter's composition is similar. The Sun's is less at 73.46% hydrogen and 24.85% helium. Why doesn't Saturn turn into a star or Jupiter for that matter? It doesn't look like it would take much to do it. Saturn gives off twice as much radiation as it receives from the Sun. Do the polar vortices of Saturn and Jupiter indicate a pattern of planetary formation that would give credence to a hollow earth theory? How do the rings of Saturn appear to defy the randomness of gravity that all of its moons are subject to? Instead tight discs shaped rings are at the equatorial plane. Why? Even a much larger Sun with a host of orbiting bodies cannot manage to pull that off and line everything up like a thin record disc. Also tell me how those gases just manage to stay together when clearly helium and hydrogen are pushed up and away on this Earth, so what's keeping them from being pushed away on your Jupiter and saturn so called planets of gas? You really need to have a serious think on what you are being fed and I say that respectfully. The colors come from the other gasses. You said yourself that it isn't 100% hydrogen and helium. Gravity keeps them together. It still works weather you believe in it or not. What makes you think that's a valid comparison? What makes you think the other gasses are dilluted? As for gravity keeping the gases together, tell me why the so called Earth's same gases get lost in space, as we are being told. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 It's all nonsense and totally made up scientific bullshit that simply baffles people's brains so they simply don't question it due to the fact they know nothing about it, just as scientists don't. It's a perfect way to stop anything being proved isn't it? Thank you for proving you don't understand how gravity and scientific theories work. It's like the rotating sphere of Earth bullshit. Any rational person should know that the Earth is no spinning frigging ball. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Except for the fact that long range artillery has to adjust for the Earth's rotation, Foucault pendulums and gyrocompasses wouldn't work correctly without the rotation of the Earth, and rockets get a boost when launching East instead of West. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 08:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Kezar Stanyan basic uni-directional thruster-- you obtain combustion (force) by igniting oxygen (B.Y.O.O2) with fuel (unless its solid fuel) from your thruster that allows emission in a single direction, which ejects mass in one direction, and forces your ship to go in the opposite direction (less resistance) Of course, if you try the same trick close enough to the sun, the mass of the sun and it's resulting gravitational pull is enough to counter the thrust force, hence....you needed to build a bigger engine or stay away from the sun in the first place. EDIT: My apologies...I think you were responding to somebody else rather than asking the question. Anyway... Sorry about that. I'm dense sometimes.  It's all hogwash. Igniting it releases more kinetic energy than just releasing it. Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 08:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6731080 so gravity is just air pressure? Then everything in a vacuum chamber is weightless? Something tells me you've never tested your bullshit hypothesis. The only time you can be measured in terms of your mass, is by atmospheric pressure pushing against that mass whilst that mass pushes back. Put a scale there and you gain a man made measurement of your mass, called a weight measurement. No atmospheric pressure, no weight measurement. A vacuum chamber on Earth can only evacuate most NOT ALL of the atmosphere inside the chamber and yes I've done tests to prove I'm correct. I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. All that and you STILL don't realize that air pressure is dependent on surface area and surface air ALONE. If that was all that gravity was then density would mean nothing. And you ignored the torsion balances. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 58351648 United States08/13/2014 08:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. No mass, no nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Gravity is a made up load of codswallop. Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. I'd explain further but it requires real thinking and out of the box thoughts to mainstream science. I disagree, the Moon pulls on the Oceans. Rocks are tugged by planets with no atmosphere. In fact, a planet with no atmosphere still has a gravitational pull. Seriously, do you honestly believe that what you see in the sky is a big floating ball of rock? Come on, use your mind. Space as we are told, does not exist. If we can not say what Space truly is, then we surely can not say what it isn't! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036  United Kingdom08/13/2014 10:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 If that was the case, why even ignite anything? What's the point of igniting a fuel to move in space? It's all hogwash. Igniting it releases more kinetic energy than just releasing it. Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 10:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You can't have weight without having a man made measuring scale. The only time you can be measured in terms of your mass, is by atmospheric pressure pushing against that mass whilst that mass pushes back. Put a scale there and you gain a man made measurement of your mass, called a weight measurement. No atmospheric pressure, no weight measurement. A vacuum chamber on Earth can only evacuate most NOT ALL of the atmosphere inside the chamber and yes I've done tests to prove I'm correct. I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. All that and you STILL don't realize that air pressure is dependent on surface area and surface air ALONE. If that was all that gravity was then density would mean nothing. And you ignored the torsion balances. You do not walk or do anything unless you are using energy for action to cause an eqaul and opposite reaction to that action. It applies to anything. Give me any Earthly scenario and I'll tell you what's happening and why it's atmospheric pressure. For all those watching, keep an open mind and think seriously about what I'm saying. I will not use scientific mumbo jumbo to explain, just simple layman's terms for easey grasp, hopefully. It requires people to think. Anyone who decides to come in with smart arse remarks will be bypassed, so take heed. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 10:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A true vacuum is the absence of all matter. No mass, no nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Gravity is a made up load of codswallop. Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. I'd explain further but it requires real thinking and out of the box thoughts to mainstream science. I disagree, the Moon pulls on the Oceans. Rocks are tugged by planets with no atmosphere. In fact, a planet with no atmosphere still has a gravitational pull. Seriously, do you honestly believe that what you see in the sky is a big floating ball of rock? Come on, use your mind. Space as we are told, does not exist. If we can not say what Space truly is, then we surely can not say what it isn't! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 10:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 Igniting it releases more kinetic energy than just releasing it. Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 10:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. All that and you STILL don't realize that air pressure is dependent on surface area and surface air ALONE. If that was all that gravity was then density would mean nothing. And you ignored the torsion balances. You ignored them because they work in a direction different than gravity towards Earth. You can't explain that with your air pressure BS. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 11:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Explain in a supposed near vacuum? Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 The same surface area means nothing. It's about the density of any object exerting a force against a force over it's area. For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. All that and you STILL don't realize that air pressure is dependent on surface area and surface air ALONE. If that was all that gravity was then density would mean nothing. And you ignored the torsion balances. You ignored them because they work in a direction different than gravity towards Earth. You can't explain that with your air pressure BS. They can't explain it, because it does not exist and if they gave the real explanation of what it really is, then space is busted and so is a lot of the scientific bullshit bandied about. |
Old Spice
 User ID: 43929453 United States08/13/2014 11:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I believe OP thinks that when an object is weightless in space, it has no resistance to be put in motion. Not so. To move an object in space, you are pushing against the gyroscopic action of all the spinning electrons in the object. Last Edited by Old Spice on 08/13/2014 04:05 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 36237240  Denmark08/13/2014 11:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61126672  South Africa08/13/2014 11:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I guess physics in Italy is in deep crisis... MASS and WEIGHT are two different things. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 11:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I ignored them because everything requires atmospheric pressure to work, it's as simple as that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You ignored them because they work in a direction different than gravity towards Earth. You can't explain that with your air pressure BS. They can't explain it, because it does not exist and if they gave the real explanation of what it really is, then space is busted and so is a lot of the scientific bullshit bandied about. You've been given the scenario. YOU have avoided explaining the torsion balance. YOU can't see that air pressure would make anything with the same surface area have the same weight if that was all gravity was. YOU haven't proven that objects in a vaccum chamber weigh less. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 11:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 23583307 United States08/13/2014 11:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| AgnosticDeity
User ID: 24985811 United States08/13/2014 11:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That and gravity is omni-present. Distance reduces gravity but it never disappears. Like cutting something in half, it keeps getting smaller but never disappears. Quoting: --Voltaic-- In space, an object is pulled from all sides equally. Energy in motion is entropic, spreads from dense to thin. IE, heat, explosions, sound, light, etc Energy at rest is anti-entropic, spreads from thin to dense. Magnets, mass, gravity, surface tension, etc. As usual, you have posted something, a piece, if you will, that I was needing... The way you put things so simply is beautiful. Btw, OP, when we gonna talk about what exactly a photon breaks down into? I just read some new material and I'm excited :) Not sure but I do believe all electromagnetic radiation has a mass counter part. As in, Iron has a specific EM frequency and visa-versa. When the photon can not escape the Sun's pull anymore, it condenses at the edge of the solar system. I suspect the frequency is isolated into a stable sphere. EM must have properties of mass, it has weight. Anything with weight WILL slow down. Can be found in any state. Think about the 5th state of matter (my own discovery). In math, we need a zero to finally be able to calculate and understand math. W/o a zero, formulas become impossible. Same with mass. An empty box, a vacuum inside it. That absence is the 5th state of matter. Plasma Gas Liquid Solid Absence Now we have the zero. Liquid + Absence = Gas It goes further Plasma of the positive kind (no electrons) Solid Liquid Gas Zero anti-gas anti-liquid anti-solid Plasma of the negative kind (no proton or neutron) Liquid + anti-liquid = Zero Solid + anti-gas = Gas state Energy is released. Electricity is bipolar. Two energies meet in the circuit to produce heat ( a by product of cancellation of opposites) I suspect the Sun is a similar device for mass and energy. Umm actually the 5th state of matter is Bose-Einstein condensate. A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near to absolute zero (0 K, −273.15 °C, or −459 °F ). Under such supercooled conditions, a large fraction of the atoms collapse into the lowest quantum state of the external potential, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. I know what I'm talking about. I've done experiments. I think you're just googling like crazy to come up with some kind of answer. Typical sheep, can't think for yourself. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61432111 United Kingdom08/13/2014 11:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28993739 The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. I know what I'm talking about. I've done experiments. I think you're just googling like crazy to come up with some kind of answer. Typical sheep, can't think for yourself.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28993739 United States08/13/2014 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28993739 The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. I know what I'm talking about. I've done experiments. I think you're just googling like crazy to come up with some kind of answer. Typical sheep, can't think for yourself. So in other words, you can't explain STEREO. You can't explain how there are satellites out there that are far enough away from Earth that they can see the opposite side of the Sun and HAS seen sunspots on the Sun BEFORE they were visible from Earth. IF you have done experiments showing decreased weight of objects in a vacuum chamber, then prove it. Show a video. Put up or shut up. I'm betting you won't. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 12:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. I pity the intelect that spawned this crap. Equalizing gas....hahahahahaha The gas is ignited Einstein, causing an EXPLOSIVE FORCE. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 12:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You cannot combust anything without it having an exhaust. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. I pity the intelect that spawned this crap. Equalizing gas....hahahahahaha The gas is ignited Einstein, causing an EXPLOSIVE FORCE. "Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here." ....... OMFG you're kidding right. Nobody can be so dumbarse stupid as this? Or are you perhaps a youngster? Have you heard of an ignition chamber? Jeez I can feel my IQ evaporating just reading your crap. I hope to gawd you're a kid, because to think that there are adults with as little common sense as yourself, is very, very fucking scary. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 12:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. I know what I'm talking about. I've done experiments. I think you're just googling like crazy to come up with some kind of answer. Typical sheep, can't think for yourself. So in other words, you can't explain STEREO. You can't explain how there are satellites out there that are far enough away from Earth that they can see the opposite side of the Sun and HAS seen sunspots on the Sun BEFORE they were visible from Earth. IF you have done experiments showing decreased weight of objects in a vacuum chamber, then prove it. Show a video. Put up or shut up. I'm betting you won't. He is a moron. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59277036 United Kingdom08/13/2014 12:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28993739 gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us. "In a vacuum" has to mean something that relates to the real world. It's not just a pseudo-religious mantra that somehow magically takes away whatever property is uncomfortable for your beliefs. And your misunderstandings about the pressures involved in containing the fuel and the strength needed to contain it is hilarious. If you think rocket travel is impossible outside the Earth then explain STEREO. I know what I'm talking about. I've done experiments. I think you're just googling like crazy to come up with some kind of answer. Typical sheep, can't think for yourself. So in other words, you can't explain STEREO. You can't explain how there are satellites out there that are far enough away from Earth that they can see the opposite side of the Sun and HAS seen sunspots on the Sun BEFORE they were visible from Earth. IF you have done experiments showing decreased weight of objects in a vacuum chamber, then prove it. Show a video. Put up or shut up. I'm betting you won't. He is a moron. Start using your common sense. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 12:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28993739 The combustion chamber does exhaust. That exhaust moves one way, the rocket moves the other. Total momentum is conserved. Mass times velocity of the exhaust equals mass times velocity of the rocket. In a near vacuum you would have FREE expansion, meaning the gas ejected would be gone immediately into your space because there is no friction to stop it doing that, meaning it cannot equally exert any friction the opposite way to do any work at all, so your rocket goes nowhere. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go and get an old glass thermos flask. Take out the thermos inside of the holder and break off the plastic cap protecting the welded glass nobule at the bottom of the flask. Ok, so imagine that flask is your space vacuum and the atmosphere around you is your rocket propellant under pressure. Just tap the end of the nobule off with a knife and see how fast your flask equalises the pressure. It's equalised before you've stopped moving the knife. Now this is just a vacuum flask. Imagine this flask being your entire space as we are told is a vacuum. Now reverse the procedure and now your rocket is full of pressurised gas and your flask in space. Now open up the valve to combust your gas. Immediately it would empty in a fraction of a second to try and equalise with the vacuum. the problem is, it can't no matter how fast it tries, because this flask cannot be filled by a piddly rocket. Now there's your scenario in fantasy world. In reality, any rocket going anywhere near a vacuum would be expanded and basically torn apart and send back down to Earth, because the air and fuel inside of it would expand to always try to equalise the pressure it's in and the only way your rocket would survive this, is if the gases and air are inside a super strong cylinder, not unlike the big heavy oxy type cylinders you see that welders and burners use, except it would have to be mammoth, weighing.....welll, do I really need to go there? Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here. I pity the intelect that spawned this crap. Equalizing gas....hahahahahaha The gas is ignited Einstein, causing an EXPLOSIVE FORCE. "Aluminium rocket casings? come on, people need to use their heads here." ....... OMFG you're kidding right. Nobody can be so dumbarse stupid as this? Or are you perhaps a youngster? Have you heard of an ignition chamber? Jeez I can feel my IQ evaporating just reading your crap. I hope to gawd you're a kid, because to think that there are adults with as little common sense as yourself, is very, very fucking scary. Science I have an experiment for you. Go to space. Place a handgrande next to your head. When it goes off, check whether your head moved. You suffer from Dunning/Kruger. You are beyond help. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 01:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I ignored them because everything requires atmospheric pressure to work, it's as simple as that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59277036 You ignored them because they work in a direction different than gravity towards Earth. You can't explain that with your air pressure BS. They can't explain it, because it does not exist and if they gave the real explanation of what it really is, then space is busted and so is a lot of the scientific bullshit bandied about. LOL so gravity does not exist, because science can't explain it. hahahahahahahaha Dude the force of gravity is observable. Just jump of a building to check. Therefore it exists. Whether we understand it, has got nothing to do with the fact that it exists. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61587699 South Africa08/13/2014 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6731080 so gravity is just air pressure? Then everything in a vacuum chamber is weightless? Something tells me you've never tested your bullshit hypothesis. The only time you can be measured in terms of your mass, is by atmospheric pressure pushing against that mass whilst that mass pushes back. Put a scale there and you gain a man made measurement of your mass, called a weight measurement. No atmospheric pressure, no weight measurement. A vacuum chamber on Earth can only evacuate most NOT ALL of the atmosphere inside the chamber and yes I've done tests to prove I'm correct. I doubt you've done tests to show that weight decreases in a vacuum chamber. If gravity was just air pressure than anything with the same surface area would weigh the same. Density would mean nothing. If gravity was just air pressure then a torsion balance would not work at all [link to scienceblogs.com] [link to www.britannica.com] [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] For instance...if you place a sponge on scales and an equal sized gold bar, the atmospheric pressure pushing down onto both against the push back is remarkably different, for obviously reasons. The sponge is already porous so most of that sponge is actually equalised with the atmospheric pressure so it's push back is extremely minimal. To find out how minimal the atmospher is acting on it, squash it as tight as you can into as dense a form as you can. What you will notice is that sponge is now the size of a pea or smaller, depending on how compressed you can mechanically squash it, so all you have acting on it, is what atmospheric pressure is acting on that pea sized area....not much, meaning it will not register much measurement. A gold bar is entirely different because it's super dense already and trying to squeeze it's area down much less would take super mechanical pressure. Basically it's area repels the atmospheric pressure as is, meaning a lot of psi on teh area, making the gold bar as dense and heavy as we feel it. You take away atmospheric pressure and you take away your ability to measure any object. Just remember that man made scales are made under atmospheric conditions too, so they already have the atmospheric psi working on them, like everything else. Gravity doesn't exist..it's all to do with atmospheric pressure, no matter what youc an come up with, as long as the lie of space isn't used. Aw fauck I just peed myself. hahahahaha Atmospheric pressure is dependent on hight above sea level. For instance at sea level the atmospheric pressure is the same everywhere, as long as it is at sea level. The sponge and the gold bar will have exactly the same atmospheric pressure exerted on it, as long as they are together. ........ You never finsihed school hey? Or if you did, you only took subjects like knitting and typing. Can I guess your race? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 58351648 United States08/13/2014 01:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47938245 Igniting it releases more kinetic energy than just releasing it. Let's go by the space people's idea of space. It's a vacuum, we are told. Heat cannot expand anything in a vacuum, so where's this more kinetic energy? It might as well be a water jet. I mean, the point is irrelevant because ntihing would work in a near vacuum anyway. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. Let me put something simpler to you, see if you can explain. Let's assume as we are told that the rocket exhaust is not the reason for work done and it's all to do with this combustion chamber inside the rocket. Ok, so we close the exhaust nozzle off and hypothetically assume that the exhaust just vanishes upon combution of the chamber. Ok, so tell me how a rocket is propelled by combusting gases inside of itself, to repel itself one way? Remember one thing. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in your combustion chamber, you expand gases equally in all directions, so tell me how the rocket moves. Imagine this...... If Earth were able to suddenly expand in all directions larger then the orbit of the Moon....the Moon would be pushed one direction. The Earth would be pushed the other from the resistance of acceleration of the Moon. This all happens in the vacuum of space. Now, each particle of fuel expanding during combustion is "the Earth" in that scenario. As billions of tiny fuel particles expand, along with other gases expanding from heat, a net force is created. Does this help you understand it better? |
