The Conspiracy Theory

Manc33

Veronese68 wrote:

Admit it you are too stupid to understand any of this, even though both of my kids and their hamsters would have understood by now that rockets and jets are not the same.

Jet engines and rockets work on the same principle. They produce thrust through an internal pressure difference and eject exhaust gases. The only difference between them is that jets get the oxygen to burn fuel from the air and rockets carry their own oxygen, which allows them to purportedly operate in space.

You reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIUkwPybtM&t=2m11s

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

The only difference is that rockets supposedly use their own air supply to work in space, otherwise they are the same thing as jets.

FFS, you massive halfwit - just look it up and try harder to understand the differences.

Manc33

Veronese68 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

The only difference is that rockets supposedly use their own air supply to work in space, otherwise they are the same thing as jets.

Completely, totally and utterly wrong, as with everything else you spout. But you know that because it's been written on here countless times.

Countless times by people that do no research, sure.

For example what I just "spouted" came straight from a .edu site.

Maybe you should argue the toss with them?

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-expl ... ket-engine

Thinking any differently about it now you've seen it wasn't even me that said it?

Get your act together. :P

This proves that you guys are automatically assuming anything I am saying has to be wrong for the simple fact that it is me saying it. You're altering what you believe on-the-fly depending on who it is saying it, tut tut... information is information is information - a talking centipede could be saying it, who cares, what matters is whether it is correct or not. Don't shoot the messenger.

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

For example what I just "spouted" came straight from a .edu site.

Maybe you should argue the toss with them?

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-expl ... ket-engine

Thinking any differently about it now you've seen it wasn't even me that said it?

Every aero engine works on the principle of thrust. Well done on discovering that. Try raising your sights a bit, maybe away from websites aimed at infant science classes. On the other hand, maybe you should keep reading them for a bit longer before moving on to the really tricky stuff...

Daz555

PBlakeney wrote:

But a force has to react against something.[/b]

No, it simply does not. You would have been thought this at school at the age of 13 or 14.

Manc33

Yes a force has to react against something, a rocket in space cannot be "reacting against itself" to move and with nothing to push against to move, it would thrust but remain in the same place.

It doesn't move because it can't use the surrounding environment to propel itself along anywhere like it can in an air environment.

The simple way to explain it is to say rockets and jets both use the air to push against (here on Earth) and in space it isn't possible. The rocket in space would not be usable in that it couldn't be aimed or flown anywhere, not with the propulsion systems being used currently.

Air pushing against other air = movement (on Earth).
Air pushing against nothing = still (in space).

Space offers no resistance to the thrust and thus, nothing would move. It would just be dead still floating putting out loads of hot air (a bit like my posts on here lol). Its hard to imagine that a rocket could do that, I know.

Earths atmosphere being thickest on the ground and rockets taking off vertically, means as the air thins the rocket gets less and less effective, so it has to thrust harder and harder to maintain speed the higher it goes, this partially explains to me why they have to do a big arc the higher they go (I mean aside from the fact that they aren't going up there anyway, it isn't a vacuum, gravity isn't real etc).

All thats up there is thinner and thinner air until there is no air at all, just empty space. "Gravity" exists up there in that nothing can float, however high up you go, 500 miles up nothing would float, except something of extremely low density, like maybe the sun/moon/stars/planets.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1sRePcMl8Bk

city_boy

If anyone is interested in an alternative to trying to explain basic physics to Manc33' try this...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VnlSa8I9j_4

It evokes the same feelings and emotions but is slightly more satisfying

meursault

Has anyone cut and paste this one?


In space, rockets zoom around with no air to push against. What's going on?

Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward — no air is required.

NASA says this principle is easy to observe on Earth. If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back. However, because your weight on the skateboard is heavier than that of the bowling ball, you won't move as far.

That's the challenge engineers face when designing space engines. Yes, a small amount of thrust does push the spacecraft forward, but it often takes a great deal of fuel to get going anywhere quickly. More fuel means more weight, which adds to the cost of a mission.

To save on money when shooting for far-away planets such as Jupiter, some spacecraft whip around a planet (say, Venus) and use its gravity to get a speed boost. This shortens the time it takes to get to other destinations.

http://www.livescience.com/34475-how-do-space-rockets-work-without-air.html

Daz555

Manc33 wrote:

The simple way to explain it is to say rockets and jets both use the air to push against (here on Earth) and in space it isn't possible. The rocket in space would not be usable in that it couldn't be aimed or flown anywhere, not with the propulsion systems being used currently.

Air pushing against other air = movement (on Earth).
Air pushing against nothing = still (in space).

Space offers no resistance to the thrust and thus, nothing would move. It would just be dead still floating putting out loads of hot air (a bit like my posts on here lol). Its hard to imagine that a rocket could do that, I know.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1sRePcMl8Bk

Yep. Defo trolling.

Chapeau sir.

pblakeney

meursault wrote:

Has anyone cut and paste this one?


In space, rockets zoom around with no air to push against. What's going on?

Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward — no air is required.

NASA says this principle is easy to observe on Earth. If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back. However, because your weight on the skateboard is heavier than that of the bowling ball, you won't move as far.

That's the challenge engineers face when designing space engines. Yes, a small amount of thrust does push the spacecraft forward, but it often takes a great deal of fuel to get going anywhere quickly. More fuel means more weight, which adds to the cost of a mission.

To save on money when shooting for far-away planets such as Jupiter, some spacecraft whip around a planet (say, Venus) and use its gravity to get a speed boost. This shortens the time it takes to get to other destinations.

http://www.livescience.com/34475-how-do-space-rockets-work-without-air.html

Great, that explains that it works.
Now. What is the weight of the rocket (skateboarder) compared to the expelled fuel (ball)?
Get the skateboarder to through a table tennis ball and see what happens.

Response - There is no weight in space. So in theory the rocket could expel 1 mg and get the same results. That theory will save NASA a fortune in fuel bills.

stretchy

There is no weight in space, but objects still have mass.

Please also consider that in a vacuum there is zero air resistance acting on the rocket moving forwards so it requires a majorly reduced amount of thrust to move in space than it does on earth.

pblakeney

The mass ratio is exactly the same as the weight ratio.
Assuming Gravity is constant between masses.

veronese68

There is no such thing as gravity, only density and an as yet unnamed force that causes densities to settle. Let's give this mysterious force a name. What could we call it? Hmm, how about gravity.

capt_slog

I wonder what his (Manc's) school days were like?

His science classes must have been fun, him sitting at the back of the room, larking around and saying "this is all bollox, innit?"

city_boy

To say there is no weight in space is incorrect.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Weightlessness-in-Orbit

stretchy

PBlakeney wrote:

The mass ratio is exactly the same as the weight ratio.
Assuming Gravity is constant between masses.

Indeed.

PBlakeney wrote:

There is no weight in space. So in theory the rocket could expel 1 mg and get the same results. That theory will save NASA a fortune in fuel bills.

As the ratio is the same, how will 1mg of fuel get the same results?

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

The mass ratio is exactly the same as the weight ratio.
Assuming Gravity is constant between masses.

Stop trying to do Manc33's job. One troll is enough on this thread...

tangled_metal

At least I think he got one difference between rockets and jets...jets suck in air (to get oxygen for combustion) but rockets carry a source of oxygen with them.

Now I am not a rocket scientist. I am no longer a scientist or engineer but an administrator so I have forgotten more science than I care to admit. However I will attempt to put my t'pennethworth in in case it helps somehow. Please correct me if I am wrong (except you Manc33 I have lost all trust in your judgement and ability to comment on anything scientific as a result of the lack of credibility I hold you in. Sorry if that offends I mean no offence only honesty).

The rocket, at it's very simplest, is a box open at one end. Inside it has a combustible material and a source of oxygen to allow the combustible material to burn. It has an ignition (source of heat) too. That creates the combustion triangle when all three (heat, oxygen and fuel) combine. This creates heat and pressure through a chemical reaction (oxidation IIRC). Being under pressure in a closed space the hot gases caused by combustion want to be released outside that closed box and is allowed to do so through the rocket motor's exhaust nozzle (might not be correct terminology but using words easily understood I think). This will release the pressure as it does so as the combustion process proceeds. The pressure lasts inside the box as long as there is enoguh combustible material, oxygen and heat. OK so far?

Now my understanding is an object remains in a state of motion or rest until another force is applied to change that (put very simply). Now the combustion is releasing energy (simply put from a chemical source/reaction) which is effectively released as kinetic energy of the hot combustion gases ejecting from the rocket engine;s nozzle. The released energy is forcing the change in motion of the exhaust gases but at the same time it is part of the system that is the rocket motor stuck in space (actually moving in orbit) which means that the motion of the gases is acting on that system and the rocket motor resulting in the opposite reaction or force being applied thus moving it in the opposite direction.

Now I know the above is very simplistic and more than a little bit wrong but it is one way I can see how the rocket can work in a near vacuum in a way a jet engine can not work. Please correct and fill in the blanks so that we can perhaps pursuade Manc33 to join the modern world with his scientific understanding of the rocket as existing science understands it based on current knowledge and understanding.

PS I very much doubt I have made it any easier for Manc33 to understand or accept but as I said earlier I am only trying to help here and my scientific understanding has taken a real battering from not being involved in science for a long time.

Back to something I can understand...

Velonutter

Gents,

I think this thread has gone on long enough now, it started as the conspiracy thread, then the Gillian Anderson thread and has now turned into a free for all against Manc33.

Some of you moaned about my being harsh on Manc33 and those very people have ended up questioning him any way.

This thread has long gone off track and has become a total mess.

When I get time I will try and tidy it up and sort it out as the original title The Conspiracy Theory and move it to Cake Stop where other can join in as well.

Please lads, I am snowed under and really don't need this amount of work at the moment, so I am locking until I have sorted.

Velonutter

Right nearly 1 hour later and over 7 pages of absolute rubbish deleted my findings are as follows: -

Manc33 is going to have a months holiday to get his brain sorted, if he refuses to then he will not be welcome here again.

RDW if you post one more photo of Gillian Anderson that I have to delete then you will be going the same way as Manc33!

If you lads want to complain about Manc33 for trolling then rather than trying to flame him, report him and we will react to it.

Seriously lads I am really not amused, I'm snowed under with work and then saw this and had to use some valuable time up to clear this total mess up.

It is now being moved to the Cakestop keep it on topic and tidy, this thread is about Conspiracy Theories which do have some merit for discussion, so keep it that way!

ai_1

I started writing the following before the thread was temporarily locked but then couldn't post it. I'll go ahead and post it now since I've gone to the trouble.

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

A vacuum isn't a force.

Precisely.
I never said it was a force. But a force has to react against something.
So how does the spaceship move?

Why does it have to react against something? This is not the case.
If an object expels some of it's material in one direction then for the mass involved to conserve momentum the rest of the object must move in the opposite direction. Think of it this way. If you were floating in space in a space suit (non-believers can go ahead and pretend space is hypothetical along with the rest of the scenario ) and you are holding onto some object. Let's just say it's a hammer, it could be anything. If you throw the hammer away, what happens? Obviously the hammer moves away from you, right? The alternative is that it's impossible to move in a vaccum, I'd love to hear an effort to justify that suggestion! So when you throw away the hammer, how does the universe decide whether the hammer should move away from you or you should move away from the hammer? What happens is quite simple. The sum of the momentum of each object remains the same as the combined object you started with. So the acceleration of you and the hammer produced by throwing it away are each inversely proportional to their mass. A small mass moves quickly in one direction and a large mass moves slowly in the other. If the masses were equal the resulting accelerations and speeds would be identidal. There is no reason why you need something external to "push" against. You pushed against the hammer.
Now lets say you had a length of string tied to the hammer and you use it to pull yourself and the hammer back together again. In that case you'd end up right back where you started. Why? Because it's a closed system and no matter what you do, the sum total of all momentum exchanges will be zero. You can't move one direction without something else moving in the opposite direction. This is a reaction drive. It does not require a medium like air, water or tarmac to interact with. In reality all means of propulsion adhere to the same principle but it's much more complex and harder to explain when a medium is involved. But for completeness let me just say that when you pedal your bike and the tyre moves you forward against the road, what's actually happening is you're moving the world in the opposite direction. But the mass difference is so huge and your speed so slow that it's utterly inconsequential. Plus when you turn around or stop the effect will be reversed. When you jump in the air, the world moves down a bit and so on.

I think you're suffering the same confusion as Manc. Hopefully in your case it's just a temporary situation and can be rectified with a clear explanation, I don't know if I've given one, but I tried! Manc on the other hand will never learn or understand because he's determined not to. He prefers his easy paranoid world that allows everything you don't understand to be simply labelled as a mystery or a lie.

The hypothetical situation of an object in space is in fact the simplest to understand and no, I don't need to go there and find out. There is no reason to expect any of the applicable principles are different in space and plenty reasons to demonstrate they're exactly the same.
Anyone who wants to say "You have no proof" to every assertion on the sole basis that they can't understand or refuse to believe anything they're shown or told can carry on doing so. Just don't expect me to take it seriously as anything but a reflection of their mental state and flawed approach to rational thinking.

P.S.
With regards the discussions of weight and mass: Weight is not relevant. Only mass is. On earth we tend to use the two interchangeably because a given mass has the same weight, or very nearly so, everywhere on the earths surface. Weight = Mass x Gravitational acceleration. Since gravitational acceleration is pretty uniform across the earths surface we don't distinguish between the two.

chris_bass

without Manc until the 17 May and no Gillian Anderson I fear this thread may become a little less prolific in it's post count.

ai_1

Chris Bass wrote:

without Manc until the 17 May and no Gillian Anderson I fear this thread may become a little less prolific in it's post count.

...but perhaps the quality will improve?
(No offence intended to Gillian Anderson fans)

In all honesty I think some of us were only responding because we were so offended by what we saw as completely inaccurate and deceptive material being asserted as fact while material that could, in fact, be backed up was being labelled as fiction.

Now, who wants to start a discussion about Invisible Pink Unicorns?

chris_bass

To get this back on topic, I was reading somewhere that Alex Jones makes around 6.5 million dollars from infowars and even David Icke is worth about £6m.

Do you think they do really believe this stuff or do they just keep putting it out there to keep the money rolling in? In reality it is probably a bit of both.

Alex Jones, for example, goes on about all the bad stuff the government puts in water that makes you more likely to believe the non-truths they tell us but don't worry you can buy a water filter from his site for just $40 which gets rid of it all.

ai_1

Chris Bass wrote:

To get this back on topic, I was reading somewhere that Alex Jones makes around 6.5 million dollars from infowars and even David Icke is worth about £6m.

Do you think they do really believe this stuff or do they just keep putting it out there to keep the money rolling in? In reality it is probably a bit of both.

Alex Jones, for example, goes on about all the bad stuff the government puts in water that makes you more likely to believe the non-truths they tell us but don't worry you can buy a water filter from his site for just $40 which gets rid of it all.

It's reprehensible but if you have no conscience It's not a bad business model. Once you've got a following of conspiracy theorists you already know they're susceptible to believe these sorts of assertions and to accept answers from fellow theorists without any burden of evidence. The perfect market for solutions (or even pretend solutions) to problems that don't exist.

To be clear: When I say "conspiracy theorists" I don't mean just anyone who suspects there is a conspiracy happening. Some conspiracy theories don't deserve contempt. There are real conspiracies. But there is also the culture of people looking for a conspiracy in everything and believing them as a default, almost regardless of evidence to the contrary. The crazier the better, they pride themselves on their ability to accept that something that seems crazy could be true on the basis that it makes them acquaintance appeared to be one these.being a some theories are so ridiculous, self perpetuating and baseless that they are only not on the scale is may be know they're p(who people who'll

imposter2.0

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you think they do really believe this stuff or do they just keep putting it out there to keep the money rolling in? In reality it is probably a bit of both.

Definitely don't mention evangelical churches then..

chris_bass

I agree, I'm sure there are plenty of things going on which are very dodgy but probably a bit mundane and boring not as headline grabbing and follower catching as things like "Michelle Obama used to be a Man" or other such nonsense so not as likely to get them the fame or money.

If you want to see how unhinged they get when given a real world platform for their thoughts have a look at Alex Jones being interviewed by Piers Morgan, it is quite spectacular.

(sorry - I seem to be unfairly picking on Alex Jones, but he seems to annoy me the most!)

ai_1

Chris Bass wrote:

...(sorry - I seem to be unfairly picking on Alex Jones, but he seems to annoy me the most!)

I don't know a whole lot about him but from the bits I do know I'd say it's not unfair at all.

pblakeney

Ai_1 wrote:

But for completeness let me just say that when you pedal your bike and the tyre moves you forward against the road, what's actually happening is you're moving the world in the opposite direction. But the mass difference is so huge and your speed so slow that it's utterly inconsequential. Plus when you turn around or stop the effect will be reversed. When you jump in the air, the world moves down a bit and so on.

A fair explanation which is easy to understand.
But my favourite bit is that bit above.
I can move the planet at a quantum physics level. Awesome!

Just like the fly stopping the train.

veronese68

Chris Bass wrote:

To get this back on topic, I was reading somewhere that Alex Jones makes around 6.5 million dollars from infowars and even David Icke is worth about £6m.

:shock: How much does she get paid for doing the One Show?
To be honest this was just going round in circles, Manc's head in the sand and constant denial was getting a bit tiresome. Unfortunately I'm too stubborn and couldn't let it go. The problem is conspiracy theorists don't have the open minds they claim to have, they are far more close minded than most. No, I won't prove it.