Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's nice.

(it doesn't matter for this current discussion).

The current discussion is what I was saying. You didnt respond to it. I am asking you to explain spacetime.

Spacetime!!!

I don't have an answer for what spacetime is other than the current theories, but why is that relevant?

Maybe gravity is an effect of the curvature of spacetime or maybe it isn't, but why does that matter in answering the question: "Does an effect we call 'Gravity' exist?"

I'm not attempting to explain how it works. I'm just saying that there is a resultant effect on matter that exists that we call gravity.

I can tell you what it's not. It's not caused by the air resistance of objects moving through air, as Turbonium claims.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm not attempting to explain how it works. I'm just saying that there is a resultant effect that exists that we call gravity.

So why did you respond to me? I was asking someone to explain teh spacetime. I didn't argue against the fact that things fall.

I don't have an answer for what spacetime is beyond the current theories, but why is that relevant?

Right, why would the foundation of your whole model, be relevant? Or why would you even try to explain it?

It is relevant because I am asking and noone will explain it.

I don't have an answer for what spacetime is beyond the current theories

Which are?

I can tell you what it's not. It's not caused by the air resistance of objects moving through air, as Turbonium claims.

Thats nice. I did not claim or imply that I agreed with him, anywhere.

a reply to: TheMostHigh

So why did you respond to me? I was asking someone to explain teh spacetime. I didn't argue against the fact that things fall.

Well. You seem to be in the wrong thread. This thread is “Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.”

Trying posting here perhaps? “How malleable is space-time? It bends. But can we stretch it?”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok. Can you explain why rockets dont perform optimal at all altitudes(pressures), and need an altitude specific nozzle to perform optimal at a specific altitude(pressure)?

a reply to: neutronflux

Btw, werent you guys talking about gravity aka "teh bending of spacetime". Of course now it's off topic all of a sudden.



Need I say more.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
So why did you respond to me? I was asking someone to explain teh spacetime. I didn't argue against the fact that things fall.

The post of yours to which I responded did not ask to explain what spacetime was or how gravity worked (although you did suggest to Turbonium that he should ask us that question).

What I was responding to was the assertion in your post that it mattered at all "how does gravity work" or "what is spacetime" in order to understand that there is a thing that we call gravity that does in fact exist.

The knowledge of how gravity specifically works is not required to be able to know that gravity actually exists. Early humans didn't know what specific properties of the chemical reactions of fire were in order to know that fire actually existed, and what there visible macro effects of fire were.

Just like early man and fire, I don't need to know how gravity works to know it exists. And I also don't need to know how it works in order to know that Turbonium's explanation for why things fall is just plain wrong.

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: neutronflux

Ok. Can you explain why rockets dont perform optimal at all altitudes(pressures), and need an altitude specific nozzle to perform optimal at a specific altitude(pressure)?

are you referring to just working? Or you referring to nozzle design to maximize efficiency to reduce needed fuel per mission to reduce weight to reduce mission cost?

Are you referring to gross power and a rocket with just the requirement to place a baseball in orbit.

Or you referring to rocket designs as lightweight as possible to be efficient as possible to minimize on fuel to minimize weight to minimize costs?

a reply to: TheMostHigh

See you haven’t posted in “How malleable is space-time? It bends. But can we stretch it?””

I don’t think your really curious at all.

Good luck to you and what appears to be your trolling.

Don’t feed the trolls.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What I was responding to was the assertion in your post that it mattered at all "how does gravity work" or "what is spacetime" in order to understand that there is a thing that we call gravity that does in fact exist.

No what we call gravity does not exist according to your model. There is no force pulling things down. Its spacetime bending. Again, I was not arguing against the fact that things fall. I was asking for an explanation of spacetime.

The more you fail at explaining it the more apparent the relevance becomes.

And please spare me your irrelevant "We as Humans" type meanderings.

a reply to: neutronflux

This is what I said,

Can you explain why rockets dont perform optimal at all altitudes(pressures), and need an altitude specific nozzle to perform optimal at a specific altitude(pressure)?

I was refering to exactly what I typed right there.

a reply to: neutronflux

I can also discuss it here. Were you not discussing gravity here? Its ok I already won that discussion again. Spacetime is a fantasy drivel concept with no bearing on reality or any proof.

a reply to: turbonium1

You still have yet to provide a single source for your idiotic claim that birds can float. Speaking of request to provide evidence that you routinely refuse to answer. SYDNEY . . .POLARIS

originally posted by: TheMostHigh
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What I was responding to was the assertion in your post that it mattered at all "how does gravity work" or "what is spacetime" in order to understand that there is a thing that we call gravity that does in fact exist.

No what we call gravity does not exist according to your model. There is no force pulling things down. Its spacetime bending. Again, I was not arguing against the fact that things fall. I was asking for an explanation of spacetime.
The more you fail at explaining it the more apparent the relevance becomes.

The effect of gravity certainly exists. It's and observable and measurable manifestation of nature. Turbomium's assertion that "birds float; therefore, gravity does not exist" is ludicrous. There is certainly an effect felt by matter that we call "gravity. It exists.

Granted (and as I've already mentioned in two different posts) gravity might not be an actual true force, but rather an "apparent force". I've already said that. However, even if it is just an apparent force that is a resultant of the bending of spacetime, the effect of gravity (whatever gravity is) is still a real and measurable thing -- true force or not.

And please spare me your irrelevant "We as Humans" type meanderings.

I wrote "We humans don't know what gravity is" because you were talking about "proponents of the standard model" and I wanted to be clear about who I mean when I wrote "we don't know...". I'm not just talking about proponents of the standard model who don't know what it truly is; I'm talking about everyone.

Nobody fully understands what gravity is. We humans don't know what gravity is.

a reply to: TheMostHigh


Wow, what a shiny new account that was created today and immediately started agreeing with the guy who thinks that birds can float that a picture of an astronaut wearing a glove is proof that that astronaut wasn't wearing a glove. Now I don't want to make any accusations, but being a conspiracy site . . . is there some kind of stocking marionette in the room?

Newton's third law is: 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. ... Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

a reply to: NicSign

a reply to: captainpudding


Whatever happened to:
NicSign,
LowHanginFruits,
Lesson1,
Lesson2,
Lesson3,
Lesson4,
Lesson5,
Lesson6,
Lesson7,

Who has that much time to waste making that many accounts to support delusions in the trash bin of a conspiracy site? I guess somebody desperate for attention?

I wonder if this thread will be quarantined because of troll-itous like “Flat earth theory?”

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Then if you throw a brick straight up into the air why does it slow faster than what can be attributed to air resistance, stop, then change to direction to fall straight down.

Why does a bullet shot horizontally fall towards the ground as soon as it leaves the muzzle?

I've already explained the brick issue, more than once, so look back at my earlier posts on it, if you want to know. So I'll move ahead...

A bullet drops because it's velocity creates a shock wave, or a bow wave, which causes the bullet to slightly drop down. This adjustment is built into guns beforehand, to account for the drop. Good question, so let's address it further..

Shock waves are basically another form of sound wave, but there are a few significant differences between them. First of all, were you aware that these shock waves create the 'boom' sound we hear after a gun is fired? The same effect is created by the 'boom' sound of supersonic jets.

Shock waves are an actual force, because they act on objects in motion, by altering their path, or direction of travel, within air. I'll only focus on shock waves, not sound waves in general, since bullets, why they drop, are the specific issue at hand.

They knew a bullet didn't fire straight path from gun to target, even at close range. Bullets always dropped slightly, so they adjusted guns for the drop, beforehand.

Bullets drop because of a force, that's very true. Except it's not the 'force' you believe exists within Earth. No, I'm referring to an actual force. Not a fantasy one.

Why do you think we knew some sort of ACTUAL force caused bullets to drop down, immediately after they were airborne?

Because bullets only dropped down immediately within the air, when they were faster than the speed of sound, and created a 'boom' sound when fired from guns. Bullets which were slower than the speed of sound didn't drop down like these faster bullets did.

And that's why we knew there was some sort of ACTUAL force in play, which we know today as shock waves. This ACTUAL force caused bullets to drop down, and we adjusted our guns for this ACTUAL force, ever since.

This should help you understand how actual forces are proven, adjusted for, and so forth. The force of shock waves caused bullets to drop, and we know that, because bullets didn't drop if they were not faster than sound. And they didn't create the 'boom' effect of the faster bullets either.


Where does 'gravity' fit into all of this, now? It doesn't. It WOULD, if it really existed, though.


Compare how we know a force effects bullets in air, and we have to ADJUST our guns to that force...

To how airplanes fly level, and never adjust for 'gravity' at all. The plane has instruments which measure for level flight, and altitude, which are never, ever, adjusted for 'gravity', or this supposed 'curvature' of Earth. When does this magical force actually show itself, resist opposing forces, or anything else? It has to exist as a force, in some way, but it never has.

And thanks for the bullet issue, it's a good example.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

You still have yet to provide a single source for your idiotic claim that birds can float. Speaking of request to provide evidence that you routinely refuse to answer. SYDNEY . . .POLARIS

You're the one making the idiotic claim that birds can float, and attributing it to me, which is even more idiotic.

Why not look at what I actually say next time you want to rant about something? Just a suggestion.


And I've already explained the Sydney - Polaris issue many times, you must routinely refuse to read my posts, as the example above proves.

It's time you actually read all of my posts, and read them accurately, before you spew about something.... if you can't even do that, then I'm sure you'll come back here, and make a fool of yourself again. I suggest the first option.

a reply to: turbonium1

And I've already explained the Sydney - Polaris issue many times, you must routinely refuse to read my posts, as the example above proves.

And the Polaris/latitude issue. You explained that. The Earth is variable.

Right?

a reply to: turbonium1

What is the resisting force for shock waves?