ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st April 2019, 08:12 AM   #561
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,112
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Here's what I do to get my work published

1) Have a new result that would be a contribution to our scientific knowledge - you think you have that
2) write it up so to communicate it with the scientific world - YouTube videos and notes don't work here
3) submit it to an appropriate journal - something like Phys Rev A would be appropriate here

Most journals have straightforward submission interfaces, so easy enough to do

4) if the editor deems it worthy, it will be sent to experts in the field for their assessment about suitability for publication
5) the reviewers may recommend revisions before publication, or may recommend rejection straight out. The editor will use the advice of the reviewers to determine whether to publish the paper

That's the best help I can give, the rest is up to you.

I fear your process is going to stall at step 4. There's no way the editor is going to waste reviewers' time with it. The reason I know that is that you've already had comments from actual experts, and they've laughed at you.

I think it stalls at step 1.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 08:20 AM   #562
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space
Such bluster! Rockets work in space. There's no reason they shouldn't. Those who do that for a living have explained to you at length, in great detail, how that happens -- contrary to your misconceived beliefs. You ignored the explanation, because you have no answer for it -- and now you refuse to engage them further, illustrating that you know full well your ignorant handwaving can't match actual expertise and experience. The consequences of rockets working in space have been brought to your attention. You have no alternative explanation for those observations. There is no reason to suppose you actually have any rational confidence in your beliefs at this point.

You demand that your claims be rebutted only in a certain way, and that this certain way is the sine qua non of proof. This serves only to manipulate the rules of debate in your favor. No, you don't get to pontifically dictate the only form of rebuttal that will be universally convincing, since you have no explanation for the examples of rocketry you've already been shown. You must deal with the valid rebuttals your critics choose to deploy. You have demonstrated you are unable to do so.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 08:32 AM   #563
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Well can you help
Get my work published?
What work have you done? You've linked to YouTube videos published by known cranks and simply subscribed to them without the ability to defend yourself or them against even the slightest criticism. If you mean to take credit for the "proof" scrawled on notebook paper at the top of the thread, then why would you imagine anyone would accept it for publication until you corrected the errors in it that reviewers have already found? You don't get Nobel prizes for bad algebra.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 08:40 AM   #564
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,397
Well, its good to know that all intercontinental ballistic missiles will never work as they go trough vacuum. Guess we are safe from nuclear annihilation after all.

Gingervytes, I suggest you stop posting here and go straight to Presidents Trump and Putin with your groundbreaking equation so they can both scrap their respective projects for those nuclear weapons. I guess Trump could use the money to build his wall, and Putin might need more palaces or something.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 09:07 AM   #565
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,104
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space
I gave you one, several days ago.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 09:19 AM   #566
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,569
Here is a really, really, really simple analogy for how rockets work that our OP may be able to grasp. It's a video of my shower head. It hangs quite loosely in its cradle.

https://youtu.be/ii2rz7Fd11s

Watch what happens when I turn on the water.

In the version of the world where rockets only work because the exhaust jet pushes against something external to the rocket, what should happen when I put my hand beneath the jet?

What actually happens? Why?
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 09:26 AM   #567
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
This is a mistake made again and again and again by skeptics, thinking that the greatest experts in the field are the ones most qualified to convince people about something having to do with their profession. It's not true.
I thoroughly agree. If the subject is rocketry, and a rationale is presented to support some belief regarding rocketry, I and others who are appropriately qualified would be the best situated to locate any flaw in that rationale. But that exercise having any convincing power over the claimant is based on the assumption that the proffered rationale is the reason for the belief. In almost every case of fringe argument, the pseudo-scientific rationale is backfilled against a belief that was arrived at for other reasons entirely. For some it is a bedrock religious belief. For others it is a deep distrust of authority. The statements of experts fail to overcome these, and in most cases can be woven as necessary into whatever scenario the claimant has spun.

Thither the true believers, of course, but what about people who are otherwise rational but are momentarily confused by the pseudo-science? That's where an expert rebuttal can come in handy, but only if the expert is able to distill it into non-expert terms. Some of that happens here.

At this point it's worth mentioning that the original Flat-Earthers were admitted trolls. Not the ones from antiquity, but the Flat-Earthers who arose in the modern rational period and flourished a couple decades ago as a tongue-in-cheek movement. The exercise there was to assume the Earth is flat and then use otherwise correct principles of science to concoct pseudo-rational explanations for the various observations that we know follow from a spherical Earth. It's the scientific equivalent of comedy improv, using the tools of science for amusement and intellectual jocularity. And yes, in some cases the goal was to get people actually to believe them -- not because the proponents believed the principles to be true, but only as proof of how "convincing" they were.

Nowadays it's difficult to know how much of that Pythonesque sentiment remains in the Flat-Earther movements. After all, the goal of trolling is to convince people that you're entirely serious. So if it looks serious, that's part of the show. But these days it has become convolved with so much other crackpottery and science denialism that it's hard to know just to what extent it's gotten out of control. The bottom line here, and the lesson for this thread, is that the "physics" propounded by flat-earthers derives from a tradition that never meant to take it seriously unless one was amazingly gullible.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 09:54 AM   #568
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,182
does non-science springs from willful ignorance?

Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Ever hear of the sound barrier? Ever hear of friction.
https://www.quora.com/Will-a-plane-g...m-air-friction
It is not a barrier, I have slipped through it a few time, twice by accident (albeit pointed straight at the ground). The ideas you offer are not science, they are nonsense (like non-science).

It is sad some people can't comprehend space flight, rockets, basic science, physics; then make up fake claims and ignorance based ideas.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 10:15 AM   #569
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I gave you one, several days ago.
Yes, you did. Gingervytes is letting most of the posts pass in silence these days. He's cherry-picking one or two to acknowledge, but only by way of doubling down on the bluster. It's hard to argue that one's critics have no case when he isn't paying the least attention to the case that's presented.

The balloon car and vacuum cleaner experiment has already been explained. A vacuum cleaner is meant to create flow. That effects of that flow will be orders of magnitude more significant than any effect in static pressure. So how do we create an environment with lower static pressure unconflated with flow? A vacuum chamber, naturally. But he's already precluded that too. He argues the initial expulsion of gas from the balloon spoils the vacuum and provides his push-off anchor. Then practically the only source of inexhaustable vacuum (multiple puns intended) would be space itself. But it's very expensive and impractical to go there and make direct observations. And he won't accept any sort of remote-sensing, arguing that it could be doctored. Ticking off, one by one, the ways in which his claim could be reasonably refuted, he's trying to create the impression that it cannot be rationally refuted.

Meadmaker alluded to the ways arguments regarding the fringe ought to be framed in psychology first. Gingervytes is exercising the ways in which arguments can be framed in rhetoric first, science and logic later. What he's doing is a technique that lawyers learn, to be used to zealously defend the interests of their clients when the facts are bleak -- that is, when winning doesn't seem to be in the cards of purely substantive. In law, such things as jurisdiction and venue affect the standard by which the facts will be judged, and the rules by which that judgment is allowed to proceed. Gingervytes is trying to engineer a victory by manipulating the rules under which his paltry smattering of facts will be examined. He is proposing that the only truly probative test would be an experiment he knows cannot be practically performed by us -- even by people like me who have access to an actual space engineering infrastructure.

I won't play his game. There is no variant jurisdiction under which the laws of nature -- and the proper understanding of them -- result in the vindication of his claim. The rules of evidence here are absolute, inviolable, and brutally unforgiving. When we apply them to rocketry, we find no reasonable objection to the validity of rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Gingervytes has proven himself completely inept in that forum, reduced to hurling YouTube URLs and cowering in the corner. When we apply those same rules to his purported counterexample, we immediately locate the fundamental misconceptions in the theories he purports. We can easily provide explanations based on correct scientific knowledge that explain his apparently contravening observations. He cannot reciprocate. We show him the observations that result from practical space travel and he once again returns to his corner to hide. In science as in law, explanations for apparently rebuttive observations must ensue in order for the theory to hold. None of that is corrected by frantic attempts to contrive a new rosy framework for probation.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 10:22 AM   #570
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
It is sad some people can't comprehend space flight, rockets, basic science, physics; then make up fake claims and ignorance based ideas.
Indeed, it's one thing not to understand subjects that require concentrated effort to get right. It's another thing to say, "I don't understand what you're saying, but I maintain that you're wrong." Ignorance is usually forgivable. Arrogance is not.

In this case he's failed to provide any line of reasoning that connects the facts explained in his link to the conclusion he believes is supported. In legal terms, he has failed to state a "cause of action," and his "pleading" is thus rejected as deficient in form. This frustrates critics because they have to guess at what new nonsense the claimant believes is somehow self-evident. The claimant is frustrated because he thinks his critics are just being pedantic and evasive when they ask him to elaborate his line of reasoning. Or, more insidiously, the claimant is sometimes trying to draw his critics into a straw-man position which he can then later chastise for rhetorical effect.

Yes, there are aerodynamic factors in the transonic and supersonic regimes that affect rocketry. But our claimant has made no actual claim in any regard to it. So there is no need for us to answer yet.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 10:40 AM   #571
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,513
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space
We have proof of rockets working in space. We launch them to space and they work.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 10:49 AM   #572
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
We have proof of rockets working in space. We launch them to space and they work.
He argues that none have been observed to work, because the means of remote observation can have been compromised and that no direct observation has been made that can be trusted. Those who profess to practice rocketry are apparently either lying or have been somehow fooled by unknown powers. He argues that the effects of practical rocketry, such as direct observation of spacegoing objects, GPS, or satellite communication and observation are achieved by "underground cables" and "google earth airplanes," with no further explanation. So it's the typical pseudo-religious disbelief backed up by pseudo-religious dismissals and excuses. His posts take the form of science, but without the requisite understanding.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:09 AM   #573
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,513
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He argues that none have been observed to work, because the means of remote observation can have been compromised and that no direct observation has been made that can be trusted. Those who profess to practice rocketry are apparently either lying or have been somehow fooled by unknown powers. He argues that the effects of practical rocketry, such as direct observation of spacegoing objects, GPS, or satellite communication and observation are achieved by "underground cables" and "google earth airplanes," with no further explanation. So it's the typical pseudo-religious disbelief backed up by pseudo-religious dismissals and excuses. His posts take the form of science, but without the requisite understanding.
Oh, I know. I've read the thread. I have a limited understanding of Physics, but I get the (very basic) idea of how rockets work. I haven't decided yet if this thread is terribly amusing, or terribly sad.

But at least it is informative!
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:13 AM   #574
Gingervytes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Here is a really, really, really simple analogy for how rockets work that our OP may be able to grasp. It's a video of my shower head. It hangs quite loosely in its cradle.

https://youtu.be/ii2rz7Fd11s

Watch what happens when I turn on the water.

In the version of the world where rockets only work because the exhaust jet pushes against something external to the rocket, what should happen when I put my hand beneath the jet?

What actually happens? Why?
Because you didnít put your hand near enough. Itís pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
Gingervytes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:14 AM   #575
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Because you didn’t put your hand near enough. It’s pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
Are you a flat-Earther? Yes or no, please.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:21 AM   #576
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
Oh, I know. I've read the thread.
With a supply of painkillers available, I hope.

Quote:
I have a limited understanding of Physics, but I get the (very basic) idea of how rockets work.
Then I wouldn't call your understanding limited. If you understand the basic principles, then the rest is just engineering busywork. Our poster Gingervytes is stuck behind the basic principles. That's a far more egregious failure than declining to delve into the nuts and bolts.

Quote:
I haven't decided yet if this thread is terribly amusing, or terribly sad.

But at least it is informative!
It can be all of those, for different reasons.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:26 AM   #577
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Experiments showing that there is no equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AubIFUsq7Ss








__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 21st April 2019 at 11:37 AM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:34 AM   #578
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Fake video! Rockets cannot possibly work like that!!!!!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 12:24 PM   #579
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,996
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Are you a flat-Earther? Yes or no, please.
At least the third time he has been asked. So far he ignores the question. I suspect he does not believe his own BS.
__________________
Doubt world tour locations:

Detroit, Mexico, Detroit, Mexico....
Repeat for all of 2017 except when on vacation.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 12:52 PM   #580
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
At least the third time he has been asked. So far he ignores the question. I suspect he does not believe his own BS.
A claimant's silence on a question like that can mean many things. I find it curious that he's relying for his science and demonstrations on a movement whose grasp of physics borders on straight-up fiction. I interpret that as leading to one of two likely conclusions: either he has no inherent grasp of the physical world so as to detect the nonsense in what he's watching, or he's bought into it hook-line-and-sinker and therefore has no interest in a reasoned discussion.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 12:52 PM   #581
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,145
Remember, there's always someone who says, "I can just pop in and explain to this person why they're wrong and then they'll be less dumb,"
Then there's an argument that spans weeks, and the dumb person is no less dumb but the person who wanted to educate the dumb person is much sadder.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 12:55 PM   #582
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,548
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space
How about approaching it from the opposite direction? If I understand correctly it's your premise that a balloon car moves because of a buildup of air pressure behind it, and not due to the momentum of the air leaving it. In that case, have you attempted to measure the air pressure immediately behind a balloon car, to see if there is enough pressure on the machine to accelerate it in the manner you see?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 12:59 PM   #583
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Then there's an argument that spans weeks, and the dumb person is no less dumb but the person who wanted to educate the dumb person is much sadder.
The willfully ignorant who want to prominently display it will find a way to make any debate last weeks. That was, in effect, what the original Flat Earth Society tried to do, but only to entertain themselves by doing it. They weren't actually ignorant. They just found amusement in willfully pretending to ignore one fact and see how the rest of physical law could accommodate it.

In terms of intrinsic value, however, there is a limit to how much a debate can educate and inform others under the auspice of confronting truly willful ignorance. You can only learn so much about hockey from a boxing match.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 01:04 PM   #584
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
In that case, have you attempted to measure the air pressure immediately behind a balloon car, to see if there is enough pressure on the machine to accelerate it in the manner you see?
Good idea, but that invites a claimant to measure impingement pressure related to flow, rather than the static pressure he claims is in operation. If you put a scale on the launch pad under a rocket that develops 100 N of thrust, it will register just under 100 N of exhaust pressure on it until the rocket begins to rise. The unscrupulous claimant would then claim this is the cause of thrust, pitting the exhaust against ambient air rather than against the scale plate. The zen of Newton's third law is that the pressure on the scale has nothing to do with whether the rocket will fly.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 01:16 PM   #585
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,996
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
A claimant's silence on a question like that can mean many things. I find it curious that he's relying for his science and demonstrations on a movement whose grasp of physics borders on straight-up fiction. I interpret that as leading to one of two likely conclusions: either he has no inherent grasp of the physical world so as to detect the nonsense in what he's watching, or he's bought into it hook-line-and-sinker and therefore has no interest in a reasoned discussion.
It could mean many things. Not all of those things are equally probable.
__________________
Doubt world tour locations:

Detroit, Mexico, Detroit, Mexico....
Repeat for all of 2017 except when on vacation.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 01:32 PM   #586
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,084
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He argues that none have been observed to work, because the means of remote observation can have been compromised and that no direct observation has been made that can be trusted. Those who profess to practice rocketry are apparently either lying or have been somehow fooled by unknown powers. He argues that the effects of practical rocketry, such as direct observation of spacegoing objects, GPS, or satellite communication and observation are achieved by "underground cables" and "google earth airplanes," with no further explanation. So it's the typical pseudo-religious disbelief backed up by pseudo-religious dismissals and excuses. His posts take the form of science, but without the requisite understanding.
And yet, no one will help him get his work published!
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 02:18 PM   #587
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space


Instead of wasting my time with a lengthy reply: read the comments on your favourite video. A whole crowd of people did the work for me there. And see your shrink, he will have a great time with you (no offence meant, just a well meant advice).

Last edited by curious cat; 21st April 2019 at 04:09 PM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 02:30 PM   #588
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,111
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Because you didn’t put your hand near enough. It’s pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
One of the videos that came up in my youtube feed next to this one was something called "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation". Since I had just encountered the rocket equation in my class, I was interested.

Fascinating stuff. I had never before really thought about the whole question of why rockets fly. I mean, I knew that they burned fuel to produce thrust, and I knew that the thrust was related to those great big flames coming out the back end of the rocket, but I had never really thought about the fact that the fuel itself was the thing that caused the rocket to move. I knew it, but I had never really grasped the consequences. It didn't really sink in that, basically, a rocket moved by taking something that was on the rocket and throwing it out the back end of the rocket, really fast. That "something" happens to be the fuel, after it was combusted, of course. So, the space shuttle is in some way powered by a really interesting fire hose. Oxygen and hydrogen mix, and some really fast moving water vapor exits the back end.

The reason the video was called the "tyranny" of the rocket equation was all about how there was really no way around the problem of carrying, and thus having to propel, a whole lot of fuel. The professor in the class videos had made the same point. It's not just that the engine needs fuel to run. It's that you have to throw something out the back end in order to move.


I had always kind of imagined that you could use a nuclear powered rocket to generate a lot more energy per unit mass of fuel. However, the tyranny of the rocket equation is that the only thing you can do with that energy is use it to throw heavy stuff out the back end of your rocket, so all that energy per unit mass really doesn't help you all that much.



To Gingervites,

Any commentary on that balloon car experiment if performed at high altitude? Or with a second vacuum cleaner nozzle placed in front of the car?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 04:09 PM   #589
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,175
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
All I ask is for a simple experiment showing an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Until you do that, you have no proof of rockets working in space
A simple question here: since it's clear that the abundant evidence of rockets working in space, including photographs of them doing it, photographs by those in them, the work of theoretical physicists and rocket scientists in the field, the testimony of the many people who have taken rockets into space and returned, the operation of GPS and satellite communications, etc. etc. etc. ....what possible proof would work for you? All you have to do is continue to deny evidence and call those who disagree with you liars. What would be proof that you could not deny?

I really am interested in this phenomenon. As far as I can see, the only possible thing that would prove the ability of rockets to work in space would be for someone to put you in one and shoot it into space. I suspect your astronautical qualifications are fairly scanty, so since that's not going to happen, what on earth (or off it) can anybody ever do?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 21st April 2019 at 04:10 PM. Reason: apologies if sloppy typing -hand cramps
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:23 PM   #590
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,397
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Remember, there's always someone who says, "I can just pop in and explain to this person why they're wrong and then they'll be less dumb,"
Then there's an argument that spans weeks, and the dumb person is no less dumb but the person who wanted to educate the dumb person is much sadder.
Well, to be fair, while the OP might disregard actual science and debate, I personally always learn fascinating new things by reading these threads. In this case I got a bit of well-explained rocket science lessons by people actually involved in the field.


So, thanks for that guys
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2019, 11:45 PM   #591
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Because you didn’t put your hand near enough. It’s pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
Nope, wrong again. I can't be bothered to repeat the filming, but I can absolutely assure you that the shower moves not one millimetre no matter how close I put my hand to it.

Rockets are filmed launching from the ground all the time into air that gets thinner and thinner. By your reckoning they should just not be able to do that, yet they do. Either the entirety of the world's specialists in the field are wrong, every piece of media showing rockets working are faked and every eye witness is the victim of some sort of mass psychosis or you are wrong.

You are wrong.

I'll say it again: your misappropriated statement that gas does no work in a vacuum is not the same as rockets do not work in a vacuum'.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 12:51 AM   #592
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,807
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
....what possible proof would work for you? All you have to do is continue to deny evidence and call those who disagree with you liars. What would be proof that you could not deny?
There is none. The belief is more important than the facts.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 01:32 AM   #593
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Because you didn’t put your hand near enough. It’s pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
Video doesn't become more true if you post link to it twice .
Anyway, how do you find these fine examples of stupidity? Idiots just don't grow on trees! I am thinking of making a collection and making some kind of comedy program from them. I smell a lot of money coming in from that direction. I'm willing to share the profits with you.

Last edited by curious cat; 22nd April 2019 at 01:49 AM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 05:28 AM   #594
Gingervytes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
Video doesn't become more true if you post link to it twice .
Anyway, how do you find these fine examples of stupidity? Idiots just don't grow on trees! I am thinking of making a collection and making some kind of comedy program from them. I smell a lot of money coming in from that direction. I'm willing to share the profits with you.
Since you canít point out anything wrong with it, it must be fine
Gingervytes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 05:36 AM   #595
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Since you canít point out anything wrong with it, it must be fine
No, that's not how it works. We can provide you with countless hours of video showing spaceships operating in space. With a wave of your hand you dismiss all of it on the speculative grounds it "could be edited" and demand more evidence. Your evidence, on the other hand, consists of little more than video demonstrations produced by some of the crankiest cranks on the planet, which you insist must be accepted as real and must be interpreted exactly according to your broken understanding of physics, which you have all but abandoned defending.

We get it. Your video is automatically incontrovertible and everyone else's video must be fake. Do you have any better arguments, or can we draw the curtain of charity over this ludicrous display?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 05:36 AM   #596
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,399
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Experiments showing that there is no equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AubIFUsq7Ss
How do explosives work?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 05:40 AM   #597
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,896
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How do explosives work?
Magnets.




Duh. . . .
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 06:01 AM   #598
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,807
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Because you didnít put your hand near enough. Itís pushing off the immediate wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnf_f4rogtg&app=desktop
Video produced by an outfit named 'Flat Earth Talk'.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 06:01 AM   #599
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,856
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
It could mean many things. Not all of those things are equally probable.

And they could all be edited!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2019, 06:04 AM   #600
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Video produced by an outfit named 'Flat Earth Talk'.
Hence why several of us have asking him if he's a flat-Earther. He hasn't answered. Either he's shilling for them or has been hoodwinked by them. Neither bodes well for his arguments, but we need to know which it is so we know whether to point and laugh or laugh and point.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.