|
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. |
23rd April 2019, 09:43 AM | #761 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
23rd April 2019, 09:47 AM | #762 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
23rd April 2019, 09:48 AM | #763 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
That's why I asked him to what extent he had searched before concluding there weren't any. And, of course, examples of ones he had found that others would accept, but that he -- via his superior standards of evidence -- would be forced to reject.
It's an obvious stall. He's going to continue baiting people to do work, claiming (falsely) that we have no evidence. He'll dangle it out there that he really does have a reasonable standard of evidence, although he can't articulate it ahead of time. And he'll continue to knee-jerkedly reject everything that's presented to him by one ad hoc criterion after another :-- "Nope, edited." "Nope, CGI." "Nope, fake." |
23rd April 2019, 09:54 AM | #764 |
So far, so good...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 4,047
|
Gingervytes,
Here are some things that I don't understand. Perhaps you could help me. Who is conducting this charade? Such an elaborate conspiracy must have a purpose. What is it? Why are the conspirators doing it? Who benefits from it? (Maybe this is the same as a previous question.) How do they benefit? How do they fake all these things? Is there a department of the conspiracy that makes the CGI videos? Is there a department that constructs the rockets, and fires them off to splash into the ocean and sink? This must all cost a ton of money. How do they pay for it? How did you discover it? What is your reason for wanting to expose it? Aren't you afraid that you've put yourself in danger by trying to expose it? What are you doing to protect yourself and your family from the conspirators? |
__________________
Over we go.... |
|
23rd April 2019, 10:17 AM | #765 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:21 AM | #766 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Vague and unsupported. In what "natural" way should the fire appear, and why? Keep in mind that plume geometry is an actual part of rocket science. Simply applying a layman's uninformed expectation is nonprobative.
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd April 2019, 10:24 AM | #767 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:26 AM | #768 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:29 AM | #769 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:30 AM | #770 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:32 AM | #771 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:34 AM | #772 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
As bruto explained, he has none that he can articulate ahead of time. From his latest masterstroke, it's obvious that his schtick is to simply point to this or that in whatever someone else hands him and say, "Nope, fake." Then he'll continue to promise or insinuate that his criteria really are legitimate and operative, and won't we all just please keep throwing links his way so that he can pretend this is an ongoing discussion where we have the burden to produce all the evidence.
Quote:
|
23rd April 2019, 10:47 AM | #773 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
This is especially problematic since he expressed an interest in publishing his findings. Those of his critics with experience in academic writing presented him with a list of hurdles he would have clear in order for that to happen. To that list we added the necessity to explain prior observations. This is essential in a publication that proposes to overturn existing science. A new theory must at least explain the observations that the outgoing theory predicts.
Gingervytes reminded us that evidence must be of a scientific character and repeatable in order to have probative value. This is best achieved by employing processes that have themselves been subject to many validation exercises. The method by which one collects and evaluates data is of utmost concern, and is usually the focus of the attention paid by reviewers. If a scientist has committed and error, it is most likely in the selection, device, and implementation of his method. Here the method for evaluating the purported observations boils down to, "It looks fake to me." It's his personal, subjective impression based on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the underlying principles and quite likely tainted with his preconceptions. It is in no way objective and repeatable. As usual, his arguments can't even meet his own standards of proof. |
23rd April 2019, 10:48 AM | #774 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:50 AM | #775 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
23rd April 2019, 10:52 AM | #776 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
23rd April 2019, 10:55 AM | #777 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet |
|
23rd April 2019, 10:56 AM | #778 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
23rd April 2019, 11:17 AM | #779 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
They're certainly dramatic and unique, owing to that vehicle's singular configuration. But let's not omit the venerable Saturn V, whose launches (and those of many other rockets) are indeed tracked visually from the ground to altitudes that are functional vacuums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8fLjC3gNTk The original source of this digital video predates CGI, and I can testify that it was available and circulated long prior to the advent of CGI. So we categorically dismiss CGI as a possible explanation for it. The rocket is tracked continuously from liftoff to S-IC staging, which occurs nominally at an altitude of some 67 km. The film was shot in front of millions of lay witnesses. The rocket's trajectory was visually monitored by several parties from several angles, so cannot have been redirected in order to simulate a higher altitude by flying lower and flatter. There is also a visual record of the tracking cameras in operation, to verify that they were actually photographing an actual flying object. Standard methods allow me to calculate atmospheric pressure at the point of staging as approximately 0.008 atm. Let us calibrate that against Gingervytes' "balloon car" video, which used a household vacuum cleaner to produce a zone of partial vacuum and thereby -- it is alleged -- reduce the effectiveness of a jet-propelled car in front of it. First we stipulate that the appliance cannot have produced a total vacuum. If so, according to Gingervytes' theory, the car would not have moved at all. Further, it is precluded by the conditions of the test as shown. His argument is that the effect should scale; if a partial vacuum produces so much effect, a total vacuum should produce total effect. We next quantify that partial vacuum as best we can. A Dyson cyclonic vacuum (typical of many household models) is rated at 45 inches of water vacuum pressure. That is the measurement of its ability to produce a partial vacuum under ideal conditions -- a pristine filter and well-maintained motor, with a total seal at the intake. This equates to 0.1 atm. To be charitable, we'll grant the "balloon car" its ideal conditions and reckon that the balloon car was purported to push against only 0.9 atm of remaining pressure. Gingervytes insists that an informally (i.e., macro scale) visible degradation in propulsive effect is produced from just a ten-percent reduction in static pressure. (To be sure, I argue the effect is from flow, not static pressure. But the exercise here is to determine whether Gingervytes' model of rocket propulsion is consistent with itself.) If he is correct, the Saturn V would have encountered similar conditions to Balloon Car at an altitude of only 880 meters. (We'll assume LC-39 is at sea level, which it pretty much is.) That's at a time when the rocket was still quite visible to the unaided eye. Most of us can still discern flying objects even after they reach an altitude of 10 km, at which point static atmospheric pressure is only one-quarter than of sea level. If Gingervytes' handwaving is to be believed, we should be seeing a dramatic reduction in propulsive force at such a low static pressure. Yet at this point -- seen from up and down the Florida coast -- the rocket continues to climb and move rapidly downrange. More importantly, turning back to the tracking camera footage, we can see the pronounced effects of negligible static pressure at 60+ km. The plumes from the F-1s are vastly expanded, the LOX/RP-1 flames now expanding so freely as to have lost all incandescence. Yet the rocket is not losing thrust or altitude. Clearly its thrust is effective even though it reached functional vacuum long before that, and exceeded the conditions of the balloon-car test before it even left Florida airspace. |
23rd April 2019, 11:24 AM | #780 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space.
Ah, so you didn’t watch the videos I posted. You’re lying about having watched them. The plumes of smoke left behind while the rocket is still in the atmosphere are clearly visible at points when the launch vehicles are changing angle. The Space Shuttle launch I posted has a particularly pretty one, visible as a distinct line against the clouds. Other videos have more visible plumes. Claiming the smoke isn’t visible is a lazy, blatant, and easily checked lie on your part. |
23rd April 2019, 11:27 AM | #781 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Have you seen every rocket launch from Earth?
Whether there is smoke in a rocket exhaust depends on the fuel, and to a certain extent what species of exhaust products are produced at what stage of flight. The space shuttle used two separate propellant formulations. The solid rocket motors burned aluminum powder oxidized with ammonium perchlorate in a polyurethane binder. All of that will result in visible smoke in addition to the flame. The liquid-fueled motors burned hydrogen and oxygen, producing only water vapor as an exhaust. This is largely why the space shuttle produces no visible exhaust after SRB staging (although in some cases a contrail will result). The Saturn V, and many subsequent vehicles, burned liquid oxygen and RP-1, a certain grade of kerosene. RP-1, as a hydrocarbon, produces many species of carbonaceous solids when combusted with liquid oxygen. The Titan II produced vast amounts of "smoke" at ignition (hint: not really smoke, but it would be mistaken for it), but then no smoke at steady-state combustion. It used hypergols, Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide. The exhaust products from that reaction are almost entirely gaseous, not solid. (By the way, you don't get to switch from saying "Rockets don't eject solids" to "Rockets must always produce smoke." See if you can guess why.) |
23rd April 2019, 11:37 AM | #782 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Gingervytes, if rockets require air to push against, does it follow that a rocket cannot produce more thrust than the air pressure? A rocket with a 1 sq in exhaust nozzle could not produce more than 14.7 lb of thrust?
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
23rd April 2019, 11:38 AM | #783 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
When your local political body debates the effects of legalizing marijuana, they should be directed to this thread and the flat earth websites.
|
23rd April 2019, 11:39 AM | #784 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Briscoe Darling: You don't believe I can get banjo sounds out of here? Sheriff Taylor: No Briscoe Darling: Man's entitled to his opinion |
|||
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
||||
23rd April 2019, 11:50 AM | #785 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
23rd April 2019, 11:51 AM | #786 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
23rd April 2019, 12:04 PM | #787 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
23rd April 2019, 12:04 PM | #788 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
23rd April 2019, 12:20 PM | #789 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/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 |
|
23rd April 2019, 12:25 PM | #790 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
23rd April 2019, 12:31 PM | #791 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
OK, but this one's unedited. No cutting at all.
|
|||
__________________
/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 |
||||
23rd April 2019, 12:40 PM | #792 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
23rd April 2019, 12:45 PM | #793 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
23rd April 2019, 12:59 PM | #794 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
23rd April 2019, 01:02 PM | #795 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
23rd April 2019, 01:07 PM | #796 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
23rd April 2019, 01:12 PM | #797 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams ‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig. |
|
23rd April 2019, 01:26 PM | #799 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Yes, but I was referring mostly to this. Downward-looking onboard cameras often have view angles such that the bulk of the stage blocks a view of the exhaust trail, if any. Gingervytes is fixating on this to avoid having to deal with the plethora of examples posted where there is plenty of smoke visible, if that's what he desires.
He has also claimed the flame doesn't look "natural," but has similarly failed to say why. A fool's errand, so long as his ignorant layman's opinion is the standard we must measure correctness against. |
23rd April 2019, 01:29 PM | #800 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Here you go, Gingervytes. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post12673814 Plenty of smoke, if that's what you're looking for, and a vantage point from the ground all the way to functional vacuum. As well as some science for you to chew on, if you think you have the chops.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|