|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 9:54:05 GMT
aliveandkickingnavigating in space seems to be very problematic Even if it is possible to send something into space it would be forever lost and no one would be able to control it afterwards. How can you get lost when you can see where you live?? An unmanned rocket cannot leave an orbit around earth unless the huge power required to do that is made available. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:03:24 GMT
aliveandkicking: Let's look at your syringe for 2 purposes. One as a rocket and the other as an evacuation chamber or compression chamber. Let's look at it all. Ok. As a rocket, we know that your energy in pushing down the lever (plunger) but the air cannot escape from the nozzle due to the tap being closed. Open up that tap and you basically have your rocket exhaust or burn...or to save playing games , let's imagine it as the thruster on a so called space rocket. You know, those nozzles that sling out compressed air that somehow stabalise the space rocket in the vacuum of your space. So what's happening? Well your thumb would plunge the level down and the nozzle would open to allow thecompressed air to escape the syringe. In a near vacuum, that air would freely expand into it meaning your plunger thumb would easily push down on that syringe because it's encountering no resistance. Puzzled? Let me make this simpler. Your rocket in space has to push out fuel (action) and it must hit a barrier for your rocket to gain a reaction or move in the opposite direction. Your fuel can be under pressure in your rocket. It's as if your syringe is under pressure from your thumb on the plunger trying to compress the air out of the nozzle end, only you can't because there's a closed tap on it. Stale mate. Nothing goes anywhere. You open that tap, just like in your near vacuum of your space and the plunger shoots to the end of the nozzle under pressure of your energy of your thumb. What's pushing the syringe back?....nothing. In space, your rocket can be pressurised with fuel and oxygen (in fantasy world) and until that nozzle is opened, your fuel and oxygen are trapped inside doing nothing other than trying to bust your holding tanks in equal measures. Ok, now open the nozzle and let out the fuel in your near vacuum. What happens? It's very simple if you allow yourself to be logical and stop believing in made up fantasy. Just picture yourself inside a cardboard box, curled up like a baby, The box is raised off the ground and is lightly taped closed at each end. Ok, you are the rocket fuel. You are energy inside that box. Shoot your rocket into a direction in space. What do you do? You see, the only think you can do to expend your energy is to push your feet against the taped lid which equally forces your head against the other taped lid. End result?...Equal and opposite reaction to a action. You end up with your head and feet stuck out of the box with the box in the same place it was. Ok, let's crank this up and make the head part of the box lid super strong and the foot part super weak. Ok, same again. Use your energy to kick that bottom lid off using your head as a massive leverage. What happened? Same thing, except you didn't break the lid at your head. You simply channeled all your ewnergy from your head out to your feet to push harder into space. our head cannot do anything in terms of forward motion because your feet have acted as a counteracting collapsing opposite force, meaning you managed to achieve the exact same thing. No movement of the box. If you can't see how you've been duped then you carry on, because I honestly don't believe you have any intention in seeing the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 30, 2015 10:06:10 GMT
Well, I don't see why you insist you're right either. What is your evidence? Just because it is so claimed doesn't make it true. This is an area where you can't possibly do anything else but hypothesize and believe or disbelieve the authorities. There is no way to check it for yourself. Being a rocket launch witness doesn't prove the space travel is possible and the rocket actually went there.
It seems to me common sense that if you want to propel something you need to have fuel, and since you would need to propel it for an extended period of time you need a lot of fuel.
Not to mention that the whole topic of astrodynamics is very dubious at best. In theory, a lot of things are possible, but it doesn't mean they are in real life.
Just watch the press conference the astronauts gave after coming back from the Moon, and please tell me why they look like they're lying?
This seems only indirectly related to rocket propulsion in vacuum, but if they lied, it is very related. Why would astronauts lie about their travel to space if it is possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:07:05 GMT
aliveandkickingnavigating in space seems to be very problematic Even if it is possible to send something into space it would be forever lost and no one would be able to control it afterwards. How can you get lost when you can see where you live?? Apparently the bozo Apollo astronot's had to navigate by the stars to get to the moon. I mean, we are talking about the big glowing so called moon that's right in their faces and yet they navigate off stars? How much spit do they have to fill your face with before you see their lies for what theya re? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:09:27 GMT
Well, I don't see why you insist you're right either. What is your evidence? Just because it is so claimed doesn't make it true. This is an area where you can't possibly do anything else but hypothesize and believe or disbelieve the authorities. There is no way to check it for yourself. Being a rocket launch witness doesn't prove the space travel is possible and the rocket actually went there. It seems to me common sense that if you want to propel something you need to have fuel, and since you would need to propel it for an extended period of time you need a lot of fuel. Not to mention that the whole topic of astrodynamics is very dubious at best. In theory, a lot of things are possible, but it doesn't mean they are in real life. Just watch the press conference the astronauts gave after coming back from the Moon, and please tell me why they look like they're lying? This seems only indirectly related to rocket propulsion in vacuum, but if they lied, it is very related. Why would astronauts lie about their travel to space if it is possible? This thread is called rocket propulsion in a vacuum. I suggest you create sufficient number of topics that all of your questions can be addressed elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:12:10 GMT
How can you get lost when you can see where you live?? Apparently the bozo Apollo astronot's had to navigate by the stars to get to the moon. I mean, we are talking about the big glowing so called moon that's right in their faces and yet they navigate off stars? How much spit do they have to fill your face with before you see their lies for what theya re? The moon is in an earth orbit. The best route to the moon is to intercept the moon rather than attempt to go straight to it. Please stay on topic and create alternate threads for whatever you want |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 30, 2015 10:12:17 GMT
aliveandkickingThank you for the suggestion, but I find it related as I explained earlier. I mentioned that in vacuum you can't propel yourself forever. Newton's third law doesn't help here. As sceptimatic explained you might propel yourself initially and that is it. Game over! What do we do next? Wait to fall down.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:18:15 GMT
aliveandkicking: Your rocket in space has to push out fuel (action) and it must hit a barrier for your rocket to gain a reaction or move in the opposite direction. This has been covered already by me. The rocket works like the recoil of a gun. The rocket fires a bullet like particle beam rearwards and recoils forwards |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:26:04 GMT
Apparently the bozo Apollo astronot's had to navigate by the stars to get to the moon. I mean, we are talking about the big glowing so called moon that's right in their faces and yet they navigate off stars? How much spit do they have to fill your face with before you see their lies for what theya re? The moon is in an earth orbit. The best route to the moon is to intercept the moon rather than attempt to go straight to it. Please stay on topic and create alternate threads for whatever you want Rocket propulsion in a vacuum covers all space exploits we are told about which includes every astronot and rocket that we were told went into space, so stop sidestepping the issue. You say the best route to the moon is to intercept the moon. Seriously? The best way to burger king is toi intercept burger king. The best way to kick a football is to intercept the ball. Now go and look at the bullshit diagram's that NASA gives out about how they get to the moon and tell me how they navigate it all from a supposed orbital jaunt around Earth. Like Gene Cernan said. He said: we orbited Earth about one and a half times and set off onm a trajectory to the moon. How? They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. What did they use? did they use the little air thruster things on their school project cardboardc and tinfoil laughable effigy? The biggest shock I see in all this is how supposed educated people cannot smell anything other than perfume when bull shit from a herd of bulls with gut aches, is smeared under their noses. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:26:50 GMT
aliveandkickingThank you for the suggestion, but I find it related as I explained earlier. I mentioned that in vacuum you can't propel yourself forever. Newton's third law doesn't help here. As sceptimatic explained you might propel yourself initially and that is it. Game over! What do we do next? Wait to fall down. You are off topic. No man made device can propel itself forwards forever. All the rocket has to do is get above the resistance of the atmosphere and be rotating the earth. The moon for example has been in earth orbit a very long time. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:29:10 GMT
The moon is in an earth orbit. The best route to the moon is to intercept the moon rather than attempt to go straight to it. Please stay on topic and create alternate threads for whatever you want Rocket propulsion in a vacuum covers all space exploits we are told about which includes every astronot and rocket that we were told went into space, so stop sidestepping the issue. You say the best route to the moon is to intercept the moon. Seriously? The best way to burger king is toi intercept burger king. The best way to kick a football is to intercept the ball. Now go and look at the bullshit diagram's that NASA gives out about how they get to the moon and tell me how they navigate it all from a supposed orbital jaunt around Earth. Like Gene Cernan said. He said: we orbited Earth about one and a half times and set off onm a trajectory to the moon. How? They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. What did they use? did they use the little air thruster things on their school project cardboardc and tinfoil laughable effigy? The biggest shock I see in all this is how supposed educated people cannot smell anything other than perfume when bull shit from a herd of bulls with gut aches, is smeared under their noses. The topic is rocket propulsion in a vacuum. >>They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. The opposite of braking is needed.  |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:36:36 GMT
aliveandkicking: Your rocket in space has to push out fuel (action) and it must hit a barrier for your rocket to gain a reaction or move in the opposite direction. This has been covered already by me. The rocket works like the recoil of a gun. The rocket fires a bullet like particle beam rearwards and recoils forwards Have you ever used a pneumatic drill? If you have you will understand what a machine gun is like. It's a recoil. Now put that pneumatic drill on the launchpad and what happens? Now imagine what would happen to a rocket if it worked like a recoil. Your rocket would be in a heap on the launchpad the very second it ignited. Rat a tat tat...kaboom. Action/reaction. Your rocket is not firing bullets out of its arse, it's burning fuel, nothing more than burning fuel. It's a flame thrower and the reason why the rocket burns fuel is so it can EXPAND the atmosphere under it which creates a massive expansion of molecules in the atmosphere that squeezes the colder molecules out of the way which come right back as a reaction to squeeze back onto that burning mass which acts as a springboard that the rocket constantly pushes against until it expends it's burning mass. The reason why the rocket stays in constant motion in the air is due to fuel to weight ratio. It gets lighter as it burns into thinner atmosphere and so manages to keep a constant speed, vertically, until it has no more thrust. This recoil crap is one hello of a con but should be seen for the con it is by people who actually think for themselves. I'll excuse those who have never took any interest in any of this stuff. I have no respect nor trust anyone who sticks rigidly to the bullshit after seeing it for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:39:23 GMT
Rocket propulsion in a vacuum covers all space exploits we are told about which includes every astronot and rocket that we were told went into space, so stop sidestepping the issue. You say the best route to the moon is to intercept the moon. Seriously? The best way to burger king is toi intercept burger king. The best way to kick a football is to intercept the ball. Now go and look at the bullshit diagram's that NASA gives out about how they get to the moon and tell me how they navigate it all from a supposed orbital jaunt around Earth. Like Gene Cernan said. He said: we orbited Earth about one and a half times and set off onm a trajectory to the moon. How? They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. What did they use? did they use the little air thruster things on their school project cardboardc and tinfoil laughable effigy? The biggest shock I see in all this is how supposed educated people cannot smell anything other than perfume when bull shit from a herd of bulls with gut aches, is smeared under their noses. The topic is rocket propulsion in a vacuum. >>They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. The opposite of braking is needed. Care to tell me how they make tehse elliptical orbits and then a virtual sraight run to the moon to then go into more eilliptical orbits. If you're going to mention sling shots, then explain how they manage it. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:42:55 GMT
This has been covered already by me. The rocket works like the recoil of a gun. The rocket fires a bullet like particle beam rearwards and recoils forwards Have you ever used a pneumatic drill? If you have you will understand what a machine gun is like. It's a recoil. Now put that pneumatic drill on the launchpad and what happens? Now imagine what would happen to a rocket if it worked like a recoil. Your rocket would be in a heap on the launchpad the very second it ignited. Rat a tat tat...kaboom. Action/reaction. Your rocket is not firing bullets out of its arse, it's burning fuel, nothing more than burning fuel. It's a flame thrower and the reason why the rocket burns fuel is so it can EXPAND the atmosphere under it which creates a massive expansion of molecules in the atmosphere that squeezes the colder molecules out of the way which come right back as a reaction to squeeze back onto that burning mass which acts as a springboard that the rocket constantly pushes against until it expends it's burning mass. The reason why the rocket stays in constant motion in the air is due to fuel to weight ratio. It gets lighter as it burns into thinner atmosphere and so manages to keep a constant speed, vertically, until it has no more thrust. This recoil crap is one hello of a con but should be seen for the con it is by people who actually think for themselves. I'll excuse those who have never took any interest in any of this stuff. I have no respect nor trust anyone who sticks rigidly to the bullshit after seeing it for what it is. a pneumatic drill holds onto the metal. A gun releases the metal. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:46:01 GMT
The topic is rocket propulsion in a vacuum. >>They are spinning around a globe and somehow manage to arrest (brake) to push a trajectory to the moon. The opposite of braking is needed. Care to tell me how they make tehse elliptical orbits and then a virtual sraight run to the moon to then go into more eilliptical orbits. If you're going to mention sling shots, then explain how they manage it. The topic is rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Create a thread to discuss how to get to the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:46:50 GMT
Have you ever used a pneumatic drill? If you have you will understand what a machine gun is like. It's a recoil. Now put that pneumatic drill on the launchpad and what happens? Now imagine what would happen to a rocket if it worked like a recoil. Your rocket would be in a heap on the launchpad the very second it ignited. Rat a tat tat...kaboom. Action/reaction. Your rocket is not firing bullets out of its arse, it's burning fuel, nothing more than burning fuel. It's a flame thrower and the reason why the rocket burns fuel is so it can EXPAND the atmosphere under it which creates a massive expansion of molecules in the atmosphere that squeezes the colder molecules out of the way which come right back as a reaction to squeeze back onto that burning mass which acts as a springboard that the rocket constantly pushes against until it expends it's burning mass. The reason why the rocket stays in constant motion in the air is due to fuel to weight ratio. It gets lighter as it burns into thinner atmosphere and so manages to keep a constant speed, vertically, until it has no more thrust. This recoil crap is one hello of a con but should be seen for the con it is by people who actually think for themselves. I'll excuse those who have never took any interest in any of this stuff. I have no respect nor trust anyone who sticks rigidly to the bullshit after seeing it for what it is. a pneumatic drill holds onto the metal. A gun releases the metal. Tell me how an automatic machine gun works then get back to me. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:49:34 GMT
a pneumatic drill holds onto the metal. A gun releases the metal. Tell me how an automatic machine gun works then get back to me. This thread is called rocket propulsion in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 10:52:53 GMT
Tell me how an automatic machine gun works then get back to me. This thread is called rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Yep and people like you harp on about recoil action that propels them. I won't waste another second with you. People like you are what destroys places like this. You aren't here for anything other than trying to keep bullshit alive. Think yourself luck I'm not a moderator. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 10:55:55 GMT
This thread is called rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Yep and people like you harp on about recoil action that propels them. I won't waste another second with you. People like you are what destroys places like this. You aren't here for anything other than trying to keep bullshit alive. Think yourself luck I'm not a moderator. I think you need to make a personal choice as to how you intend to trash the space program 1. Are you going to rely on basic physics that ordinary people can understand like for example the dangerous recoil of a gun or 2. Are you going to rely on something else |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 11:05:59 GMT
Yep and people like you harp on about recoil action that propels them. I won't waste another second with you. People like you are what destroys places like this. You aren't here for anything other than trying to keep bullshit alive. Think yourself luck I'm not a moderator. You need to make a choice of how you are going to trash the space program 1. Are you going to rely on basic physics such as how a rocket works or 2. Are you going to rely on personal abuse or anything else that suits you at the time. I've already trashed your space program. As for personal abuse. Nah. You people use this line, time and time again and cry foul. You people trawl conspiracy sites for the very reasons of trying to debunk free thinkers. This site is aupposed to be exactly that. It is not a ite that allows parasites like you on to muddy the waters and then gain a foothold. I'd have time for you if I thought for one second that you had a mind to question stuff. You've shown enough to me to prove that you're nothing but a dedicated barrier to anyone who delves too close to the truth. This is why you're like a limpet. Now like I said. If I was a mod, you would be censored to hell, same as anyone with a mind like yours. This then gives genuine freethinkers the opportunity to air their views and see things differently without crap bullshit, text book input by people like you. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 11:11:01 GMT
You need to make a choice of how you are going to trash the space program 1. Are you going to rely on basic physics such as how a rocket works or 2. Are you going to rely on personal abuse or anything else that suits you at the time. I've already trashed your space program. As for personal abuse. Nah. You people use this line, time and time again and cry foul. You people trawl conspiracy sites for the very reasons of trying to debunk free thinkers. This site is aupposed to be exactly that. It is not a ite that allows parasites like you on to muddy the waters and then gain a foothold. I'd have time for you if I thought for one second that you had a mind to question stuff. You've shown enough to me to prove that you're nothing but a dedicated barrier to anyone who delves too close to the truth. This is why you're like a limpet. Now like I said. If I was a mod, you would be censored to hell, same as anyone with a mind like yours. This then gives genuine freethinkers the opportunity to air their views and see things differently without crap bullshit, text book input by people like you. Why do you want to censor people who ask you questions and ask you to explain what you mean? You compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 11:24:20 GMT
I've already trashed your space program. As for personal abuse. Nah. You people use this line, time and time again and cry foul. You people trawl conspiracy sites for the very reasons of trying to debunk free thinkers. This site is aupposed to be exactly that. It is not a ite that allows parasites like you on to muddy the waters and then gain a foothold. I'd have time for you if I thought for one second that you had a mind to question stuff. You've shown enough to me to prove that you're nothing but a dedicated barrier to anyone who delves too close to the truth. This is why you're like a limpet. Now like I said. If I was a mod, you would be censored to hell, same as anyone with a mind like yours. This then gives genuine freethinkers the opportunity to air their views and see things differently without crap bullshit, text book input by people like you. Why do you want to censor people who ask you questions and ask you to explain what you mean? You compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun. People can ask me as many questions as they want. Just not people like you who evade it all by using garbage like, this is off topic and all that crap. I compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun and you ran away, citing off topic. It's not off topic, it's on topic because you are using recoil for how a rocket works. Now explain to me why a automatic machine gun works, because essentially you are telling us all that your space rocket is an automatic machine gun just rat a tat tatting up into the sky. What you fail to realise about your recoil is that your machine gun rocket acts like a pneumatic drill, only less intense because a pneumatic drill uses the ground as it's fire and recoil whereas your machine gun uses an explosion that pushes forward then recoils, just a horizontal pneumatic drill. Your space rockets are bullsit. Get into real life and save your fantasy for the TV. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 11:32:24 GMT
Why do you want to censor people who ask you questions and ask you to explain what you mean? You compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun. People can ask me as many questions as they want. Just not people like you who evade it all by using garbage like, this is off topic and all that crap. I compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun and you ran away, citing off topic. It's not off topic, it's on topic because you are using recoil for how a rocket works. Now explain to me why a automatic machine gun works, because essentially you are telling us all that your space rocket is an automatic machine gun just rat a tat tatting up into the sky. What you fail to realise about your recoil is that your machine gun rocket acts like a pneumatic drill, only less intense because a pneumatic drill uses the ground as it's fire and recoil whereas your machine gun uses an explosion that pushes forward then recoils, just a horizontal pneumatic drill. A pneumatic drill holds onto the metal and so the drill goes backwards and forwards in reaction to the metal. A machine gun releases the metal and so goes backwards only. If you place the drill on a trolley on tracks the trolley is not going to move much The gun will cause the trolley to travel along the tracks |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 11:50:35 GMT
People can ask me as many questions as they want. Just not people like you who evade it all by using garbage like, this is off topic and all that crap. I compared a pneumatic drill to a machine gun and you ran away, citing off topic. It's not off topic, it's on topic because you are using recoil for how a rocket works. Now explain to me why a automatic machine gun works, because essentially you are telling us all that your space rocket is an automatic machine gun just rat a tat tatting up into the sky. What you fail to realise about your recoil is that your machine gun rocket acts like a pneumatic drill, only less intense because a pneumatic drill uses the ground as it's fire and recoil whereas your machine gun uses an explosion that pushes forward then recoils, just a horizontal pneumatic drill. A pneumatic drill holds onto the metal and so the drill goes backwards and forwards in reaction to the metal.  Yes it holds onto the metal chisel. It forces the chisel out like a machine gun would when expending gas. When that chisel hits the ground, it recoils and the weight of the drill is pushed up which then falls again. The only difference between that and a machine gun is in how the gases are used against the projectile.  A machine gun releases the metal and so goes backwards only. No it doesn't. Try and look it up for crying out loud. When you pull the trigger you release the bullet from its casing. The force of the explosion pushes the bullet out of the barrel and kicks the casing against the back of the gun then the bullet forces the air out of the barrel followed by the hot gases. As soon as that hot air leaves the barrel with that bullet, the air it's squeezed out of the way comes back with a vengence back down the barrel and kicks it up and back. There's actually 2 recoils on a gun. On an automatic machine gun, this is super fast and if you watch a machine gun in action, fast and slow, you will see it act like a pneumatic drill. If you place the drill on a trolley on tracks the trolley is not going to move much It's not going to move at all because your projectile is fastened, as in, the chisel. Firing a machine gun will do little as well...maybe minor movement due to air hitting the barrel and filling it back up. The gun will cause the trolley to travel along the tracks It shocks me as to how rigidly people like you stick to bullshit when the reality is smashing you in the face. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 11:53:35 GMT
Well, since he believes in it and provided detailed explanations for his beliefs, we should appreciate his effort and thank him for that. Just as we appreciate your efforts when you do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 11:55:48 GMT
A pneumatic drill holds onto the metal and so the drill goes backwards and forwards in reaction to the metal. ![]() Yes it holds onto the metal chisel. It forces the chisel out like a machine gun would when expending gas. When that chisel hits the ground, it recoils and the weight of the drill is pushed up which then falls again. The only difference between that and a machine gun is in how the gases are used against the projectile. ![]() A machine gun releases the metal and so goes backwards only. ![]() No it doesn't. Try and look it up for crying out loud. When you pull the trigger you release the bullet from its casing. The force of the explosion pushes the bullet out of the barrel and kicks the casing against the back of the gun then the bullet forces the air out of the barrel followed by the hot gases. As soon as that hot air leaves the barrel with that bullet, the air it's squeezed out of the way comes back with a vengence back down the barrel and kicks it up and back. There's actually 2 recoils on a gun. On an automatic machine gun, this is super fast and if you watch a machine gun in action, fast and slow, you will see it act like a pneumatic drill. ![]() If you place the drill on a trolley on tracks the trolley is not going to move much ![]() It's not going to move at all because your projectile is fastened, as in, the chisel. Firing a machine gun will do little as well...maybe minor movement due to air hitting the barrel and filling it back up. ![]() The gun will cause the trolley to travel along the tracks It shocks me as to how rigidly people like you stick to bullshit when the reality is smashing you in the face. The recoil of a gun occurs because a chunk of metal is driven rapidly forwards by the gun , where the gun cannot provide a forwards force to the metal without being driven backwards by that same force. 'to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' The recoil drives a person backwards and can cause the shooter to swing the gun around and fall backwards killing people to the side and behind the shooter. The gun vibrates but the net force is to drive the gun backwards |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 14:16:59 GMT
aliveandkicking: What's your problem? Do you not possess the reading skills to understand what I'm telling you about a AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN? What's with these two videos of high powered guns? Are you seriously trying to tell me that your rocket shoots out a flame like a rifle bullet and the kick back just kicks that rocket off the floor by smashing into it like that butt smashes into his shoulder?
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 16:35:46 GMT
aliveandkicking: What's your problem? Do you not possess the reading skills to understand what I'm telling you about a AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN? What's with these two videos of high powered guns? Are you seriously trying to tell me that your rocket shoots out a flame like a rifle bullet and the kick back just kicks that rocket off the floor by smashing into it like that butt smashes into his shoulder? The gun goes backwards because it makes material go forwards The rocket goes forwards because it makes material go backwards An automatic machine gun simply does more of the same. The video gun is firing a 65 gram bullet. A heavy machine gun would likely fire a heavier round. Please forget about things smashing into floors or shoulders. The principle here is 'that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Please do not focus on the shoulder going backwards and just focus only on the gun going backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 30, 2015 17:55:21 GMT
aliveandkicking: What's your problem? Do you not possess the reading skills to understand what I'm telling you about a AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN? What's with these two videos of high powered guns? Are you seriously trying to tell me that your rocket shoots out a flame like a rifle bullet and the kick back just kicks that rocket off the floor by smashing into it like that butt smashes into his shoulder? The gun goes backwards because it makes material go forwards The rocket goes forwards because it makes material go backwards An automatic machine gun simply does more of the same. The video gun is firing a 65 gram bullet. A heavy machine gun would likely fire a heavier round. Please forget about things smashing into floors or shoulders. The principle here is that for every action then there is an equal and opposite reaction. The principle anywhere and in any situation is action and equal and opposite reaction. You are trying to use it in the dupe context, just as NASA and the tefal heads want it to appear. Here's what you are trying to make people believe. You are trying to say that you can pick yourself up by your own hair. Or you can push yourself over by pushing yourself in your own chest with both hands. You ask me to forget about smashing into floors or shoulders but how can I when you are suggesting that a rocket recoils like a machine gun and smashing itself up its own arse to achieve vertical flight. You have been duped and you simply can't see it. Let me explain something to you. Nothing works inside this Earth without using atmospheric pressure. People go on about space being much better for a rocket and it's fuel due to less resistance and yet don't spend any time sitting down and thinking about it. Without resistance there is no movement. You need high resistance to actually set something into motion, always, against the mass of whatever you are setting in motion. Let's go right into your rocket in space stuff and let's look at it all with a clear and logical mind, using only common sense to come to a sensible answer that does not require NASA bullshit attachments, nor the pretend boffins that promote this crap. Let's assume you can survive in your space. You have a twin. You both sit in space with the soles of your feet touching each other's, both with your knees bent in exact unison. Ok, we now have a human rocket, so let's expel energy one way to go another. Ok, you straighten out your feet as fast as you can and your twin does the same. Have youy both catapulted yourselves into space by that action? The obvious answer for those who don't care to think is, "well yes, they will shoot into space in opposite directions equally. Not so. Why? Because they both cancel each other out. Are you confused? Here's where the bullshit comes in. You see, if you and your twin were on roller skates and were palm to palm with elbows bent then you both pushed each other away from each other, you would both go in opposite directions, just as predicted. Action and reaction in equal measures. One problem with this that cannot apply to your space. Your roller skate wheels are your leverage. They are your friction aids. They allow you to play the action/reaction game. Back to space. What don't we have?...we don't have any source or friction or leverage except the two of you against each other. The problem with this is, each time you try to push your leg foprward and your twins leg does the same, all you are doing is straightening them out against each other, because none of you have any wall to lever off, nor any floor to friction grip. The result is you go nowhere. Can anyone understand what I'm saying. I know aliveandkicking will try and kick and scream his way out of this but it's as clear as can be. Newton's laws are pointless when space is mentioned in the way it gets mentioned. It's a good con but one that should have the logical people seeing through if they take their time to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 18:14:04 GMT
The gun goes backwards because it makes material go forwards The rocket goes forwards because it makes material go backwards An automatic machine gun simply does more of the same. The video gun is firing a 65 gram bullet. A heavy machine gun would likely fire a heavier round. Please forget about things smashing into floors or shoulders. The principle here is that for every action then there is an equal and opposite reaction. You are trying to say that you can pick yourself up by your own hair. you are suggesting that a rocket recoils like a machine gun and smashing itself up its own arse to achieve vertical flight. Why do you keep talking about things smashing into other things?? Why you are talking about pulling ourselves up by our own hair?? An electrically triggered machine gun on a trolley would move backwards getting faster and faster without smashing into anything if there was sufficient space to allow the trolley to move >>Are you seriously trying to tell me that your rocket shoots out a flame like a rifle bullet and the kick back just kicks that rocket off the floor by smashing into it like that butt smashes into his shoulder? Please explain to me why you are talking about things smashing into things |
|
Yes it holds onto the metal chisel. It forces the chisel out like a machine gun would when expending gas. When that chisel hits the ground, it recoils and the weight of the drill is pushed up which then falls again. The only difference between that and a machine gun is in how the gases are used against the projectile.