It's not rocket science

[Manc33]

Even rocket science isn't rocket science when you think about it, its just that this is an imposed belief on everyone to make them assume it is too difficult to understand, so people don't bother looking into it and leave it all down to the so-called experts - that in a lot of cases are just playing the system and lying to get more grant money. For example the people that claimed to have discovered a gravity wave didn't, but if they can convince everyone they discovered gravity waves (with the added convenience of having every single educational academy agree with you due to confirmation bias and wanting gravity waves to be there) it is a cakewalk for the brainy people getting that grant money.

If you asked them truthfully what are they really studying, they would probably have to say "Nothing that will accomplish anything, we are just sort of rearranging what we already know and making up new BS for it, but hey it keeps the grant money coming in, want another glass of champagne? Cigar? The caviare is over there if you want some."

Why be an actual physicist if you can be a theoretical physicist and never actually contribute anything real to the field or need to? I bet the theoretical physicists get paid more than the physicists that deal with known facts, its a sick world, where conjecture, confirmation bias and fantasy passes for supposed facts.

You can't propel a rocket in a weightless vacuum the way we get told, the rocket has no air to push against to propel it and it would remain fixed, internally stressing itself, pumping all of the force out in the form of a gas cloud, which indeed, would be moving and yes, with 100% of the force. Don't worry, energy isn't being lost here! All of the force is all still there, but it wouldn't move the rocket anywhere, it would effortlessly pump the gas out into the vacuum, where it would float away in space for billions of years.

Space isn't even up there lol, nothing is floating and it isn't a vacuum, more of an airless void, but thats technically not a vacuum because lower down there is air and there isn't a barrier to it, I mean you can't have a vacuum connected to a non-vacuum and have it maintain itself, so then what's above us isn't a vacuum, it isn't weightless. Where's the proof apart from stuff shown to us on TV screens? If it is that easy then I guess George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really went into space? They must have because we have the footage on video.

It is rocket science but it isn't hard to understand what I just said (in a nutshell it needs air to push on and air isn't there in a vacuum) and this certainly doesn't need maths, it needs understanding - something that is unfortunately completely lacking from the world of mathematics for some reason, I mean when did you ever hear a mathematician admit hey, this entire premise could be wrong?

Never.

Naive mathematicians that insist on their equations matching reality when they actually don't. Someone needs to tell these people that theories aren't facts because I think they are getting a little bit too carried away with it.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Amen to that.

[[XAP]Bob]

Err - yet again where to begin.

Maybe with a request to a mod to cut these posts to the "games and fun" forum where they belong.

Even rocket science "isn't rocket science" when you think about it, its just that this is an "imposed belief" on everyone to make them assume it is too difficult to understand, so people don't bother looking into it and leave it all down to the "experts" - that in a lot of cases are just playing the system and lying to get more grant money. For example the people that claimed to have discovered a gravity wave didn't, but if they can convince everyone they discovered gravity waves (with the added convenience of having every single educational academy agree with you due to confirmation bias and wanting gravity waves to be there) it is a cakewalk for the brainy people getting that grant money.

So what have they discovered. They have set out to observe the stretching of the fabric of space itself. A couple of groups have built similar, but not identical machines at different places on the planet.
Those machines use well known properties of light to measure space along two axes, and they measure quite alot of space (5km or so I think) to a very high degree of accuracy - but the real accuracy comes in the interferometry - despite not knowing exactly how many wavelengths of light fit along each arm, they can tell to very small fractions of a wavelength if those arms change length relative to one another - they are measuring nanometres of change in kilometres of distance (that's 12 orders of magnitude!)

Multiple experiments picked up a signal - the same signal - at the same time.

That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

I think that the noise I can hear at the moment is caused by people in the bar downstairs. If I go downstairs (which I will in a bit) and find an empty bar I shall have to revisit the theory - if I find lots of noisy people, then I'll not.

Why be an actual physicist if you can be a "theoretical physicist" and never actually contribute anything real to the field or need to? I bet the "theoretical" physicists get paid more than the physicists that deal with known facts, its a sick world, where conjecture, confirmation bias and fantasy passes for "facts".

Erm - these guys were experimental physicists. Although they only know what to look for as a result of the work done by theoretical physicists.

You can't propel a rocket in a weightless vacuum the way we get told, the rocket has no air to push against to propel it and it would remain fixed, internally stressing itself, pumping all of the force out in the form of a gas cloud, which indeed, would be moving and yes, with 100% of the force. Don't worry, energy isn't being "lost" here! All of the force is all still there, but it wouldn't move the rocket anywhere, it would effortlessly pump the gas out into the vacuum, where it would float away in "space" for "billions" of years.

A rocket doesn't need air to push against - in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily. A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust. What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

Space isn't even up there lol, nothing is "floating" and it isn't a vacuum, more of an airless void, but thats technically not a vacuum because lower down there is air and there isn't a barrier to it, I mean you can't have a vacuum connected to a non-vacuum and have it maintain itself, so then what's above us isn't a vacuum, it isn't weightless. Where's the proof apart from stuff shown to us on TV screens? If it is that easy then I guess George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really went into space? They must have because we have the footage on video.

The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude. There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

It is rocket science but it isn't hard to understand what I just said (in a nutshell it needs air to push on and air isn't there in a vacuum) and this certainly doesn't need maths, it needs understanding - something that is unfortunately completely lacking from the world of mathematics for some reason, I mean when did you ever hear a mathematician admit hey, this entire premise could be wrong?

Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.
Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them. This is as true for model rockets as it is for Falcon, Soyuz, Saturn 5 etc etc etc. It's also true for ion drives and other low thrust devices. Then you have solar sails, using the momentum of photons, although there is a weird new drive which has some people rather interested. It's not an obvious mechanism - but tests have shown some thrust (although very low levels, virtually within error bars of zero )

Never.

Naive mathematicians that insist on their equations matching reality when they actually don't. Someone needs to tell these people that theories aren't facts because I think they are getting a little bit too carried away with it.

Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory. And since you didn't listen last time...

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla
Amen to that.

Tesla was referring to a specific group of people who were building things that didn't work.


Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

[Manc33]

That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.

A rocket doesn't need air to push against...

It does.

...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.

If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.

Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?

Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?

Yes but barely!

So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?

Dude seriously!

A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.

This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.

There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convect and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).

No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.

Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.

This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.

From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

Tesla was referring to a specific group of people who were building things that didn't work.

You can't just "fit" an answer to it like that and accept it, surely?

Aren't you only saying this to cover it? I mean its what you'd have to say and is typical.

He said "today's scientists" and he meant Einstein, among others.

No offence but you're just sort of fitting the right answer to it there, even if some book claims Tesla was only referring to idiot scientists or whatever it is, why do you believe what that book says? We get told this crap endlessly and encouraged to believe it without question. I am amazed really that you'd make an answer up like that and if you have read in a book somewhere that Tesla didn't mean Einstein, this is the problem, Einstein simply got promoted - it was his wife that wrote the theory of relativity, he is a fraud, a complete and utter fraud, put on a pedestal because he was promoting all the right ideas, whether he knew it or not.

Copernicus is a similar thing where the guy dies before his book gets published!

In that case:

1. How do we know he even took it seriously himself?!

It could have just been mathematical grandstanding to show 'this is the maths for an Earth if it was a ball orbiting the sun, for the sake of doing it'.

2. How do we even know it was Copernicus that wrote it, if he isn't alive to talk about it, follow up on it, or tell us if it is supposed to be taken seriously?

That is a problem to me, that this guy wasn't around afterwards to update people with anything on it, he could have done it as a JOKE for all we know, a demonstration, this is the maths IF Earth were a spinning ball sort of thing.

Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

I would move this to fun and games myself if I knew how to, or could.

[[XAP]Bob]

That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.

I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

A rocket doesn't need air to push against...

It does.

Why would a rocket need air to work?
It's trivial to get a small rocket motor and put it in a vacuum chamber and demonstrate that it generates thrust in a vacuum. Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.

If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.
Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?
Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?
Yes but barely!
So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?
Dude seriously!

There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size. I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.

This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.

There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convent and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).
No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...
And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.

There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

Didn't mention gravity - just look at the air pressure gradient - fairly soon as you go up (do you believe in up?) the air gets too thin to breath.

Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.
Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.

This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

Only in the sense that the exhaust is the car. Rocket exhaust is a carefully controlled flow of gas, the rocket motor is carefully designed to extract the greatest possible exchange of momentum between rocket and fuel/exhaust.

Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.

From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

Erm - no, where definitions have been stable for centuries.

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

TPTB? The powers that be?
Who they hell are they meant to be?
There is a difference between a theory and a fact. I'll refer you to a dictionary again.
They have quite specific meanings.

Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.
You rely on orbital mechanics, rockets and the time dilation of relativity any time you get your location from GPS/Glonass/???/???


Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.

[Manc33]

I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVlo1Ez5fk

Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

Yes but in a vacuum on Earth, it still has the ground to push against.

There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size.

Those lights in the sky are so far away you can't determine if they are satellites but because it all matches up with some electronic device saying that is where the satellite is, you assume what you're seeing has to be the satellite, I get that but it isn't necessarily really a satellite, it can be rigged that way.

I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

If they are put up there for display purposes they are also going to be made to be passing by at the exact right times.

Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

Air isn't there in a vacuum for any of this "pushing against" to be occurring.

You said it yourself, its solid matter hitting solid matter that causes movement, you can't have solid matter pushing on nothing and moving somewhere.

So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

Nothing is "magic" about the gas force not pushing the rocket, the force is 100% there as I have already said, the vacuum of space gets it all with a gas cloud floating away forever.

Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...

It isn't just atom sized chunks though.

There's chunks of space rock 1mm wide going at 17,000 MPH (the purported speed of the ISS).

And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.

Heat cannot "dissipate" in space with a radiator, or anything else. Even a fan can't work because no air would blow.

Convection and conduction has to be mentioned because it is a requirement.

NASA just lies and says they have magic "water cooled" space suits - when water boils at 100C and they are in environments reaching 2,500C?

Again just like with the equipment, there's no way to throw the heat off, water cooling isn't even coming close.

Didn't mention gravity

You said "There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by..."

They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

An axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established that it is accepted without controversy or question. This can include some maths but doesn't always need to.

Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

Mayans could predict eclipses and so on but they didn't have or need a theory of gravity to do that.

So it isn't true that because of gravity we can predict these things, they were being predicted centuries ago.

Now you're going to say they were observing gravity without even knowing it?

Thats not enough proof for me, I need to see a machine that is stopped and starts moving due to gravity, no such machine exists, with the excuse being "Gravity is far too weak" - but thats not right if it holds the ocean to the Earth. It is motor-mouth lies from these saps, they just tell people what they want to hear for the most part. Does it need gravity? Right then it exists. Nothing even proves it and the way the cosmos moves doesn't prove why objects stick to the ground here on Earth, it is barely a tenuous link.

There is a difference between a theory and a fact.

This is what I have been telling you.

Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics took something real (the acceleration rate of a falling object) and added something unverified to it (gravity). The two things are cleverly tied together, but one is real and one isn't. Objects really accelerate when they fall but gravity doesn't need to be there.

As I have already pointed out this "G" isn't a constant anyway either, because objects of different densities fall at different speeds in water tanks. So it isn't even right that it is a constant either, on top of it not ever being proven.

"Why don't you jump out of a building and you'll soon find out what gravity is" they say, but I won't, I will find out my body has way more density than the air has and the air cannot possibly support me or even get close to supporting me with those differences in density. Why add gravity to that? I might as well have a phone in my hand and say the phone is making me fall, there's as much proof for that as there is "gravity" doing it.

It "has to be gravity" because it is claimed we live on a spinning ball, no other reason.

Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.

He was a real scientist.

[Manc33]

However when I look at Manc33 and XAPBob's recent posts my mind simply can't cope - I switch off completely and move on to something else. So it seems to me perfectly reasonable that there are people who have the same reaction when faced with a bicycle repair.

Its all relative.

If your mind can't cope here's one simple golden rule to anything I ever say - it needs proof.

Thats it. It just needs proof.

I don't do anything any differently to anyone else except I am more strict and demanding when it comes to proving something.

I can see contradictions in science, therefore it is some sort of religion, in certain departments. A "shield for bunk" where 99% checks out but the other 1% oh boy... wow... The perfect shield for bunk, the perfect religion.

The best proof for gravity is two balls hanging from a shed roof 200 years ago, probably without any controls put in for plate tectonics, would you trust that and hinge the theory of gravity on it? I am choosing not to.

How come no gyroscope has ever shown physically that a plane is tipping its nose down around the globe? If thats not happening it sort of proves we aren't flying over a curve. There are endless anomalies.

The usual answer to why planes aren't ending up in space when maintaining altitude is that "gravity" (what else) can intelligently keep that plane "level", yes gravity knows what level is to a human flying a plane, you can even change the weight of the plane and gravity will simply accommodate it! It almost like... magic (suppresses laugh). Even if that were true OK, the gyroscope isn't telling us what it needs to be telling us, it proves it if there's no "tipping" happening, with magic intelligent gravity keeping the plane level or not.

As Jeranism often says look, I am not that bright... but I'm not that dumb either.

All the info is out there, check out Mark Sargent's "testimonies" shows interviewing people from the Navy that have worked on ships firing missiles over the ocean and so on and not accounting for curvature, no one does in any field or profession, land surveyors, submarine guys. After a while the spinning ball thesis starts to become whats odd.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Hows your sanity [XAP]Bob

[Manc33]

Hi,
Hows your sanity [XAP]Bob

I'm not even carrying it on now, because I will just get banned the same as I did on BR, for the same reason.

[Samuel D]

The usual answer to why planes aren't ending up in space when maintaining altitude is that "gravity" (what else) can intelligently keep that plane "level"…

But why do you believe in aeroplanes?

[[XAP]Bob]

I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVlo1Ez5fk

That's a mumbling anonymous youtuber - not exactly a press release.

Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

Yes but in a vacuum on Earth, it still has the ground to push against.

Er - how? It can be pointed towards the ground, it doesn't matter - the thrust is generated as the result of momentum exchange between the rocket motor and the fuel/exhaust.

There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size.

Those lights in the sky are so far away you can't determine if they are satellites but because it all matches up with some electronic device saying that is where the satellite is, you assume what you're seeing has to be the satellite, I get that but it isn't necessarily really a satellite, it can be rigged that way.

Who said anything about an electronic device. I can calculate orbital periods quite happily.
And I can see that they are satellites - I just point my 'scope in the correct direction and see them [url="https://www.google.ie/search?q=backyard+telescope+image+of+the+iss&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=808&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj73pzOr63MAhWqB8AKHYCXAQ0QsAQIIg"]like any of these[/url]...

I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

If they are put up there for display purposes they are also going to be made to be passing by at the exact right times.

Put where?

Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

Air isn't there in a vacuum for any of this "pushing against" to be occurring.

You said it yourself, its solid matter hitting solid matter that causes movement, you can't have solid matter pushing on nothing and moving somewhere.

No need for it to be solid - I could spray you with a fire extinguisher - it would just give me less pleasure.
Does a sailing boat need to push against a solid to get thrust? The rocket exhaust pushes on the rocket motor - meaning that one accelerates in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.

So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

Nothing is "magic" about the gas force not pushing the rocket, the force is 100% there as I have already said, the vacuum of space gets it all with a gas cloud floating away forever.

But you said there is no vacuum?
And how can I push a vacuum, I can't possibly apply any force, it isn't solid...

Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...

It isn't just atom sized chunks though.

There's chunks of space rock 1mm wide going at 17,000 MPH (the purported speed of the ISS).

Whipple shields are really good:

And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.

Heat cannot "dissipate" in space with a radiator, or anything else. Even a fan can't work because no air would blow.

Convection and conduction has to be mentioned because it is a requirement.
NASA just lies and says they have magic "water cooled" space suits - when water boils at 100C and they are in environments reaching 2,500C?

Again just like with the equipment, there's no way to throw the heat off, water cooling isn't even coming close.

Why can't you radiate heat - it is after all how the energy from the sun reaches the earth - sorry you don't believe in either of those things.
It's how the heat from my garage halogen radiator gets to me...

Didn't mention gravity

You said "There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by..."

So I did - but the observation doesn't rely on it - the atmosphere can be observed to be petering out. Of course it's just that it's heavier when it's nearer the earth - magically.

They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

An axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established that it is accepted without controversy or question. This can include some maths but doesn't always need to.

NO - an axiom is more than that in Maths.
It is an assumption - it is the basis on which the remainder of the subject hinges. For instance in algebra there are four or five (depending on whether you count the multiplicative axiom separately from the additive axiom).

Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

Mayans could predict eclipses and so on but they didn't have or need a theory of gravity to do that.

So it isn't true that because of gravity we can predict these things, they were being predicted centuries ago.

Now you're going to say they were observing gravity without even knowing it?

Thats not enough proof for me, I need to see a machine that is stopped and starts moving due to gravity, no such machine exists, with the excuse being "Gravity is far too weak" - but thats not right if it holds the ocean to the Earth. It is motor-mouth lies from these saps, they just tell people what they want to hear for the most part. Does it need gravity? Right then it exists. Nothing even proves it and the way the cosmos moves doesn't prove why objects stick to the ground here on Earth, it is barely a tenuous link.

OK - stop a tennis ball and then let it go - gravity will cause it to start moving. Better yet find a piano and a crane, then stand under the piano when the crane driver releases the piano. Since gravity can't cause the piano to move you'll be fine.

Eclipses can be predicted because the orbits of the bodies in the solar system follow a few simple rules - and whether or not you understand the rules you can observe their effects, and extrapolate future alignments.

There is a difference between a theory and a fact.

This is what I have been telling you.

No - you've been saying that a theory cannot be fact.

Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics took something real (the acceleration rate of a falling object) and added something unverified to it (gravity). The two things are cleverly tied together, but one is real and one isn't. Objects really accelerate when they fall but gravity doesn't need to be there.

As I have already pointed out this "G" isn't a constant anyway either, because objects of different densities fall at different speeds in water tanks. So it isn't even right that it is a constant either, on top of it not ever being proven.

Er - of course they will, that'll be due to the other forces at work in the situation...
[youtube]5C5_dOEyAfk[/youtube]

"Why don't you jump out of a building and you'll soon find out what gravity is" they say, but I won't, I will find out my body has way more density than the air has and the air cannot possibly support me or even get close to supporting me with those differences in density. Why add gravity to that? I might as well have a phone in my hand and say the phone is making me fall, there's as much proof for that as there is "gravity" doing it.

Why would the air need to support you if there was no gravity?

It "has to be gravity" because it is claimed we live on a spinning ball, no other reason.

Huh?

Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.

He was a real scientist.

Yes - and? So was Einstein, and Hawking, and Newton, and ...
Science is always building on earlier theories - refining them and improving our understanding of the world around us.
The current understanding of the world is based on a curvature of space-time, and you know what. It works really damned well.
The gravitational lensing it predicts was observed in 1919, confirmed in 1922 and several times since. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is correctly accounted for, Gravitational redshift has been measured, the Sharipo delay...

[[XAP]Bob]

Hi,
Hows your sanity [XAP]Bob

Better than Manc's

[[XAP]Bob]

The usual answer to why planes aren't ending up in space when maintaining altitude is that "gravity" (what else) can intelligently keep that plane "level"…

But why do you believe in aeroplanes?

Or maybe it's that "level" isn't a perfectly straight line...
They follow a great circle path...

[661-Pete]

Manc, were you in on this project, by any chance?
[youtube]JK6a6Hkp94o[/youtube]

[Postboxer]

You can see the ISS going by, there's even a website to tell you when and where to look, with the right equipment you can take photos of it, it's slightly bigger than a bus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

I thought the difficulty in rocket science is the part where you have to build a rocket, not the physics of how the thrust works, throw mass out of the back, as fast as possible, to provide thrust to the rocket. Then comes the navigation, large distances involved, gravity from other objects, mapping a huge three dimensional space, where helpfully everything is moving around.

[[XAP]Bob]

The normal saying is:

Rocket science is easier, it's the engineering that's hard.