Latest News

34 Comments on Balls Out Physics Episode 5.2: Conservation of Momentum in Space

  1. There is no pushing against air required. The reaction is between the
    nozzle and the water. “It’s that simple”. When the water leaves the system
    an equal force in the opposite direction must remain in the rest of the
    system. Otherwise you do not conserve momentum.

    • Paul Cadorette // 9th June 2016 at 5:07 pm // Reply

      Wow are you ever dumb!! And you contradicted yourself over and over!! If
      its the SUN that is moving as you said more than 3 times….THAT COMPLETELY
      DESTROYS THE HELIO CENTRIC MODEL!!!All your other BS is just parroted crap!!

    • tekcomputers // 9th June 2016 at 5:25 pm // Reply

      +Paul Cadorette
      From a matter of bearing rate you can’t tell the difference. Siting on
      object A looking at a object B circling around you at Distance x is going
      to look the same as Object A spinning at distance X from Object B, both
      would present the same bearing rate. However, for bearing rate to remain
      relatively constant through the observation the change in range of the
      object has to minuscule in comparison to the distance of the object….
      which was my point, It means the FE model does not work just looking at how
      the Sun by itself progresses through the sky,

      When I am talking bearing rate of an observed object I’m not necessarily
      talking about that object itself moving in the literal sense, bearing rate
      is the rate of change of the bearing in relation to the observer. A
      stationary object has a bearing rate when observed from a moving object,
      because it’s measure of the change in relative degrees of the object from
      the observer at different times. More to the point and in fact, something
      can be moving and have a 0 bearing rate, for example….. Two objects in
      motion which are on trajectories that will result in collision at some
      point will present a 0 bearing rate. That’s in fact how as FT’s plot
      targeting solutions for weapons…… we calculate weapon trajectory to
      have a 0 bearing rate solution to the target.

    • Paul Cadorette // 9th June 2016 at 5:38 pm // Reply

      Yes and amidst all that gobbledgook you said it once again….”as the SUN
      progresses through the sky”….LOL!! And of course there have been many
      interviews with artillery target painters in the Navy who have said that
      they NEVER ever take into account curvature when painting targets 30 or 40
      or 50 or 60 miles!! If there is NO curvature we CANNOT live on a stupid
      ball and that totally destroys the heliocentric model!! Just ONE fact
      completely obliterates all your confusing formulas which amount to
      nothing!!You think you are so smart….and this stuff is so simple even a 5
      year old can understand it!! They have you so indoctrinated that you cant
      see at all!!

    • Paul Cadorette // 9th June 2016 at 5:39 pm // Reply

      O the magic of gravity is the answer to all ball earthers BS!!

    • tekcomputers // 9th June 2016 at 6:37 pm // Reply

      +Paul Cadorette
      I see you don’t actually grasp what I am saying. Okay, when you are in one
      spot looking at another object that is in relative motion to yourself, as
      that object nears you its bearing rate increases and as it moves away the
      bearing rate slows. The closer an object is the faster that bearing rate
      will be at its closest point. In addition, the rate of change of bearing
      rate through the process will be proportional to the distance changes from
      those relative points… That is an object that is further away, that makes
      a small relative distance change through the observed motion is going to
      have a small change in rate between the beginning point and its closest
      point of approach; an object which has a large change in relative range is
      going to have a more drastic change in relative bearing rate. What this
      gives us when looking at the Sun’s bearing rate in its (relative)
      progression through the sky, is constant…. this means that the distance
      is not changing, or is such a small change in relation to its distance that
      it is not readily discernible…. IOW… with the observational distances
      on the Earth, the Sun would have to be much further than the relative
      distances of observation points on the Earth….. in other words, if we are
      talking points on Earth thousands of miles away from each other seeing the
      Sun at the same time, the Sun’s distance has to be millions of miles
      away… Since we are not dealing with a close little “spotlight” sun, but
      one millions of miles away, the concept of it ever touching the horizon
      becomes moot…. in such a case it would simply remain overhead and just
      disappear whenever the spotlight moves away….. Out the window there goes
      the “sun set perspective” argument….. So even if we were to argue a
      geocentric model in this example, it would have to be a ball earth at the
      center with a Sun orbiting millions of miles away to produce the
      progression we see. A flat model cannot duplicate it.

      In ballistics you do in fact have to account for curvature over great
      distances, you also have to account for Coriolis force. As for the so
      called FE’ers masquerading a “Navy Ballistic artillery experts” none of
      them are firing at 30-40-50 miles distances, when they say they are that
      just shows me we’re dealing with stolen valor types masquerading as
      veterans…. the longest range US Naval artillery on ships was about 23-24
      miles at best (was, we’ve retired all our big gun stuff at this point)…
      past that you’re engaging with missiles…. Most missiles are cruise
      missiles, and they don’t deal with ballistics…. they are for all intents
      and purposes simply programmable self-guiding aircraft with an explosive
      payload.

  2. Brian Mullin // 6th April 2016 at 11:12 am // Reply

    Rob got back to me and said that he doesn’t want to go the donation route
    for the vacuum chamber experiments, which I understand and agree with.
    Accepting money for work in the truth movement detracts from the subject
    matter and can also damage credibility. Truth should be free to all!

    • Andrei Vida-Raţiu // 20th May 2016 at 11:33 am // Reply

      +Rab S
      🙂

      I just watched again this video. Completely misses the basic idea on how
      rockets are propelled.
      He wastes half an hour demonstrating something that starts from the wrong
      idea.
      I told him what is the correct idea but, of course, no answer (not that I
      expected one…).

    • Niels Kloster // 20th May 2016 at 12:05 pm // Reply

      Can’t really decide if his employer should be contacted. This could in
      extreme circumstances be life-threatening.
      – “Is there a risk that the pressure vessel will explode if it rusts?”
      – “No no. The reaction has already occurred so there is no driving force
      for any explosion.”
      – “…!!!”
      I doubt that any such case would ever occur though.

    • Niels Kloster // 22nd May 2016 at 8:58 pm // Reply

      +Brian Mullin BUMP!
      Reposting previous q/a:
      The potential is 0.5 * k * x^2 (joules) which you put in when you initially
      conpressed the spring. I have never heard of this referred to as the force
      within the spring. As I said the spring still has a force of R0 in opposite
      directions and you remove one when you remove the door which increses the
      net force from 0 to R0. That force then starts to decrease.

      Are you also proposing that the concepts of conservation of energy and
      conservation of momentum are not valid? If you believe both are conserved,
      then you also run into some problems if you want to calculate the reactions
      of the same setup WITH air.

      I watched a bit more, and I see you at least know about the conservation of
      momentum. If you would agree that the principle is valid then the initial
      momentum (after opening the door) is 0. The spring moves right, so how do
      you balance that to keep the total momentum at 0? And if the spring under
      normal conditions is pushing against the air, then some of the momentum is
      imparted to the air. Any experiment I have done have show that effect to be
      negligible. Didn’t you have classes in the lab at UNF?

    • Niels Kloster // 25th May 2016 at 8:35 am // Reply

      +Brian Mullin BUMP BUMP!!
      Reposting previous q/a:
      The potential is 0.5 * k * x^2 (joules) which you put in when you initially
      conpressed the spring. I have never heard of this referred to as the force
      within the spring. As I said the spring still has a force of R0 in opposite
      directions and you remove one when you remove the door which increses the
      net force from 0 to R0. That force then starts to decrease.

      Are you also proposing that the concepts of conservation of energy and
      conservation of momentum are not valid? If you believe both are conserved,
      then you also run into some problems if you want to calculate the reactions
      of the same setup WITH air.

      I watched a bit more, and I see you at least know about the conservation of
      momentum. If you would agree that the principle is valid then the initial
      momentum (after opening the door) is 0. The spring moves right, so how do
      you balance that to keep the total momentum at 0? And if the spring under
      normal conditions is pushing against the air, then some of the momentum is
      imparted to the air. Any experiment I have done have show that effect to be
      negligible. Didn’t you have classes in the lab at UNF?

  3. Brian Mullin // 8th April 2016 at 5:51 am // Reply

    Simple proof that a reaction is required between the propellant and the
    surrounding environment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-v_K1k8Se0&feature=youtu.be&t=391

    Will have to do a similar experiment.

    • AssumptionTruncheon // 17th April 2016 at 9:12 pm // Reply

      +Eamon Minges I find your puberty taxing, little Eamon. Be still now and
      let the adults try to figure out how this system has vandalized your
      innocent little mind.

    • Eamon Minges // 17th April 2016 at 10:07 pm // Reply

      +AssumptionTruncheon Vandalized it in what way?

    • jeremy marshall // 20th April 2016 at 7:59 pm // Reply

      +Brian Mullin they just don’t want to accept it

    • +jeremy marshall Shitty evidence doesn’t equal an unwillingness to accept
      evidence. It just equals shitty evidence.

    • Paul Forrester // 2nd June 2016 at 1:20 pm // Reply

      Face palm. A vacuum cleaner is not the same as the vacuum of space. The
      vacuum cleaner is not creating a vacuum, it is sucking air towards it. It
      is in no way analogous.

  4. Mark Harris // 10th April 2016 at 9:34 am // Reply

    That was a very nice presentation, Brian. It was very easy to follow and
    made perfect sense. Thanks loads.

  5. Tom Bombadil // 28th April 2016 at 10:42 pm // Reply

    The mass of the water moving out of the fire hose is what pushes it back,
    not the air resistance. Air resistance would be negligible in the case of a
    fire hose, easily absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere. You yourself made
    the point earlier about standing on a skateboard and throwing a weight… ?

  6. +Brian Mullin I’m having a hard time deciding if you really believe this or
    if you just getting off trolling the poor dumb slobs that buy this crap. If
    you convince me your not a troll I might consider helping you understand
    why you’re absolutely wrong about the conservation of momentum depending on
    the atmosphere pushing back. But do you want to know? Or is this fantasy
    that you are so much smarter than everyone else and only you can see thru
    this conspiracy too much to resist. What is the chance that you’ve figured
    this out and thousands and thousands of physicists and engineers either
    can’t figure it out or worse all of the engineers and scientists in the
    satellite industry are in on the conspiracy? If you think this is real I
    think you should consider getting some professional psychiatric help. I’m
    not saying that as an insult I’m actually kind of concerned, particularly
    because you claim to be practicing structural engineering but seem to be in
    a confused mental state.

  7. Pavel Wunsch // 26th May 2016 at 8:02 pm // Reply

    The essential pat of this video starts at 22:00. The claim, that without
    air “pushing back” against the flow of materia from the nozzle, there is no
    thrust, is incorrect. Even worse, it shows that Your understanding of
    entire classical mechanics is fundamentally wrong.

    Newton’s 3rd law is mentioned several times in the video. Here it is: When
    one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously
    exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first
    body.
    Your modified version is: When one body exerts a force on a second body,
    the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and
    opposite in direction on the first body, BUT ONLY IF there is a third body
    “pushing back” against the second body. That’s not 3rd Newton’s law.

    By the way: no one (reasonable) says, thet the rocket engine works 100% the
    same in our atmosphere and in the space. The effect of the surrounding air
    on expanding exhaust gases is called aerostatic back-pressure, and it has
    significant impact on designing optimal nozzle dimensions for various
    altitudes (and space). It has to be taken into account to design *efficient*
    engine, where the kinetic energy of the gas is not wasted by overexpansion
    (thats for space, but there exists also underexpansion, when ambient
    pressure is too high).
    Nevertheless: do the exhaust gasses have mass? Yes they do. Do they have a
    velocity vector, pointing out of the engine nozzle? Yes. Not in just one
    direction, there are always some losses, but they do. And that is all it
    takes.

  8. vic button // 27th May 2016 at 3:20 pm // Reply

    Thanks very good again – I even understood this, and that saying things!
    Keep up this fantastic work – I am learning all the time.

  9. your equation is like 4 = -4

  10. Hey brother I appreciate everything you’re doing but I need to know what is
    the leading theory on meteor strikes shooting stars etc. if we are under a
    dome is it pure radiation allowing for debris or some type of solid that
    won’t allow penetration? Thanks for your courage. In dangerous territory!

    • Brian Mullin // 12th June 2016 at 2:22 am // Reply

      Thanks, I’m not sure what meteors, shooting stars, etc are. I do know that
      we never see shooting stars travel up from the horizon, only down or
      horizontal.

    • Vladimir Novakovic // 4th July 2016 at 8:29 pm // Reply

      I don’t know of a verifiable account of a meteorite actually hitting the
      ground, ever. There are many videos and accounts of some light streaking
      the sky, but never that it actually hit, and that includes the recent
      videos from Russia, California,… So I am pretty much skeptical that
      anything ever from space fell and hit the ground

      Re the dome, I think the dome is where the atmosphere ends. This area
      bounces back the EM waves, creates the rainbow, and the rockets cannot
      surpass it. The dome doesn’t have to be necessarily hard material, but more
      like a functional barrier. Like, the dome for dolphins is the water
      surface, and they can jump over their dome a bit, just like the rockets can
      jump a bit over the Karman line (when they gain enough “escape velocity”),
      but then they must go back down, like Chuck Yeager jumped few times over
      the dome in his rocket plane, before the USAF (and Russia) abandoned the
      program, and nasa took it over.

  11. There was talk about some kind of propulsion that is more-less explosions
    behind the vehicle. I don’t really remember what kind of explosions they
    were talking about but I assume many little but rapid nuclear explosions
    would propel a ship pretty well.

  12. The problem here is the rockets used to send ships into space don’t just
    turn a valve and release everything into space, there is a reaction in the
    thruster, its like trying to say your car slows down as the level of your
    fuel tank lowers :

    Its a controlled release that relies on a chemical and thermal reaction to
    greatly increase the amount of energy you release from the fuel for a given
    volume.

  13. Nelson Visconti // 29th June 2016 at 6:37 pm // Reply

    In other words there’s nothing to push against.
    Thank you

  14. Nelson Visconti // 29th June 2016 at 6:50 pm // Reply

    Recently i was thinking about our senses, our common sense and our
    subconscious, i believe that they all work together if we let them. We say
    subconsciousnessly things like Sun up, Sun down, Sunrise, Sunset i truely
    believe we know through our senses that the sun is moving up and down and
    all arround and the earth is not moving it shakes and spits fire here and
    there but the earth never moves from its foundation.
    Nelson

  15. 1stMrSceptical // 5th July 2016 at 6:52 pm // Reply

    Its all bollox! Rocket propulsion cannot work in the vacuum of space.. The
    exhaust gases are immediately dissipated into the infinity of the vacuum.
    ie: the expanding gasses that pushes on the nozzle are instantly swallowed
    by the vacuum.. Nasa is ripping off the Yankie tax paying public big time,
    what a right gullible lot of losers… As for the sudo Professor who
    invented that sky hook, he need to look for other employment. I watched him
    at that meeting, it was cringe worthy, asked about anything technical he
    passed it over to someone who did not exist in the audience. What a first
    class tosser…

  16. Kevin Lyon // 14th July 2016 at 5:28 am // Reply

    So did you ever figure out why you are wrong?

  17. David Tanner // 15th July 2016 at 12:16 pm // Reply

    a fish tank breaking and all the water gushing out. is that like propulsion
    in a vacuum?

  18. David Tanner // 15th July 2016 at 12:44 pm // Reply

    what if there was a chemical reaction taking place at the nozzle, could
    that create propulsion?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


Shares
Share This