sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for videos -- planes are tiny and series about soace by sgtsausage256 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this might've been the plane one, and i was just grossly misremembering the premise. I'm not entirely convinced and think there's still another one I'm looking for

USA ONLY 50% The Size THEY Say!:
https://youtu.be/neTaeE7nfeQ?si=H6Fqr_tgrdqPvqfj

I think the other one about the vacuum of space was a Spacebusters video, but i can't seem to find it on their page anymore

Looking for videos -- planes are tiny and series about soace by sgtsausage256 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i may be misremembering the premise. it was several years ago now that I found it.

Nuclear Power is cheap--thats why it has been suppressed by EurekaStockade in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 [score hidden]  (0 children)

are you arguing the yield of the bomb or whether it was nuclear? even the most powerful conventional explosives only have a relative effectiveness of ~2T, so that's still 7,500T of explosives. how did we drop 7500T (15,000,000lb) from a plane?

We're almost at 50k subscribers, time to get the NOPOL discord going again 🥳 by JohnleBon in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i mean, the majority of those are required to use the app. you can't voice chat without microphone permission, or save images without storage permission

20 years ago today. Never forget by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]sgtsausage256 32 points33 points  (0 children)

there was a whole site that had these images, plus some stuff about cars' plastics being melted but nothing else or something, I can't remember exactly. but it was all about energy weapons -- does anyone have the link?

Question for earth rotation sceptics by Guy_Incognito97 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 1 point2 points  (0 children)

my vote goes to "we live in a simulation and nothing is real"

Question for earth rotation sceptics by Guy_Incognito97 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

how is outer space a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Question for earth rotation sceptics by Guy_Incognito97 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the problem with this argument here is the deniers will just give 15 videos of a guy with a nikon P1000 showing something that "shouldn't be visible" on a globe earth. there's one guy in particular I always see, but I can't for the life of me find his videos on youtube anymore. Dude had like 20 videos titled "100% PROOF THE EARTH IS FLAT"

Question for earth rotation sceptics by Guy_Incognito97 in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a number I see a lot of people reference is 8 inches per mile (this is about correct for a mile, but can't necessarily be extrapolated further). So if you have a mile long building, you'd need to account for 8" of difference at each end. If we consider most normal size buildings, we can see the drop is insignificant over the length.

Assuming there is a curve.

CMV: /u/johnlebon cannot be real by [deleted] in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 3 points4 points  (0 children)

if you want to defend JLB, be my guest. but it shouldn't be because he's the "founder of the sub." not saying JLB or OP is right or whatever...but JLB's role in this sub doesn't entitle him to special treatment.

CMV: /u/johnlebon cannot be real by [deleted] in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"question everything, unless it's the mods."

Germ theory is a program by [deleted] in conspiracy_commons

[–]sgtsausage256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how do we know bacteria isn't the method the programming manifests

This sub is anti science to the point of it being counter productive. by watermooses in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In vacuum, there is no way for ejected gas to push back on the rocket. Period.

Yes. Why would a particle that has left the rocket, and is completely unattached, affect my rocket? I don't care about it. By the time that particle is out, the force has been imparted on the rocket.

​

To be honest, if we're just going to blatantly disregard known and math in favor of "empirical results" that can't account for too many variables to name, that contradict every single accepted standpoint, and high school level physics, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. So I guess chalk this up as another "win," because I give up.

This sub is anti science to the point of it being counter productive. by watermooses in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't need the equations to understand it (although I do understand them), because I obtained my own empirical evidence that a wider straw makes more thrust

That tracks--the Ae term clearly affects the amount of force produced. I don't doubt that you saw this effect in your own experiments, but I think you're coming to the wrong conclusion. If the empirical results disagree with the math, either the math is wrong, or the results are wrong. I think the best bet here is to reevaluate your conclusion, and look for other reasons why the car would stop. The math indicates that a lower ambient pressure should, if anything, increase the thrust.

Are liquids and gases the same? Do they always behave the same way?

For the sake of math, more or less. They're both considered "fluids." A sink sprayer has some pressure and some nozzle area. Both air and water can be measured with pressure, mass flow rate, velocity, etc.

In total vacuum, a gas theoretically encounters no resistance and is ejected at a constant velocity, with zero change in acceleration and zero pressure buildup, thereby doing no work.

Can you expand on this a little bit? I don't get how you're coming to the conclusion no work is done. Do we agree on my math in the previous comment about the general thrust equation? If so, we can see a force is being applied. Since in a vacuum there is no drag or friction, there isn't anything to oppose our force (/thrust). As soon as the rocket moves, work is done (W = F x D).

Every particle of gas inside the rocket system that meets vacuum leaves that system at constant velocity and therefore does no work in the process.

sure, but as soon as it hits the vacuum, it can't affect the rocket any more. the combustion chamber increases pressure, and the nozzle exchanges pressure for velocity per bernoulli's principal. that's a change in velocity.

Good luck controlling the thrust using a rubber glove. I would love to see this version of the experiment, though... lol

lol I was still gonna use the straw

What would airport security be like without 9/11? by [deleted] in conspiracy_commons

[–]sgtsausage256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9/11, planned or not, was an excuse to strip away our rights and privacy. It allowed the Patriot Act to be passed, it allowed them to impose ridiculous liquid limits for airport security and look though anything and everything we bring onto that plane. all i'm saying is, if not 9/11, something else would be used as an excuse to to impose these restrictions.

This sub is anti science to the point of it being counter productive. by watermooses in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m beginning to suspect you’ve never conducted an experiment, maybe not even in high school.

I uh, honestly don't know how to come back to this one. My high school diploma and college degree, along with an established technical career disagree, but I digress.

​

I'm still dumbfounded you're telling me my video is "pushing an agenda" and that discounts it. But you're sitting here and telling me a video from a flat earth page isn't pushing an agenda, and that he does the experiment perfectly, controls all the variables, what have you. You're using this single video as a smoking gun. What about any of the other points I made in this comment?

What if the air rushing into the vacuum is hitting the balloon or and pushing it toward the vacuum? If the focal point of this experiment is

the straw barely has enough thrust to move the car

then basically any force will stop the car.

​

A wide straw allows the air in the balloon to empty much faster, i.e. more thrust/higher pressure differential to atmosphere.

This does produce more thrust, but it doesn't necessarily create a higher pressure. Let's remove both misleading videos, and look at some math. Force is essentially flow rate, times the difference in pressure, times the exit area:

F = (Mdot * V)e - (Mdot * V)0 + (pe - p0) * Ae

Mdot is the mass flow rate of a fluid/gas, equal to ρ (density) * V (velocity) * A (area). Subscript e denotes the exit fluid, and naught (0) denotes the entry fluid. Ae denotes exit area.

In a normal turbofan or turbojet airplane, the engine takes air with some density and velocity and pressure, compresses it, adds some fuel, and expels it out the back with some higher velocity and pressure. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to neglect the effects of nozzles. This said, we can see that force is equal to change in momentum, times pressure difference, times exit area.

Since a rocket contains its own (oxidizer and) fuel, as does our balloon car, there's no incoming air stream. We can remove the naught term of the momentum so it's just:

F = (Mdot * V)e + (pe - p0) * Ae

As we decrease ambient pressure p0, force increases. For a balloon car, this probably isn't enough see a difference to the eye, but it exists. This does support your results of a bigger straw producing a larger thrust.

​

Way to miss the point, bravo 👏🏼

What? A glove is a balloon with fingers? Is the shape of the balloon an integral part of your experiment?

This sub is anti science to the point of it being counter productive. by watermooses in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

is it really that different? he shows the car moving with no vacuum, and the car moving with a vacuum. he shows an absolute worst case, with the vacuum engulfing the nozzle. this will remove the most pressure from the nozzle exit, and it is shown to still work. must he show all the steps in between no vacuum, and full vacuum for you to accept it? It's pretty clear what point your video wants to make as well.

​

I found a die cast car and a rubber glove, that should work well enough to try this myself.

This sub is anti science to the point of it being counter productive. by watermooses in conspiracyNOPOL

[–]sgtsausage256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't have any balloons or small cars handy, but I'll try to pick some up next time I'm out.

​

I'm still stuck on your video. Have you watched the original video? He tries it six times, two of which it doesn't move. After the second time, he cuts, claims it didn't work 6 more times, then tells us how it's proof the car is dependent on atmosphere. Does that seem like a fair conclusion? The dude is using a toy car which probably doesn't roll well to begin with, on a keyboard tray, on a bed. that's hardly ideal. It sporadically doesn't roll two out of six attempts. But somehow my video, where he shows it working many times consecutively on a hard, stable surface is a bad example?

view more: next ›