Because I'm not a scientifically-illiterate flat-earth-brainwashed closed-minded smooth-brained lying moron with an overdeveloped sense of my own intelligence and knowledge.
Ahhhh, I see.
A reliance on stories....but by who?
Sir Isaac Tolkein.
Aye on a fairground ride or the roundabout, I agree.
But they also stay winging outwards at any given rate, whether its slight at a few mph or near horizontal at a higher mph or revolution.
The point is they still swing out and you feel it.
Of course you can argue about it making one revolution over 24 hours but it's simply not a match up.
It absolutely is a match up. The force that produces the swinging of the chairs is based on ANGULAR velocity, which is dependent on the RADIUS of the motion. If the fairground ride was going 1000 mph then I'd agree with you, you'd feel it because of the tiny radius - it would mean the angular velocity would be enormous - you'd be doing something like 150 revolutions per second to maintain that forward speed. However, the greater the radius, the lower the angular velocity produced by the same forward speed (which of course is the case because the "chairs" would have to cover a greater distance with the same forward speed), and therefore the lower the outward force created by that angular velocity.
the way to match it up is to say the fairground ride is 24,000 miles in circumference and everyone who gets on each swing will be going at 1000 mph and will take 24 hours to get back to their starting position.
We're all sitting on that ride right now. It's called The Earth.
The point being, it would still be 1000 mph and you would certainly feel it.
No, you wouldn't. We don't.
So this supposed slow as a clock speed is just a simple sidestep con job to argue for why we don;t feel the rotation
No conning required, it is reality and is observed every day by ourselves and billions of others.
when the reality is, the Earth does not rotate.
It absolutely does.
A vacuum would be nothing. Nothing could exist in a vacuum.
Sigh.
But...as you say....if we are going down the extreme low pressure route and classing that as the vacuum then space has to be extreme low pressure meaning it has to be a medium throughout, meaning all matter within it, is attached.
attached to what?
Which means there's no floating about like we're told.
Prove your working here. That makes no sense.
Which means there's no constant velocity. It basically cannot exist.
Prove your working here. That makes no sense.
It means nothing can exist within it like we're told.
Prove your working here. That makes no sense.
If the argument goes back to space being a true vacuum or something like it with bits of scattered particles just milling about up there, then it becomes even more clownish............but..........this is the stuff we were all brought up on. Like Santa and the toothfairy....etc....etc.
This bit is just gibberish.
There's one simple law and it's the third.
The second simply adds on to the third and basically says the same thing.
I'd like to see you prove how the second says the same thing as the third. How mass-acceleration equivalency is a direct result of equal and opposite reactions.
STRAP YOURSELVES IN, BOYS. WE'RE ABOUT TO LEARN WHY NEWTON'S FIRST LAW IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Come one then, explain this one.
How is it impossible for an object to sit still until you move it?
This will be a game changer in all of our lives.
When I put an ornament on my fireplace, never again will I be able to assume it will be there when I return later.
When a football match is about to kick off and they place the ball on the centre spot, never again can we assume the ball will stay there until someone kicks it.
When we go to bed at night, who knows where we'll end up because it would be impossible that we'd wake up in our bedrooms in the morning.
This is going to change life as we know it for everyone in the world.
Come on then, explain how Newton's first LAW of motion is impossible.
No.
The atmosphere aids in crushing the balloon back into its original shape once the nozzle is opened.
And this exiting air from the nozzle creates a higher push against the atmosphere
No it doesn't.
and hits that atmospheric barrier
there is no such thing as an "atmospheric barrier"
creating the push required for the balloon to move in the opposite direction.
wrong
If there was no external atmospheric barrier there would be no propulsion.
wrong. there is no such thing as an atmospheric barrier and yet we have propulsion.
The supposed vacuum offers next to zero resistance to action going by what we're told.
Any expelled gases would simply be expanded into it and hit no barrier to propel the craft in the opposite direction.
Wrong, as explained many times in previous posts. Newton's third law. The one you're so fond of.
It's absolutely massively relevant. No medium and no travel. No force and resistance.
Wrong four times in thirteen words, that's quite impressive. And also none of that is even a counter to the point I made, which is that the medium is irrelevant to the DIRECTION of travel.
Yep
The lower the external pressure the more expanded the balloon would become if the nozzle was shut.
Ayy, he got one right. Even a stopped clock is capable of watching a youtube video twice a day.
If the nozzle was opened in extreme low pressure the air inside would be lost....in short order.... to that low pressure
Exactly, and this rapid expulsion of the air inside would cause a huge amount of acceleration of the balloon/space vehicle.
and would create very little advancement in the opposite direction.
Ahh, and you were doing so well.
Absolutely not. 100% not.
That's a fiction told to people who will simply believe it for no other reason than they believe space is a reality of a vacuum...etc.
You're a fiction told to us by the creators of this forum as an anti-Newcastle-United propaganda machine.
There's no way that anybody in real life is this thick, this arrogant and self-assured, this much of a liar. Even up there in the land of the gravy stains.
