Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[onebigmonkey]

At minimum, Jay is claiming he can to "use complex logic to explain how this context Breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy". 

We can add strawman fallacies to the other ones you keep employing.

[najak]

There's a reason we have the phrase "it's not rocket science". It is extremely complex. As JayUtah has told you, neither of those answers are correct. But your extremely bad analogous comparison needs quantifying. On the one hand I asked AI to help you to understand your appalling physics failures, where you reconciled soil rising with a jumper to some suction-cup/vacuum explanation and then when realising how dumb that was you moved on to a force that isn't even a propelling one. AI is quite able to gleam how physics works in such simple circumstances - you though, not so much.

Quit behaving like some prima-donna and take your rocket science lessons.

Let's make this clear.  Even for what you THINK are simple situations, such as "pushing a cart", there is a MUCH MORE COMPLEX MOLECULAR SCIENCE beneath it all.  We are Trillions of wonderful atom and molecules.  When you THINK you are simply touching the cart - it's truly a VERY COMPLEX reaction between the molecules/atoms in your hand, and those of the cart.  Trillions of interactions are happening with this simple push.

And just as "molecular science" truly explains HOW the force was generated, you simply do NOT need to know this.  It drops out.  The "HOW" makes no difference to the Newtonian Physics.  All we need to figure here is "NET FORCE" (the result of all of those Trillions of interactions).

BUT - you don't have to drop into the "molecular science" in order to be able to calculate the Force you applied, simply by observing the acceleration curve of the cart.  That's the beauty of this physics -- it CANNOT BE BROKEN (not in this close-system context), no matter how complex are the "causes of acceleration".   All we're measuring is NET acceleration - which can then accurately derive NET force.

No amount of "complexity underneath" can justify the "creation of new energy".... at least not in this isolated rigid-body simple setup.

===
In my world, Jay appears to be what we call a "poser" - someone who pretends to know more than what they really know, and so hang out in groups where they simply cannot tell the difference.  His biggest strength appears to be his way-with-words, which enables him to fool those who cannot tell the difference between a good rocket scientist, and a not-good one.

Even the mighty Jay cannot teach someone how to Create New Energy.

[najak]

We can add strawman fallacies to the other ones you keep employing.

Are you suggesting that my claim is "strawman"?

[JayUtah]

Yet ALL THRUST in this context must be derived from Fuel Combustion.

Correct. But as I've demonstrated, you don't know how combustion results in thrust.

If you had paid more attention in high school physics, you'd realize that what you are claiming to be able to do - isn't possible (i.e. creating new energy).

I'm not claiming any such thing. You just don't understand how combustion produces thrust. You vacillate between the notion of total thrust and the production of thrust by one particular mechanism.

You won't debunk this, because you CAN'T.  I don't believe you are uneducated enough to truly believe that you can, which implies bad things about your honesty/integrity/motivations.

There is no way to solve the problem within the constraints imposed by your ignorance. That's why I paused the proof to correct your ignorance. But you apparently cannot be taught. You decided from the very beginning that your challenge was unanswerable, and your flinging a bunch of half-remembered concepts into the darkness hoping that the ploy to shoehorn everything into "basic physics" might land somewhere.

[onebigmonkey]

We can add strawman fallacies to the other ones you keep employing.

Are you suggesting that my claim is "strawman"?

You are stating that JayUtah is making a claim that he is not.

[JayUtah]

In my world, Jay appears to be what we call a "poser"...

Says the guy who uses Google AI to do the thinking.

Even the mighty Jay cannot teach someone how to Create New Energy.

I don't claim to be able to. That's what people are calling the straw man in your argument. I have had some success at teaching people how to be engineers. I can lead you to water, but I cannot force you to drink.

Want to talk energy? Okay, write out your energy balance equations and let's get started.

[najak]

You are stating that JayUtah is making a claim that he is not.

Are you saying that Jay was not claiming he can explain-away this +72% acceleration-force with rocket science beyond my comprehension? (i.e. DEBUNK my claim about "Acceleration Too Fast")

If he understood high school physics, he'd have realized from the onset, that this isn't solvable.  No amount of "thrust/combustion science" can "create New Energy", which is what this amounts to. 

Why didn't Jay assess this from the start?

[JayUtah]

Are you saying that Jay was not claiming he can explain-away this +72% acceleration-force with rocket science beyond my comprehension?

A straw man to excuse a straw man. You keep trying to shove the claim in my mouth that I can create energy out of nothing.

If he understood high school physics, he'd have realized from the onset, that this isn't solvable.  No amount of "thrust/combustion science" can "create New Energy", which is what this amounts to.

No, it doesn't. You think so because you don't understand how combustion results in thrust. I have explained exactly the problems in your comprehension a couple of times now. You have ignored them.

[najak]

Want to talk energy? Okay, write out your energy balance equations and let's get started.

Sure, let's talk energy.  The first step of good engineering is to view the forest before the trees.  View it from 50,000 feet first.

Starting out, first consider if we're going down the right path.   Since we see +72% thrust as the NET result of this combustion, we have to figure out if it's Possible.  To do this, we can employ the fundamental Law of "Conservation of Energy". 

Can we generate MORE energy from the combustion than is produced by this combustion?

If not, then there's not much point to delving into the weeds to try and figure out how to Create Energy.  This is not going to lead us to a DEBUNK.

If you were truly a "good Rocket Scientist/engineer" - you'd have realized this from the onset.  Simple concepts elude you.

The only thing being debunked here are your credentials as a "good Rocket scientist".

You seem to want to "hide out in complexity" where your true aptitude for good Rocket Science, can remain conceal, mired in mystery..

[Mag40]

But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing.  I've seen it too many times before.

Ahaaa - BINGO! He's "new" to the forum but "knows" all about JayUtah.

Suddenly this time-waster "knows" things. Is he trying to get banned so he doesn't have to face his failures?

[JayUtah]

Sure, let's talk energy.  The first step of good engineering is to view the forest before the trees.

No, the first step is to write the energy balance equations and assure ourselves that all the proper terms are there. You're just repeating your vague handwaving.

[najak]

No, the first step is to write the energy balance equations and assure ourselves that all the proper terms are there. You're just repeating your vague handwaving.

No, the FIRST STEP in engineering is to ensure you are solving the right problem.

What makes you think this is the right problem to solve, in attempting to DEBUNK (or address) this 40+ year famous MLH claim?

[JayUtah]

No, the FIRST STEP in engineering is to ensure you are solving the right problem.

That's what writing out the energy balance equation helps you do. It makes sure all the relevant terms relating to the problem are accounted for and in the right place in the energy balance.

What makes you think this is the right problem to solve, in attempting to DEBUNK (or address) this 40+ year famous MLH claim?

Because every problem that involves conservation of energy begins with the energy balance equation, to phrase the problem as a formulated conservation. Why is this not obvious to someone who claims his passion is Newtonian physics?

You're the one claiming that this problem cannot be solved without violating the conservation-of-energy principle. If you can't express that as an imbalanced energy equation, then how are you sure you're solving the right problem? As I've pointed out a number of times, you don't seem to understand the different ways rockets produce thrust. What you've presented so far is a disorganized mess of claims, some deriving from elementary sources intended for lay persons, and others apparently coming from a very confused AI. That gives us a reason to suspect you may not understand where all the energy is coming from and where it's going. Writing out the energy balance equation will help us see where the errors lie.

[najak]

Suddenly this time-waster "knows" things. Is he trying to get banned so he doesn't have to face his failures?

Getting banned is the last thing I want here.  I've giving an honest assessment about the foundational laws of physics, and demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.

I realize that the "insults and personal attacks" are only allowed to go one-way here.  This forum is currently an Echo Chamber.  I'd like to see that change.

[JayUtah]

...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.

I make no such claim, implication, or insinuation. Your failure to understand the rebuttal is a direct result of your misunderstanding of elements you apparently do not wish to consider. You allude to simple principles of elementary physics, but you ignore all that contributes to the values represented in those relationships.