r/stupidpeoplefacebook • • 17h ago

Source :Trust Me Bro

Post image
2.7k Upvotes

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

84

u/WritersChopBlock 14h ago edited 4h ago

CONSIDER THE SCIENCE BEHIND THIS.

If you have taken physics or you are science-oriented, you'll realize that this is very likely a sham in that Elon won't be able to produce a car that can achieve continuous flight for hours. I'm not 100% certain, but if you think about the physics, what is being suggested is impossible.

Think about the enormous amount of energy required to keep this car afloat if it's based on propellant. Consider how Harrier Jump jets spend so much fuel to do something similar for a few seconds.

The only way to accomplish this practically would be to rely on a technology that counteracts gravitational forces without expending energy. The aliens that have been spotted sporadically likely use such a technology. But we are nowhere near that level of technology yet. [Edit - deleted: Our scientists still don't know where gravity comes from.]

*Aliens. Btw, declassified evidence from the US government came out in the last 10 years. The traditional belief that believing in aliens is wacko has reversed. Ironically, if you don't believe in them now, it means you're unscientific. Look at the evidence before you tell me I'm crazy.

There is no way to be certain, but it's very likely that Air Force pilots have been seeing alien aircraft for the past few decades but it was kept secret by the military. It's pretty cool. There are videos online. I think it's insane that there isn't more public attention on this. I suspect that a lot of people dismiss it, believing it's wackos like flat Earthers trying to get attention. It's not.

3

u/Vast-Difficulty1542 12h ago

Yes. We can see why this is a sham using Tsiolkovsky's formula.

∆v = ln(m0/m1)•Isp•9,8. For every second of hovering, the car expends 9,8 m/s of ∆v. This means that a single hour of flight will cost you around 36000 m/s ∆v. To put this into perspective, the orbital speed of the ISS is 7,66 km/s, or 7660 m/s. This means that, with this amount of ∆v, if our car ended up in LEO height, it would take less fuel to orbit Earth. And now look at the size of rockets we have to deliver stuff into LEO. Obviously, it's a very gross oversimplification, but it can give you a sense of how unrealistic flying cars would actually be. Unless we use an engine with ridiculously high Isp (similar to one of an Ion engine), and it somehow has enough thrust to lift the car off the ground (which ion engines don't, and they also don't even work in the atmosphere), this remains extremely impractical. What would be more practical, is if we used lift to make the car fly, which actually has already been done.

2

u/Tsukee 10h ago

This, if you can hover using non oxygen breathing engines for more than like 20minutes, and if you can increase thrust to double (2x thrust to weight) for half the time (10min) your 'car' could very likely get into orbit with that much time and thrust

0

u/Vast-Difficulty1542 8h ago

And even IF those engines could breathe oxygen, you need an intake, and for that intake to work, you need the car moving at high speeds, or the engine would become very inefficient and/or stall. And then the flying car becomes a plane without wings. You could see why this is a problem.

2

u/HVDub24 8h ago

Literally what are you even talking about. Nobody is claiming it will have longterm flight capabilities. They demonstrated what it would do

0

u/Vast-Difficulty1542 8h ago

I am talking about the fact that a flying propellant-based car is not practical. Perhaps you didn't read my comment fully.

•

u/SlimeMyButt 3m ago

You can also see this is a shame using your eyeballs lmao