It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2015, 07:14:29 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 05:51:30 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 05:25:50 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 23, 2015, 04:56:25 AM

But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them.  Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.

I must admit,  hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.

You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.



Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?

Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.

...

The concept that nasa rely on is that a force going one way, gives a reaction force going the other way. We are told (and shown) that the reaction force is on the opposite end of the balloon.

...

The opposite reaction should be at the nozzle. The picture is simplified.
Anyways, the opposite reaction does happen.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2015, 07:14:29 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 05:51:30 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 05:25:50 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 23, 2015, 04:56:25 AM

But legion, your scenario fails because rocket ships don't have large hands holding them.  Therefore, Rayzor's scenario fits better.

I must admit,  hanging on to the balloon and then observing that it didn't move, was an option that never occurred to me.

You're missing the point. Deliberately I assume.



Does the action (air coming out) give a reaction opposite, as per the above image?

Yes, there is, but it's being countered by the external force of your hand holding onto the balloon.

A hand holding the balloon is irrelevant.

The concept that nasa rely on is that a force going one way, gives a reaction force going the other way. We are told (and shown) that the reaction force is on the opposite end of the balloon.

Therefore, in my experiment the held balloon should protrude at the unopened end while air is escaping. That is, unless you can explain another means by which the "reaction" force is applied?

The balloon is made of an elastic material that is returning to it's original, smaller size as the pressure is reduced. It's contracting equally all around.

And besides, the force being applied from the exhaust is acting on the balloon as a whole, trying to move the entire unit in the opposite direction of the thrust. A jet engine moves the plane forward because it's attached to the plane. 

Legion, please tell me how a rocket engine could produce thrust by pushing against the atmosphere.

This is fantastic; you guys crack me up, honest!

Wasting a bank holiday weekend arguing with anonymous nobodies on the internet about shit nobody cares about; LOL!!!!

Rockets do not work in a vacuum; I'll take the word of military ROCKET ENGINEERS over NASA's Hollywood IMAGINEERS anyday.

Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley: WHAT were these cult-leaders all doing together again?

Parsons; Hubbard; Crowley: WHAT were these cult-leaders all doing together again?

Why don't you tell us? You're the one apparently obsessed with repeating yourself.
(Any evidence would be appreciated).

Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?

The doorway is open...

Honest; it is.

& everyone's welcome!

Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?

I'm not particularly interested in the topic, why would I spend time on it?
As you keep repeating the point, you must have a lot in support of it: more than I could come up with on the spot. Why don't you wow us all with the grand revelation, and all the evidence you have in support of it?

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 23, 2015, 11:50:02 AM

Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?

I'm not particularly interested in the topic, why would I spend time on it?
As you keep repeating the point, you must have a lot in support of it: more than I could come up with on the spot. Why don't you wow us all with the grand revelation, and all the evidence you have in support of it?

I am also not interested in the "blah blah space cultists" topic and it's just another stupid conspiracy theory. Why does it matter if someone I never heared about or from is in some cult that does not even have evidence pointing towards its existence.

Why don't you Think About It, b,j; exercise those atrophied Logic Muscles of yours, eh?

The doorway is open...

Honest; it is.

& everyone's welcome!

tl;dr, Troll harder

Rockets do not work in a vacuum; I'll take the word of military ROCKET ENGINEERS over NASA's Hollywood IMAGINEERS anyday.

Which military rocket engineers say that rockets don't work in a vacuum?  The ones who run the spy satellites?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 04:22:56 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 04:07:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 03:20:31 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 01:06:03 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 22, 2015, 05:29:17 PM

Here is where we disagree.  Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in² and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi.  This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied.  Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium.  Are we agreed so far?

Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side.  Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches.  This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium.  Are we still agreed?

Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.

The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate,  the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.   
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds  ( 5000-4500)  and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened.   The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.

I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:

1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.

Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.

This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.

1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon  ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room,  the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.

Why does the balloon move?  And why would it be any different in a vacuum.   
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon,  and the size of the flow restriction  ( the neck )  or on a rocket it would be the nozzle.   In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero.  So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum,  but not instantaneous.   The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation  if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower,  like a venturi.

Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.

I'm not talking about the balloon flying around the room. I'm talking about observing what happens only to the balloon, whilst the pressure is reduced. I've added that to step 2 as I hadn't explicitly written that.

1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds, whilst holding the balloon.
3. Observe what happens.

Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. According to nasa, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.



The above image is what markjo and yourself claim is happening. That can be disproven in five minutes. All of the air moves to the opening. There is no " opposite direction reaction" inside the balloon. The only reaction is the balloon contracts at the rate the air is released.

Oh wow. This is almost a zigzag level of stupid.

Yes, isn't it, weatherwax?

Are you a 'zig' or a 'zag'?

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 04:40:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 04:22:56 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 04:07:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2015, 03:20:31 AM

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 01:06:03 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 22, 2015, 05:29:17 PM

Here is where we disagree.  Let's say that the vessel (body B) is a box with each side being 10 in² and the the gas (body A) is 500 psi.  This means that each side has a force of 5000 pounds being applied.  Newton's third law says that each side of the the vessel will push back with 5000 pounds of force and the system will be in equilibrium.  Are we agreed so far?

Okay, now let's cut a one square inch hole in one side.  Now we have a box with 5 sides that have an area of 10 square inches and one side with an area of 9 square inches.  This means that (at least for an instant) the side with the hole in it has 5000 pounds of force being applied by the gas, but can only push back with 4500 pounds of force and the system is no longer in equilibrium.  Are we still agreed?

Yes, this is where we disagree. In your example, the side with the 1" opening no longer has 5000psi of force being applied to it. Nor does the side opposite it (or any other side). It doesn't matter whether the pressure is reduced gradually or instantaneosly. The pressure is released and reduced simultaneously. Therefore, there is no net force as the system remains balanced.

The instant that the hole is opened there will be an imbalance and that force will cause the box to accelerate,  the imbalance ( and that force ) will continue for the time it takes for the gas to exhaust itself through the hole.   
The force ( thrust ) will start at 500 pounds  ( 5000-4500)  and drop to zero some time after the hole is opened.   The pressure doesn't drop to zero instantaneously, the time is dependant on the initial pressure, the size of the hole and the volume of the box.

I maintain there will be no imbalance. Pressure is released, pressure is reduced. A simple demonstration of this principle is as follows:

1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds.
3. Observe what happens.

Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. Effectively, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.

This should settle the matter to any reasonable person.

1. Blow up a party balloon.
2. Let go of the balloon  ( releasing the pressurized air inside )
3. Observe the balloon take off around the room,  the time it whizzes around for depends on the time it takes for the air to escape.

Why does the balloon move?  And why would it be any different in a vacuum.   
The flow rate of air through the neck of the balloon is proportional to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the balloon,  and the size of the flow restriction  ( the neck )  or on a rocket it would be the nozzle.   In a vacuum the outside pressure is zero.  So the flow rate will be higher in a vacuum,  but not instantaneous.   The air velocity through the restriction is described by Bernoulli's equation  if the gas velocity is higher the pressure is lower,  like a venturi.

Rocket engines are designed to maximize the combustion chamber pressures. Higher pressure equals more thrust.

I'm not talking about the balloon flying around the room. I'm talking about observing what happens only to the balloon, whilst the pressure is reduced. I've added that to step 2 as I hadn't explicitly written that.

1. Blow up a long party balloon.
2. Release the air from the balloon at different speeds, whilst holding the balloon.
3. Observe what happens.

Here is what I observe: as the pressure is reduced inside the balloon, the far end contracts back towards the middle (because it's not under as much pressure). According to your logic, I should observe a force pushing on the closed end of the balloon in the opposite direction to the air escaping from the balloon. According to nasa, the balloon should be stretched when deflated. But it isn't.



The above image is what markjo and yourself claim is happening. That can be disproven in five minutes. All of the air moves to the opening. There is no " opposite direction reaction" inside the balloon. The only reaction is the balloon contracts at the rate the air is released.

Oh wow. This is almost a zigzag level of stupid.

If that's the case, you should be able to set me straight in no time. Use the balloon example to demonstrate the action/reaction.

Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?

All of them.

Try meeting a few; not that any of them would be comfortable speaking openly with a... 'thing' like you.

But you could try... LOL!

Oh, & the rest of you: meh... so you refuse to accept you're in a cult? No biggy; most cultists don't.

That's the nature of cults... Enjoy!

P.s. legion: forget it; they're too far gone. Balloons are the same as rockets to them, like Australia & ice-rinks are the same as space; what can you do?

Except LOL!!!

Have a good weekend.

Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION

The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION

I don't see what the problem is here.

Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION

The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION

I don't see what the problem is here.

Of course you don't. Have a look here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html

This nasa page shows a simple experiment demonstrating Newton's third law. Below is the conclusion:

DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.

Of course I agree with this. However, in a vacuum there is no air, so what pushes back?

As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law...

NASA are mental.

& a cult.

Enjoy!

As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law.

What's wrong with that? The action of gravity is being counteracted by the force of the molecular bonding in the table, preventing the book falling through the table the ground.

LOL!

Quote from: Weatherwax on May 23, 2015, 12:37:44 PM

Air is forced out of the open end - ACTION

The balloon is propelled in the opposite direction -REACTION

I don't see what the problem is here.

Of course you don't. Have a look here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/TRC/Rockets/rocket_car.html

This nasa page shows a simple experiment demonstrating Newton's third law. Below is the conclusion:

Quote

DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.

Of course I agree with this. However, in a vacuum there is no air, so what pushes back?

That would be the air inside the balloon obviously. A balloon filled with air can be placed in a vacuum and the air released. The ejected air will cause the balloon to move forwards.

[

Quote

DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.

It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"

As I recall, NASA's website used to have a diagram of a book lying on a table that they claimed demonstrated Newton's 3rd law...

So you're saying that the weight of the book does not apply a force to the table?

Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?

All of them.

What about the military rocket engineers at Space Command?

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 23, 2015, 12:34:02 PM

Markjo: which military rocket engineers say rockets don't work in a vacuum?

All of them.

What about the military rocket engineers at Space Command?

I think Papa Legless is thinking of the "rocket engineers" over in the psychiatric wing of his palatial country mansion,  "the funny farm".   Don't worry,  the Doctors will be with him shortly.

Either that or he's been at the absinthe again.

Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!

Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.

& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.

Which is very dumb indeed; learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet? Seems not...

A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.

Rayzor; you're not very good at this, are you?

An adult literacy class may help.

Or a sense of humour.

BTW, where's Jroweskeptic gone? Now he was funny!

A tad confusing, though; I'd like to question him further on exactly what he meant by 'go fuck yourself'?

Honest; you guys are just a hoot!

Tatty-bye, NASA-cultists!

P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!

Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!

Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.

& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.

Which is very dumb indeed; learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet? Seems not...

A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.

Rayzor; you're not very good at this, are you?

An adult literacy class may help.

Or a sense of humour.

BTW, where's Jroweskeptic gone? Now he was funny!

A tad confusing, though; I'd like to question him further on exactly what he meant by 'go fuck yourself'?

Honest; you guys are just a hoot!

Tatty-bye, NASA-cultists!

P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!

The point of that post was?   Content == Zero,   Humor == Zero,  Insults == Nothing new.   What's with the fixation with Alistair Crowley?   He was 2 bob short as I recall.

Your trolling is getting worse,  I would not have said it's possible.   

However,  I'll throw you a safety line, maybe you can add some content to the discussion,   ( albeit long overdue ). Who are these military rocket scientists that claim rockets don't work in space?

Markjo: 'space command'; LOL!

Sounds like something out of Thunderbirds... Still; it's all jobs for the boys, I guess.

& if you think I'm clicking on any link that you create, you must be even dumber than I thought.

*sigh* Yes, despite your incredulity, Space Command is a real part of the US Air Force.

Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is a major command of the United States Air Force, with its headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. AFSPC supports U.S. military operations worldwide through the use of many different types of satellite, launch and cyber operations. Operationally, AFSPC is an Air Force component command subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), a unified combatant command.

More than 38,000 people perform AFSPC missions at 88 locations worldwide and comprises Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard military personnel, Department of the Air Force Civilians (DAFC), and civilian military contractors. Composition consist of approximately 22,000 military personnel and 9,000 civilian employees, although their missions overlap.

A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more. But if you think it'll help you get to space, somehow, along with shrivelled ballons, ice-rinks, Australia (lol!), etc, etc, then knock yourself out.

So you admit that you have no idea of how Newtonian mechanics work and it's a waste of time trying to explain?  Got it.

P.s: Hubbard, Parsons & Crowley; all invoking things... LOL!!!

What does dabbling in the occult have to do with how rockets work?

A Book on a Table is a Book on a Table; nothing more.

That's just plain ignorant.

P.s. legion: forget it; they're too far gone. Balloons are the same as rockets to them, like Australia & ice-rinks are the same as space; what can you do?

I know right?  We are too far gone.  Once you use math and logic it's really hard to go back to becoming an ignorent biased fool.

None of us said that Austrailia and ice rinks are the same as space, if you actually bothered to read our posts you would know that they are analogies (sorry for using such big words, look it up if you don't know what it means).

stop arguing amongst yourselves. it's obvious papa legba is one of you, with nothing better to do than try to discredit flat earth theory. why do you waste time?

flat earth theory is a serious endeavor, and a great deal of work has gone into it. the fact you've all decided to ignore that and play about with a troll who has no original thought and no capability for anything remotely interesting or intelligent just speaks wonders about how pathetic and desperate you all are. you cannot face the fact round earth theory is dying so you distract yourself with the pile of bullshit papa legba is spewing.

legba, now. leave. if you're so idiotic you do not understand the truth and you'd rather waste time discrediting something that shouldn't affect you, you're a waste of space. you do not understand anything. you know nothing about flat earth theory, and you may well know nothing at all, you just repeat the same old things, most of which is bs.

just leave already.