People on skateboards.

No because electrons are very small.

What about liquids?  Can liquids "be meaningfully said to exist within it"?  What about hypergolic liquids?  Can they combust within a vacuum?

You seem confused.

Do you know where you are right now?

Is there someone we can call to come fetch you?

Did you know that most rockets that operate in a vacuum use liquid propellants, not gas propellants?

Yes. 

As engy pointed out, that combustion chamber goes to a Vulcain rocket engine which is a designed to work in the atmosphere.

LOL!!!

Your pal 'Engy' only 'pointed that out' after he'd made a fool of himself by describing it as Hypergolic.

What's worse, as YOU posted the photo of that combustion chamber in the first place (after I'd repeatedly asked for the combustion chamber of a SPACE-rocket like the J2), it would appear that that YOU were trying to deliberately deceive us, would it not?

But this whole post reeks of absolute desperation on your part; you really are scraping the barrel.

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.

And it does not permit the functioning of your silly shapyze-rokkits.

End. Of. Story.

Now; Carry On Lying!

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.

No it's not.

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Because the proton electron model of the atom works.
All of it's predictions work. There's no evidence against it.

Quote

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.

No it's not.

This deserves framing; the moment the clown derfers went full shpayze-retard.

As does this.

For different reasons.

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.

It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...


Plus this:

You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.

Here is why it is not:

With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.

But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket,  & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.

No object B, see?

Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.

But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?

Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.

& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.

Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.

Q.E.D.

No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.

No maths required; only common sense.


Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.

Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:



Ooh - vacuum-proof!

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 06:32:04 AM

What about liquids?  Can liquids "be meaningfully said to exist within it"?  What about hypergolic liquids?  Can they combust within a vacuum?

You seem confused.

Do you know where you are right now?

Is there someone we can call to come fetch you?

Can you answer some simple questions without being a condescending prick?

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 06:32:04 AM

Did you know that most rockets that operate in a vacuum use liquid propellants, not gas propellants?

Yes. 

Good.  Now, can liquids exist in a vacuum?  Can hypergolic liquids combust in a vacuum?

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 06:32:04 AM

As engy pointed out, that combustion chamber goes to a Vulcain rocket engine which is a designed to work in the atmosphere.

LOL!!!

Your pal 'Engy' only 'pointed that out' after he'd made a fool of himself by describing it as Hypergolic.

No, he pointed out that it was a first stage engine designed to work in the atmosphere and the second stage engine that is designed to work in a vacuum is hypergolic.

What's worse, as YOU posted the photo of that combustion chamber in the first place (after I'd repeatedly asked for the combustion chamber of a SPACE-rocket like the J2), it would appear that that YOU were trying to deliberately deceive us, would it not?

Again, no.  Hewia first posted that picture.

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.

Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system, which a De Laval nozzle in a vacuum is not.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 06:00:49 AM

I already did, in your rusty fuel tank thread.

I'd like you to explain it all for me if you will. How close you were and what camera/telescope you used and what the weather was like, plus showing me some of the fantastic clear photo's or video of the launch that you and your family took.
If you don't feel like it, it's ok.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 06:00:49 AM

Getting back to combustion. 

Light a candle,   now take a glass, put vinegar and baking soda in the glass,  it will fizz up producing carbon dioxide,  some will stay in the glass because it's heavier than air.
 Now carefully take the glass over to the burning candle,  and pour the carbon dioxide gas onto the flame.   The candle will immediately go out,  because you have removed the oxygen.

That's a good word, FIZZ. ask yourself why things FIZZ.
The fizz is expanding the matter and releasing the lighter elements, leaving the much denser elements to  be pushed to the floor meaning they engulf the burning candle flame that is already burning the expanded hydrogen fuel due to immense friction for it's flame size. The denser molecules over it that are pushed down, are separating the expanded  fuel from friction, meaning it can't continue to agitate enough to create enough friction to keep the candle alight.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 06:00:49 AM

Ok,  same candle,   new glass,   light the candle and now put the glass upside down over the flame,  the flame will consume the oxygen and the flame goes out.

No, the flame doesn't consume the oxygen, it simply cannot expand anymore hydrogen fuel from the fuel source (candle) into the glass because it has nowhere to expand into other than the glass, so it loses it's ability to carry on the friction/agitation of matter.
Having the lit candle in atmosphere (without the glass) allows the hydrogen fuel to be extracted from the candle and wick which you see as a flame of hydrogen expansion against the push back of a dense atmosphere.
As long as there's dense material under friction against that, it will continue to produce the flame by simply conversion of matter into it's elements and release them.
You never consume anything. It all simply takes it's place in the layers of atmosphere that they are expanded into.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 06:00:49 AM

Where is friction involved in any of this?
Ha,   would you believe someone made a YT video

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A reaction can be called anything. Chemical or abrasive or whatever. The reality to all of it is simply called friction.

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

Can you answer some simple questions without being a condescending prick?

Can you?

See how it works, hypnotoad?

Now, can liquids exist in a vacuum?  Can hypergolic liquids combust in a vacuum?

Please define the state of these 'liquids' when introduced to said vacuum.

No, he pointed out that it was a first stage engine designed to work in the atmosphere

Are you saying the Vulcain is not designed to work in a vacuum?

Also, your pal rabinoz says ALL de laval nozzles function in vacuum regardless...

Get your Lies straight, Clowns.

Again, no.  Hewia first posted that picture.

Another Lie.

You were the first to post it on this thread.

One more Lie & we're done, hypnotoad.

Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system

Aaand there it is: the Big Lie.

The one you will never give up on, even though every Law of Physics is against you...

Stop wasting my time with your desperate & repugnant anti-scientific bilge.

Pseudo science
More pseudo science
For variety, pseudo science.

Still wrong.

Papa...
Yeah even though I'm married... You pathetic loser. My rage? Are you serious? Every post you are insulting people followed by absolute repetitive nonsense. Where did you get these facts from? Or did you just invent them? Show me proof, calculations...

I also love science so clearly you know nothing about me or do you claim to be psychic now aswell?

There are many reasons why rockets work, many answers given in this thread yet you ignore them. Please also look up an actual combustion chamber designed to work in a vacuum and not one designed to work in atmosphere.

Maybe even produce a vacuum at home and put a rocket inside. See if it moves. Ohh wait mythbusters did that... And guess what... It moved.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 12, 2016, 05:59:48 AM

Which powers are you talking about? The government? The more lies a news provider exposes, the more prestige they get, so wouldn't it be more worthwhile to do thorough investigations and expose lies than just believe everything? And what "paid dis-informants posing as news readers" are you talking about? Do they have power? How can a news READER spread more disinformation and need more observation than a news PROVIDER? And what about those two people? Your post lacks consistency and information.

I'll leave you to figure it out. If you can't or won't, then just forget about it. It's not really worth explaining if you can't or won't grasp what's written.

I know what is written. I am asking for information which is NOT written in there. What you have written is inconsistent and requires additional writing to hold any meaningful information.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

How is it much simpler?

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

Do you have evidence for your claims yet?

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

How is it much simpler?

What could be simpler than  carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:49:59 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

How is it much simpler?

What could be simpler than  carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.

What are you trying to tell me?
Carbon produces carbon dioxide by what means.
Explain what's happening for this to happen.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:52:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:49:59 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

How is it much simpler?

What could be simpler than  carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.

What are you trying to tell me?
Carbon produces carbon dioxide by what means.
Explain what's happening for this to happen.

When carbon burns   ( things like wood, paper, wax, petrol, oil )  it reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide.   This is called combustion.   
The same chemical reaction happens in your body,  the carbon in sugars and fats reacts with the oxygen carried by the blood stream to produce carbon dioxide, which you breathe out.

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

It's something to do with acids reacting with metals to cause one metal to have positive ions, and the other to have negative ones, so the electrons will flow from one metal to the other. The energy comes from chemical energy.
What's your explanation? I'm looking forward to the comedy.

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry.  Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:57:06 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:52:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:49:59 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on January 12, 2016, 07:15:30 AM

Your explanation of fire, is interesting.   What if there was a better explanation,  that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.

I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.

Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation,  and much simpler.

How is it much simpler?

What could be simpler than  carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.

What are you trying to tell me?
Carbon produces carbon dioxide by what means.
Explain what's happening for this to happen.

When carbon burns   ( things like wood, paper, wax, petrol, oil )  it reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide.   This is called combustion.   
The same chemical reaction happens in your body,  the carbon in sugars and fats reacts with the oxygen carried by the blood stream to produce carbon dioxide, which you breathe out.

All created by friction due to vibration by expansion and compression of matter. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:54:59 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

It's something to do with acids reacting with metals to cause one metal to have positive ions, and the other to have negative ones, so the electrons will flow from one metal to the other. The energy comes from chemical energy.
What's your explanation? I'm looking forward to the comedie.

I've just explained that friction is the reason for it all.

Friction of what.
And btw, you are completely wrong about EVERYTHING.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:54:59 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry.  Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.

I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist  but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.

One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.

That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 08:26:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:54:59 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 07:39:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 07:10:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 06:58:05 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:52:31 AM

No because electrons are very small.

So how do you know that what you're saying is true?

Use a battery.

Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.

How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.

An electron flow from cathode to anode.

You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.
Tell me what's happening .

If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry.  Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.

I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist  but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.

One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.

That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.

Delusion at it's greatest.

Friction of what.
And btw, you are completely wrong about EVERYTHING.

It's best that you just sit and do some crayoning. You keep coming in to say the very same stuff all the time.
If you feel like you can prove me wrong then show me how or explain without just jumping in and shouting, "you are wrong you are wrong."

It's up to you. Come back with something or colour in.