HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: turtles on August 18, 2019, 03:55:55 AM

cikljamas' plan:

1) say something stupid
2) get shot down
3) ignore (2) and repeat same stupid statements
4) get shot down
5.....57) repeat steps (3) and (4) until everyone gets fed up and goes away
58) declare victory

If this is the best way to console yourself, why not, go ahead, console yourself, however, the truth (facts) stays the same, because you can't argue against facts, i mean, you can try (since that's all you do all the time, anyway) to delude yourself, but as i said : it doesn't concern the truth, since the facts don't give a damn about your lying yourself...

Indeed, the facts are true no matter how much you manage to repeatedly misunderstand.

While you are putting so much effort into misunderstanding, the world is continuing to launch rockets, put satellites in orbit, send people to the ISS, use satellite TV, satellite phones, satellite broadband, send probes across the solar system, spectacularly  tail-land boosters, launch amateur rockets and HABs, take pictures of the Apollo landers, rovers and footprints from lunar orbit, crash orbiters into the moon and observe the crash sites and so much more.

And all you can say is "I don't understand how rockets work, therefore it's all fake"

But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this...

Then stop incorrectly "explaining" simple things like that (which you repeatedly misrepresent with your false extrapolation backed up by nothing at all) and instead focus on the simple question which has repeatedly been asked of you:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

You are yet to even try to honestly address this.
As a reminder:
We know there must be a force as the gas accelerates.
We know that this requires another body to interact with.

“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.

In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. ~Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Where, may I ask did you "cherry-pick"

Reddit: "it may be boldly asked where can the man be found"
You do realize that Goethe is complaining about Newton's theory of light and color refraction? Goethe had his own competing theory, so what better way to prove his own theory correct than to spill countless pints of ink moaning and complaining about Newton? No, you don't realize that. You found this quote on a flat earth website and immediately turned your brain off.

Goethe's attack Newton was quite vindictive and unjustified but it had nothing to do with Newton's Laws of Motion of of Universal Gravitation.

If you want to read the context have a look at "Delphi Works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Illustrated)" By Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Mr Cikljamas, be sure your cherry-pickimg will find you out!

In response to the following quote :

I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe. Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:

From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws are mere approximations, computer’s fictions handy mathematical devices for finding the approximate place of a planet in the heavens. They apply with greater accuracy to some planets than to others. Jupiter and Saturn show the greatest  deviations from strictly elliptical motion. The latter body is often nearly a degree away from the place it would have been had its motion about the sun been strictly in accord with Kepler’s laws. This is such a large discrepancy that it can be detected by the unaided eye. The moon is approximately half a degree in diameter, so that the discrepancy in the motion of Saturn is about twice the apparent diameter of the moon. In a single year, during the course of one revolution about the sun, the Earth may depart from the theoretical   ellipse by an amount sufficient to appreciably change the apparent place of the sun in the heavens.

...Rabinoz quotes this balderdash :

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 03:19:33 AM

I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as  accurate  as  Mr.  Rabinoz  has  been  led  to  believe. 

Stop talking utter drivel, Mr Cikljamas! I am under no illusions as to the accuracy of Kepler’s system!

Quote from: cikljamas

Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:

I know why thank, you and I told YOU that in:

Quote from: rabinoz on March 27, 2019, 03:03:22 PM

But Kepler still had no idea why these elliptical planetary orbits fitted so well. His work was still getting some geometric pattern that fitted the observed motion.

It wasn't to after Galileo Galilee's, Robert Hooke's and Isaac Newton's work that led to Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation that a reason for Kepler's elliptical orbits was found.

But Kepler's Laws are only applicable to a two-bodied system with a small body (a planet) orbiting a large body (the Sun).
The Sun's mass is, however, so large compared to the total of all the other objects in the solar system that the Kepler's laws fitted well for the known inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

It would be incorrect to say that the Solar system is Kepler's system but it does fit Newton's Laws very closely with the only measurable difference being a slight excess in the precession of Mercury's orbit.

You, Mr Cikljamas, seem to have an attention span no better the proverbial gold fish.

Once again, to the following words of truth :

From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws are mere approximations, computer’s fictions handy mathematical devices for finding the approximate place of a planet in the heavens. They apply with greater accuracy to some planets than to others. Jupiter and Saturn show the greatest  deviations from strictly elliptical motion. The latter body is often nearly a degree away from the place it would have been had its motion about the sun been strictly in accord with Kepler’s laws. This is such a large discrepancy that it can be detected by the unaided eye. The moon is approximately half a degree in diameter, so that the discrepancy in the motion of Saturn is about twice the apparent diameter of the moon. In a single year, during the course of one revolution about the sun, the Earth may depart from the theoretical   ellipse by an amount sufficient to appreciably change the apparent place of the sun in the heavens.

...Rabinoz responds with the next balderdash (a blatant lie) :

But Kepler's Laws are only applicable to a two-bodied system with a small body (a planet) orbiting a large body (the Sun).
The Sun's mass is, however, so large compared to the total of all the other objects in the solar system that the Kepler's laws fitted well for the known inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

So, Rabinoz, Earth, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter are inner planets, according to your source???

Another example of Rabinoz' "seriousness" (sanity)  :

To this portion of my recent post :

So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when P_e=P_a" and find out what it means.
[/quote]


But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this...
If you don't know just ask politely instead of assuming that someone is trying to deceive you!

...Rabinoz responds like this : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2195780#msg2195780

Third example of Rabinoz's "seriousness" (sanity) :

To my quote of Goethe Rabinoz responds with two Goethe's quotes (lol) :

“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself; Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince. In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics.” Johann Goethe

“Someday someone will write a pathology of experimental physics and bring to light all those swindles which subvert our reason, beguile our judgement and, what is worse, stand in the way of any practical progress. The phenomena must be freed once and for all from their grim torture chamber of empiricism, mechanism, and dogmatism; they must be brought before the jury of man’s common sense." Johann Goethe

Rabinoz, pay attention to the bolded words within Goethe's first quote above!!!

Goethe criticized Newton because he understood what was going on at the time was total fabrication. These guys are secret-societal liars who are playing with the minds of the herd. Their goal is to get the concept of spirit-godhead out of the minds of the 'goyim' and replace it with arithmetical calculations and materialism. It is socio-economic engineering. Just look at all the materialists atheists this false cosmology has spawned as opposed to all the spirituals and sages of the past who knew the Earth is in the center of the universe.

So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :

If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and  in  general  relativity  this  enormous  motion  would  create  forces  akin  to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

It is important to note that much of the resistance to what we call the Copernican Revolution derived from the fact that for some time it left many important questions unanswered - in particular, how the planets and stars moved and cohered without the celestial spheres. One central insight was the switch from Aristotles's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving, to the modern concept of INERTIA, in which a moving object keeps moving unless stopped by wind drag or something else.

 A related insight also contrary to Aristotle was Newton's MATHEMATICAL understanding of GRAVITY, which allowed bodies to act on one another from a distance without direct contact. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point. Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.” According to Newton's way of thinking, besides the ordinary actions of physical laws, God acted by sustaining the motion of celestial spheres, and by setting up the initial orbits of the planets and later preventing them from disintegrating. Newton didn't hesitate to appeal to extraordinary acts of God to explain features of the natural world.

 Nevertheless, many of Newton's successors thought Newton was suggesting that God had to "correct" his own regular actions. They preferred instead the notion of God manifesting his powers not with irregular actions in nature but strictly by establishing regular "laws" that governed the entire cosmos.

Rabinoz' plan:

1) say something stupid
2) get shot down
3) ignore (2) and repeat same stupid statements
4) get shot down
5.....57) repeat steps (3) and (4) until everyone gets fed up and goes away
58) declare victory

IN ADDITION :

Geocentricity detractors often appeal to the coriolis effect. It is, like the rest of the appeals, vain. The observations would be the same geocentrically or heliocentrically. Dr. Bouw covers it in detail in his books and explains how the coriolis *effect* becomes an actual coriolis *force* under a geocentric setup (and centrifugal force becomes centrifugal effect).

Here are some more quotes on the matter from some esteemed scientists:

The Coriolis effect arises, equally, whether the Earth rotates or the cosmos rotates. - Rick DeLano

"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345

Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”

In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

The circumstances surrounding Hubble’s interpretation of the redshift are intriguing. Hubble worked with Milton Humason, but only Hubble’s name is associated with the redshift/expansion theory. The primary reason is that Humason was very reluctant to provide evidence for an expanding universe. The scientific community, based on Einstein’s reworked mathematical formulas (courtesy of de Sitter and Friedmann), had already decided that the universe was expanding, but they were missing observational evidence. Consequently, the science community was predisposed to interpret redshift as a Doppler phenomenon wherein galaxies are understood to be moving away at great speeds from the observer.2 This is in the face of the fact that there was no proof for a connection between receding galaxies and redshift, or that galaxies are receding at all, or that redshift is to be interpreted as a Doppler shift. In a paper published in 1931 Humason wrote:

It is not at all certain that the large redshifts observed in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect but, for convenience, they are interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities.

Interestingly enough, regardless of what the science establishment now associates exclusively with Edwin Hubble, the fact remains that even Hubble never fully committed himself to the now popular interpretation. Hubble was quite aware of what the science community desired, but maintained his distance. He writes:

This explanation interprets redshifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that redshifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle  in  physics....  Meanwhile,  redshifts  may  be  expressed  on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage.

As we have noted in our earlier discussion of Hubble, he then came to the place where he knew ?considering what he actually saw in his telescope? that there were only two options left to him. He writes:

Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of redshifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts....Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, apparent discrepancies between theory and observation must be recognized. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.[/color]

Do you think that the longer your post the more right you are?

In response to the following quote :

And again you just spout more and more spam, refusing to address a very simple question which shows beyond any sane doubt that your claims amount to pure garbage.

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

In response to the following quote :

I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe. Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:

From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws are mere approximations,
<< No need to keep repeating it! I know it and accept it >>

...Rabinoz quotes this balderdash :

No, Mr Cikljamas, it was not balderdash!
If YOU bothered to read it you might have noted that it proved that you silly claim "It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe" is completely untrue!

I have written many times, including directly to YOU, that Kepler's Laws are only an approximation to the solar system because they only apply to a 2-body system.

Can't you yet understand that the rocket thrust equation,
   , is for one specific expansion ratio (bell exit area/throat area), and the bell exit area can be adjusted to alter the exhaust pressure, P_e.

But for that bell exit area/throat area the lower the outside pressure, P_o, the higher the thrust!

The trouble is that you do not WANT to understand these things because to admit them might destroy you whole "World View"!

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 07:08:20 AM

In response to the following quote :

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Now what?

Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :

If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off??? 

Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :


Exhaust trail behind one NASAturd :


Almost exact match between these two ratios, isn't it?

I am guessing you don't want to see a rocket in a vacuum and see what happens?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 18, 2019, 02:24:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 07:08:20 AM

In response to the following quote :

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Now what?

Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

OK, the rocket engine, rocket itself and the remains propellant together form one body and mass of burnt fuel is the other body - no problem there.

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved.

But, Newton's third law does not specify "the relative masses of the two bodies involved" for the simple reason that it's totally irrelevant.

The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true.

No, the bodies do not "need to be of equal mass". Stop making up your own "Laws of Motion".

The rocket thrust equation, , is quite correct as it, thank you Mr Cikljamas!

Newton's own wording of his second law, in English and slightly modernised, is force = change in momentum per unit time or force = rate of change in momentum.

And that is exactly what the "momentum component" of the rocket thrust equation represents.

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?

Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :

Repeatedly citing the law wont help you.
I have already cited it.
The gas is accelerated away from the rocket.
This requires a force.
The only other body that can provide the reactionary force is the rocket.
Thus the rocket must be accelerated away from the gas.
Thus rockets can work in a vacuum.

If you wish to disagree, actually answer the question. No mockery. No spam. Just answer the question.
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 18, 2019, 02:24:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 07:08:20 AM

In response to the following quote :

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Now what?

Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.

Why "all at once"? Why do you think that? (not that it's exhaust velocity was 8km/s anyway)

This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?

Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :

If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off??? 

Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :

Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.

This is interesting:

"Ignition: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants (1972)"

https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?

Seriously? lol

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :

If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off??? 

Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :

Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 02:53:45 PM

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

The Expansion!

What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?

Free expansion!

What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?

Density of air/vacuum!

Why?

Resistance!

What it means?

It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

Was this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :


Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2

No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 11km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

SECONDLY :

WIKI QUOTE :

The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]

During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972!

READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

So, according to Wikipedia, altitude record for unmanned balloons is 53 km, however, according to this old NASA documentary BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - How so? :
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0

THIRDLY :

Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???

ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???

In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totally spectacular video which proves my point :

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
This video is absolutely devastating for NASA, since it shows two totally different speeds of Earth's rotation allegedly filmed from the same altitude (400 km) while our cameramans (astronuts) are moving at the same alleged speed (27600 km/h)!!!!
What do you have to say on this obvious destruction of NASA's credibility, Jack???

FOURTHLY :

Haven't noticed anyone commented (anything) this notorious example of catching busted astronut in a blatant lie :



FIFTHLY :

LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY (TO DESTROY NASA, FOR GOOD) :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX :

At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.





For reuploading this video youtube fascists shut down my channel (instead of nominating me for Nobel peace prize):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua

It speaks volumes!!!!

Can you believe this???

Can you???

Shutting down someone's channel for video like this???

Don't compare Youtube with Adolf Hitler it belittles Hitler!!!

As mentioned previously, I am not sure whether you are posting what you post for giggles or you actually do believe it. I've got a feeling that you do, and the above posts indicate you tend to be a conspiracy theorist which explains a lot.

Others on this and other threads deal with your mistaken assertions quite well, but just picking up on one of your links, the 'Challenger crew are still alive and well' conspiracy theory is one of the many which are just plain illogical. But who said logic plays any part in a conspiracy theorist's reasoning. There are many debunks of the 'crew is still alive CT' as I'm sure you are aware, this being one of them:

http://www.sciencedenierhallofshame.com/debunked/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/

I doubt though that this and other similar debunks of the other CTs you've posted will ever make you stop and think again. As mentioned previously, CTers don't view the world rationally and the belief system is usually unshakeable given that CTism is hard wired into their thought process, as it seems to be with you. 

Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.

Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

f = m a

The mass of the exhaust is less than the mass of the rocket.  The acceleration is greater than the acceleration of the rocket.  The force is equal, because conservation of energy is the kind of universe we live in.

Given your diagram, you seem to misunderstand that the masses don't need to be the same.  You also seem to think the end velocities need to be the same, this is also false.

Imagine you have two twins of equal weight on roller skates.  They're facing towards each other, and they push off each other.  You can expect that the end velocities to be the same, allowing for all the messiness of the real world.  Now imagine a big fat guy and a small child on roller skates facing towards each other.  They also push off each other.  What would you imagine to happen next?

As mentioned previously, I am not sure whether you are posting what you post for giggles or you actually do believe it. I've got a feeling that you do, and the above posts indicate you tend to be a conspiracy theorist which explains a lot.

Others on this and other threads deal with your mistaken assertions quite well, but just picking up on one of your links, the 'Challenger crew are still alive and well' conspiracy theory is one of the many which are just plain illogical. But who said logic plays any part in a conspiracy theorist's reasoning. There are many debunks of the 'crew is still alive CT' as I'm sure you are aware, this being one of them:

http://www.sciencedenierhallofshame.com/debunked/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/

I doubt though that this and other similar debunks of the other CTs you've posted will ever make you stop and think again. As mentioned previously, CTers don't view the world rationally and the belief system is usually unshakeable given that CTism is hard wired into their thought process, as it seems to be with you. 

Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.

 You’re All Just a Bunch of Conspiracy Kooks

Keating:  page  80:  Quoting  Wood:  “Characterizing  scientist  as  arrogant,   deceptive,   or   purely   driven   by   philosophical   bias   doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”

Sungenis: We don’t characterize scientists in that way, except when they clearly reveal they are that way. Let me give you two examples. One regarding  a  philosophical  bias  against  creationism and one regarding a philosophical bias toward  geocentrism, in spite of what the evidence shows. Here is evolutionist, Richard Lewontin:

We  take  the  side  of  science  in  spite  of  the  patent  absurdity  of  some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of  the  scientific  community  for  unsubstantiated  just-so  stories,  because   we   have   a   prior   commitment,   a   commitment   to   materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow  compel  us  to  accept  a  material  explanation  of  the  phenomenal  world,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  we  are  forced  by  our a-priori  adherence  to  material  causes  to  create  an  apparatus  of  investigation  and  a  set  of  concepts  that  produce  material  explanations,  no  matter  how  counterintuitive,  no  matter  how  mystifying  to  the  uninitiated. Moreover,  that  materialism  is  absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Here is physicist Stephen Hawking: 

...all  this  evidence  that  the  universe  looks  the  same  whichever  direction  we  look  in  might  seem  to  suggest  there  is  something  special  about  our  place  in  the  universe.  In  particular,  it  might  seem  that  if  we  observe  all  other  galaxies  to  be  moving  away  from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.16 There is, however,  an  alternate  explanation:  the  universe  might  look  the  same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no  scientific  evidence  for,  or  against,  this  assumption.  We  believe   it   only   on   grounds   of   modesty:   it   would   be   most   remarkable  if  the  universe  looked  the  same  in  every  direction  around us, but not around other points in the universe.

Quote from: turtles on August 19, 2019, 01:46:23 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?

Seriously? lol

Yes, seriously. Show me the logic and maths you used to come to that conclusion.

"lol" doesn't count as an answer.

Quote from: turtles on August 19, 2019, 01:46:23 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :

If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off??? 

Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :

Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.

The "smoke" trail behind the rocket is water vapour (Ariadne 5 is a LOX/LOH rocket). I don't know how long it would stay hot. I don't really care. I was just wondering why you thought the exhaust trail should be 2.7km long?

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

But it's already been empirically demonstrated.

But it's already been empirically demonstrated.

I see you are new here. You'll undoubtedly soon see that videos and documentation from government agencies and corporations with a vested interest in space travel are not given a great amount of credence in the FE community. It's pretty safe to say that our friend Mr. Bom Tishop is not part of "Big Space."

If you do a google search you will find a few videos of people testing if rockets work in a vacuum chamber, like this one:


But of course people will argue that the chamber is not big enough and the experiment is not valid.

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

They have already been tested countless times.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.

To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

A large vacuum chamber, say the size of a room, where someone remotely launches a small rocket would be much better.

Such a demonstration, if the rocket couldn't fly, would be monumental in its implications but for some reason no such demo can be found.

In 1963 the largest vacuum chamber was 25 feet.
In 1965 it was 90 feet.
In 1969 the record was set at 122 feet by NASA (the current largest in Europe is feet long)

Since 1969 there have been no attempts to build a larger vacuum chamber. Why? Why has so much of the technology of the Apollo missions been "lost" or abandoned?

Quote from: Romp on August 19, 2019, 05:20:11 AM

Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.

You’re All Just a Bunch of Conspiracy Kooks

But, I thought that YOUR topic was, "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
What is the connection between that and "You’re All Just a Bunch of Conspiracy Kooks" or "the Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism question!"

I guess you admit that Rockets really can fly in a vacuum and are onto your usual side-tracking rather than admit that you've lost!

Keating:  page  80:  Quoting  Wood:  “Characterizing scientist as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”

Agreed, “Characterizing scientist as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”

And YOU are a bunch of conspiracy kooks if you assume that all the following are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth and/or the Heliocentric Solar System:

• virtually all rocket scientists, physicists, astronomers and scientists in general,
  
  
• as well as every space agency, everyone involved any satellite-based activity.

Sungenis: We don’t characterize scientists in that way, except when they clearly reveal they are that way. Let me give you two examples. One regarding a philosophical bias against creationism and one regarding a philosophical bias toward geocentrism,

But Robert Sungensis, you, and almost all flat-earthers seem to regard the Globe and/or the Heliocentric Solar System as part of some "philosophical bias against creationism".

• What is the basis for such an assumption? The site Creation Ministries International

and most Christians would disagree.

• It also depends on what you mean by "creationism" because that has become almost a sect of its own.

in spite of what the evidence shows. Here is evolutionist, Richard Lewontin:

We  take  the  side  of  science  in  spite  of  the  patent  absurdity  of  some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of  the  scientific  community  for  unsubstantiated  just-so  stories,  because   we   have   a   prior   commitment,   a   commitment   to   materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow  compel  us  to  accept  a  material  explanation  of  the  phenomenal  world,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  we  are  forced  by  our a-priori  adherence  to  material  causes  to  create  an  apparatus  of  investigation  and  a  set  of  concepts  that  produce  material  explanations,  no  matter  how  counterintuitive,  no  matter  how  mystifying  to  the  uninitiated. Moreover,  that  materialism  is  absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Some scientists take that view but where is there any connection between that and the shape of the earth or the Heliocentric Solar System?
There is not the slightest connection unless you are denying that God could create the Cosmos that we see.

Here is physicist Stephen Hawking: 

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.16 There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.

Agreed, "it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe." What is your big problem with that?

To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.

Why?
Of course rocket experiences "air drag in front of the rocket" but that is against the direction of motion.

But your "existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it" is totally meaningless!

And object travelling through a fluid will experience an increased pressure in front, impeding its progress and a reduced pressure pressure behind, again impeding its progress.

Learn some fluid mechanics and aerodynamics!

If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one.

It means no such thing! Apart from anything else as has been explained to you before no disturbance (drag on the exhaust plume or anything else) can be transmitted back up the supersonic exhaust plume.

Learn a little about supersonic flow!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A large vacuum chamber, say the size of a room, where someone remotely launches a small rocket would be much better.

Such a demonstration, if the rocket couldn't fly, would be monumental in its implications but for some reason no such demo can be found.

In 1963 the largest vacuum chamber was 25 feet.
In 1965 it was 90 feet.
In 1969 the record was set at 122 feet by NASA (the current largest in Europe is feet long)

Since 1969 there have been no attempts to build a larger vacuum chamber.

NASA built the vacuum chamber to test Apollo systems and such vacuum chambers are extremely expensive.

But surely a 122 feet vacuum chamber is enough to test small rockets.

But why would NASA do that when rockets had been used in a vacuum for decades before that!

What action is causing the reaction of the rocket being pushed up?

Quote from: boydster on August 19, 2019, 10:41:17 AM

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

They have already been tested countless times.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.

Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.

I realize that you and Rab are like dogs with a bone here, completely unwilling and unable to control yourselves from posting copious amounts of condescending comments and playing holier-than-thou over those you perceive as your intellectual underlings. But it sure would be nice if you could cut that out long enough for the OP to address a proposed experiment by another member of this very community to possibly determine if the OP's position has something to it or not.

Literally none of the experiments you could possibly refer to were conducted with any sort of dialog or collaboration between cikljamas and the person conducting the experiment. We have a chance to resolve that here. You could get out of the way and let progress happen, or you can keep clogging this thread with noise like you've been doing.

No, that is still your lie.

Yes, the rocket exhaust does displace the air.
That is related the expansion you have talked about earlier.
But other than that change in expansion, the gas has already left the rocket and thus it can no longer push on the rocket.
The rocket pushes off the exhaust.

And you still haven't answered the question.

A large vacuum chamber, say the size of a room, where someone remotely launches a small rocket would be much better.

So well beyond the realm of any hobiest and instead in the realm of large corporations and government entities where it would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy. Thanks for proving my point.

Since 1969 there have been no attempts to build a larger vacuum chamber. Why?

The real question isn't why hasn't there been. The real question should be why should they?
Just what is there that needs a larger and more expensive chamber that couldn't just be done in space?
Any test for a system can easily be done inside one of the smaller ones as long as the system fits inside.
There is no reason for a larger one.


Now care to answer the question:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?