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

  • 4284 Replies
  • 529300 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #660 on: May 19, 2015, 01:53:53 PM »
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?

Or are you just quoting wikipedia?

State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?

Just ANSWER ffs!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Quail

  • 132
  • I can't sea gull.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #661 on: May 19, 2015, 01:56:35 PM »
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?

Or are you just quoting wikipedia?

State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?

Just ANSWER ffs!
The rocket looses mass which is propelled out, and the exhaust also pushes the rocket as it gets defected in the nozzle. There is pressure in the nozzle, which also pushes the rocket.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #662 on: May 19, 2015, 02:26:56 PM »
Papa is trying to tell you globalists about the lies you adhere to from the fantasy rocket science world.

Here's a video that you should all observe and ABSORB. If this doesn't help you grasp the truth then you have no desire to grasp it and are best left in your slumber or deliberate lie, whichever fits you.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 02:29:23 PM by sceptimatic »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #663 on: May 19, 2015, 08:20:50 PM »
It's not just Papa who sees that Newton's laws are regularly being violated by space adventures. Let me repeat:

Law 1. An object will remain at rest, or continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.
Law 2. F=MA
Law 3. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Do you see the problems in respect of laws 1 and 3?
No, I don't.  Would you please explain the problems?


State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?
It doesn't.

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?
The action/reaction pairing is occurring within the rocket engine itself.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #664 on: May 19, 2015, 08:31:52 PM »
Papa Legba, one more breach of the rules and you will be banned.  Final warning

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #665 on: May 20, 2015, 02:22:34 AM »
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?

Or are you just quoting wikipedia?

State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?

Just ANSWER ffs!

It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.

The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:

Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s

90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.

Simple.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #666 on: May 20, 2015, 05:17:52 AM »
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?

Or are you just quoting wikipedia?

State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?

Just ANSWER ffs!

It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.

The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:

Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s

90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.

Simple.

Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation


Try again.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #667 on: May 20, 2015, 05:29:23 AM »
Did you actually READ my earlier posts?

Or are you just quoting wikipedia?

State what the exhaust column reacts against in order to transfer force back to the rocket, please?

Otherwise, WHERE is the action-reaction pairing created?

Just ANSWER ffs!

It is the simple application of conservation of momentum.

The rocket ejects mass out the back at high speed, and conservation of momentum requires that the rocket itself is accelerated forward by the same change in momentum. Example:

Rocket and fuel weigh 100kg. Velocity 0ms. Total momentum 0kg.m/s

90kg of fuel expelled out back at 100m/s. Fuel momentum is 90x100 = 9,000 kg.m/s therefore
Rocket must have momentum of 9,000kg.m/s in opposite direction. Rocket now weighs 10kg therefore velocity = 9,000/10 = 900m/s.

Simple.
Since the thrust to weight ratio constantly changes during the burn, this is the formula that you want:
Plugging in your numbers would give a delta v of 450 m/s.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 06:05:43 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #668 on: May 20, 2015, 11:32:54 AM »
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.

Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #669 on: May 20, 2015, 11:42:00 AM »

Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation


Try again.

Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.

External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #670 on: May 20, 2015, 11:48:05 AM »

Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation


Try again.

Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.

External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Stop talking out of your arse and just get to the real point or what you're trying to say. No wonder you people have messed up heads.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #671 on: May 20, 2015, 12:12:21 PM »
So: the action/reaction pairing occurs within the rocket 'engine' itself.

But WHERE, precisely?

The front?

The back?

Somewhere inbetween?

I say that when a rocket ignites its fuel it creates an ACTION (i.e. exhaust column);

The exhaust column creates a REACTION with an OUTSIDE MASS such as the ground or the atmosphere;

This transfers THRUST back to the base of the rocket, thus fulfilling the dictates of Newtons 3rd.

Stick your hand out of the window of a car travelling at 80mph; you will feel how solid the atmosphere around us can be.

Now imagine what would happen at a velocity similar to that of a rocket exhaust, i.e. 4000+mph.

Plenty enough mass for a rocket to push on...

Except in the VACUUM of space, of course.

& what about Free Expansion of gas? Not a peep out of you on that subject eh?

To finish: mistaking Words for Reality is foolish enough, but to mistake Numbers for Reality is the pinnacle of madness.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #672 on: May 20, 2015, 12:49:33 PM »

Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation


Try again.

Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.

External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.
Stop talking out of your arse and just get to the real point or what you're trying to say. No wonder you people have messed up heads.
[/quote
Rough translation - you don't understand basic science.

Ok. Simple speak.

If two objects collide momentum is conserved.
If two object split momentum is conserved.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #673 on: May 20, 2015, 01:06:43 PM »
The specifications of the BuK M2E long-range ground-to-air missile are freely available on the web; www.army-technology.com has them for example.

Look in the performance stats & you will find that it has a 'maximum operating altitude above sea level' of 3,000 metres.

Why on earth should this be, if rockets are not reliant on atmospheric pressure in order to function?

I will tell you why: it is because the army knows that their troops are mostly thick as planks of wood & will not make the connection between the inability of their rockets to operate in rarefied atmospheres & the impossibility of space travel.

& they can't take the chance that one of them would try to launch a rocket above it's maximum operating altitude, thus destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment.

But the above should show anyone capable of independent thought that military rocket engineers are perfectly aware of how a rocket actually functions.

I know this for a fact because I've met a few; they all considered 'space travel' to be kids stuff.

Like Santa...

Want to contemplate 1 Corinthians 13:11 again, anyone?

& what about Free Expansion?

Tricky one, that!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #674 on: May 20, 2015, 01:08:42 PM »

Conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system. One which does not exchange matter with its surrroundings:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation


Try again.

Fail. A closed system is defined as the the objects that will undergo either a collision or explosion. So for two objects that are split by an explosive force their net momentum is equal to zero.

External objects are any forces or anything else that could act on the system that are not defined as the system itself.

Are you making this up as you go along?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #675 on: May 20, 2015, 01:16:00 PM »
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?

Don't be too harsh, legion!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #676 on: May 20, 2015, 01:26:34 PM »
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?

Don't be too harsh, legion!

You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #677 on: May 20, 2015, 01:35:57 PM »
Papa is trying to tell you globalists about the lies you adhere to from the fantasy rocket science world.

Here's a video that you should all observe and ABSORB. If this doesn't help you grasp the truth then you have no desire to grasp it and are best left in your slumber or deliberate lie, whichever fits you.

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

I'd say it's a video everyone should watch and TEST. I plan on doing so this weekend. Great vid and I'll let you know my results.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #678 on: May 20, 2015, 01:37:56 PM »
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?

Don't be too harsh, legion!

You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.

You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.

Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.

Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.

Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate  systems.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #679 on: May 20, 2015, 01:42:46 PM »
Yes, legion; it is an excellent video & easy to reproduce at home; how easy it is to absorb the lesson thereof is another matter, sadly.

On a different note, I invite anyone who does not believe NASA to be a cult to google any combination of the words 'Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, Babalon Working'.

The results, to any person with the slightest esoteric knowledge, will make the whole sordid saga as clear as daylight.

Honestly; it could not be clearer.

But enough of that; what about Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum & its repercussions for NASA's GAS-powered rockets in the VACUUM of space?

Anyone?

& mainframes: you lot do love your false analogies don't you? But let's try to get beyond them eh?

Just try it; you may learn something.

The doorway is open...

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #680 on: May 20, 2015, 01:56:15 PM »
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?

Don't be too harsh, legion!

You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.

You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.

Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.

Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.

Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate  systems.

Here we go again:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant.

In your pool balls example, some energy will be lost due to friction (assuming a pool table). But, critically, no matter (or mass) will be exchanged outside of the pool system table (closed). Unless, ball A, the one you hit, explodes on contact with ball B.  In that case, the conservation of momentum law will no longer apply as much/most of the force was expended in the explosion of ball A.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #681 on: May 20, 2015, 01:58:25 PM »
It makes me laugh how people can believe a combustion chamber in a rocket is going to allow burning rocket fuel to push up and down in equal terms.
Have any of you so called NASA rocket engineers had a look at the combustion chamber in an engine and also the injectors that squirt oxygen and fuel into this chamber?

Think of the so called power they say is created in those engines that is thrown out of the back. Seriously do any of you so called rocket scientists believe a huge so called space rocket can lift off a pad into space without simply blowing up under the pathetic forces they tell us happens to enable the lift of tehse so called monster rockets?

Here's something for you though and I want you to  think about this very clearly. Those who have blinkers on and wax in their ears; do not respond.
Those who have a brain, just take heed of what's being said.

A rocket nozzle is shaped like a cone for a reason. The cone widens as it spans out from the rockets arse for a reason. What could that reason be.

1. To allow the burning fuel to mix and expand inside a combustion chamber inside the rocket and simply disperse the burning fuel into the atmosphere as simply waste and doing nothing.

2. To allow the fuel mixture to disperse into the atmosphere to create a controlled burn against the atmosphere to expand it so the rocket gases pushes against that atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes right back in equal measures.


The answer is simple to those who aren't brainwashed.

You see; if rockets worked like NASA tells us then why the need for a nozzle at all?
Also what was the point of having a nozzle in space if it's a vacuum?
What kind of combustion chamber must have been inside the supposed LEM that supposedly landed on the moon?
The so called astroliars were basically sat on top of one engine that was sat on top of another one.

Why did the LEM have a rocket nozzle on landing on the so called moon and yet the ascent kettle, erm rocket thing had no nozzle whatsoever. What's the reason for this?

No resistance, no movement of anything. Kaput. Zilch.
Ever wondered why an aerosol can fizzes when you press the top?
It fizzes because it is compressed inside the can, just like a rocket would hold compressed fuel/oxy.
Open the valve and the fast compressed fuel/oxy/aerosol pushes into the atmosphere at speed which forces the atmosphere away from it, yet the atmosphere equally hits back and tries to equalise the pressure. It friction grips the compressed fuel/oxy/aerosol and you hear the fizz. The SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Now let's put that into your vacuum of space.  Open the nozzle and the oxy/fuel/aerosol plays the last man out, stinks game.
Where's the fizz? The SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS?

There isn't one because the compressed oxy/fuel/aerosol is allowed FREE EXPANSION because it has nothing at all to arrest it's free movement into the vacuum.

It's like letting the air out of your tyre in space and then deciding you want to pump it up again. The problem is, your bike pump has nothing to pump. You plunge down the handle into the pump cylinder and there's no resistance because there's no air.

You're not even going to push down the valve in your inner tube to allow air into it because there is no air. So if your valve doesn't move by the force of you pumping that handle down, then how in the hell do you expect a rocket to move in a vacuum by expelling the fuel from it into the same vacuum?


Action/reaction works great inside Earth, due to resistance or atmosphere in ALL cases.
It's worthless in your fictional space because resistance cannot exist.

If only people could understand the principles of a vacuum or a near one and what space is supposed to be and how nothing could work in it, then it would make life easier for people to see just how far the duping has gone.

Throw a ball on Earth and you have a few things in your favour to allow you to throw it.
1. You have the friction of your feet and mass of body against the floor by atmospheric pressure pushing down on you. You can now throw your ball.

2. Dangle you from a rope to throw the ball again and you lose the friction of your feet/legs but your body mass has been transferred to the rope, except now your throw isn't as strong due to less resistance. All you have to enable the throw is the rope and your swing energy and as much push into the atmosphere as your body can muster.
Effective but nowhere near as efective as the feet to the solid ground as a friction grip.

Now take all that away - and as we are told; 'float you in space' with that same ball.
Now throw it.
In your mind right now, you believe you can throw it and you will see it disappear into the endless pit of space, right?
Can't you see that you are rendered still? It's hard to imagine because we are used to friction on Earth. The problem is, you are made to believe that atmosphere is negligent.

I'm going on here and the dipshits will type the usual tl;dr garbage and waste their time. If they do they have to quote me which means the real people get to see what I'm saying many times.

Anyway, back to what we all know. I'll type this is capitals so we don't forget the definite in life. the law that is a must.

FOR EVERY ACTION THERE MUST BE AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

What does it really mean in the grand scheme of things?

It means: if I or anything uses energy in any action, a reaction of the same energy will be transferred to whatever that energy was used against.
For instance: if I punched someone in the face, my energy would be transferred to the persons body as an action and an equal reactive force from their body would be transferred back to my fist and arm/shoulder/body mass.


Basically I get back what I put in and the same goes for moving in atmosphere. If you walk into it, you compress it and it pushes right back against you with the same reaction to your action.

Confused?
If you are tied to a bungee cord and use all your energy to run as hard as you can by stretching that cord to the max, your energy can stretch it, then that cord will now react against your body with the same energy you placed upon that. It pushes you back.

Now get in your car and imagine  you're up against a 100 mph wind. Your car is stationary at this point because your handbrake and tyres are friction gripped to the wheels and road and the mass of your car against atmospheric pressure upon it means you need a lot of energy to move that car into that 100 mph wind.

Once you move that car into that 100 mph wind, you are compressing it more by the mass and energy of your car which pushes harder against that onrushing air onto your car front. But the thing is, just like the bungee rope, the energy has to equalise which it does by being forced around your car and friction gripping it on the sides before smashing into the air behind you that you are  moving away from which equalises the pressure only on the energy your car produced, meaning your car is back to fighting the 100 mph wind and not any extra.

Have a good think about that. Some may not grasp it. It requires logical thought.

Now let's take it into so called space.

Let's park your car in space and put you behind it. Now push the car. Does it move?
Ok, kick the car.
Does it move?

Ok, how about pushing yourself away from the car and catapulting yourself away from that car. Yeah?

Can't be done, can it?
Why?

No resistance. You do not possess anything to lever off.
I know what you're thinking. "wait a minute, if I grabbed an open window and gripped it, I could launch myself away from the car."

It sounds plausible doesn't it?
You can be told lots of things...lies. Like; " oh space is a vacuum but things still have mass."
This is a perfect cover story to make you think that something feels heavier than something else and this allows a person or object to be ejected. It should clearly be seen to be bullshit if you're prepared to think.

If I'm holding hands with you in space then drag me towards you. Am I being pulled towards you or are you being pulled towards me?
Or are we simply not doing anything because none of us has anything at all to use as a resistive force. No leverage.

We can move inside Earth because we are under a force of atmospheric pressure. One action results in an equal reaction.
No action can happen without a reaction. You always need a resistive force to enable you to move one muscle of your body.
Atmosphere provides this. Space as this vacuum, does not.

The end result for anything in that so called spacial vacuum is SUSPENDED ANIMATION. No movement in any free way at all, unless a resistance can be used to enable that to happen.

Now just like we couldn't move in this vacuum without using a leverage, neither could Earth. It cannot freely float along. What it can do is expand and contract within itself against that vacuum.
This is why putting a person up higher and higher results in that person expanding and that's not even at a vacuum; just much lower pressure.
This is why we are a sealed unit against a vacuum. A natural sealed prison cell with it's own breathable skin against the vacuum of suspended animation that we simply see as the absence of all light. BLACKNESS with inner reflections.

OOP'S , I went a bit too far near the end, so I'll leave it at that.

It's boring to read but read it and absorb it for those who want to find reality from the sack of crap we've been fed. I'm being totally serious.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #682 on: May 20, 2015, 02:17:36 PM »
May I just add, to sceptimatic's typically interesting & thought-provoking post, that the real reason 'choked-flow/De Laval' nozzles are used on military rockets is simply to accelerate the exhausts velocity.

They play NO part whatsoever in increasing the functionality of a rocket in vacuum.

NOTHING can; because rockets can not work in a vacuum.

End of story...

Unless we are gulled into entering a reductio ad absurdum concerning a false analogy, of course.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 02:30:31 PM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #683 on: May 20, 2015, 03:06:35 PM »
NASA did, so why shouldn't their cultists?

Don't be too harsh, legion!

You're right. It was very insensitive of me. Maybe mainframes will provide a citation for his extraordinary claim. We'll see.

You provided the citation. You just don't know what a system is.

Consider a solid block as a system. If it were to split in two, the two halves must obey conservation of momentum as they were initially part of that system. After the split had occurred they will be two different systems.

Same for rockets. The rocket and the fuel it contains are a system. Ignite the fuel and its will be ejected from the rocket with both obeying conservation of momentum. Once ejected it is no longer in the system.

Same with an opposite example. If two pool balls collide then at the point of collision they are one system and conservation of momentum is obeyed. After that they once again are seoerate  systems.

Here we go again:

Quote
In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant.

In your pool balls example, some energy will be lost due to friction (assuming a pool table). But, critically, no matter (or mass) will be exchanged outside of the pool system table (closed). Unless, ball A, the one you hit, explodes on contact with ball B.  In that case, the conservation of momentum law will no longer apply as much/most of the force was expended in the explosion of ball A.

In pool ball example momentum is conserved at point of collision. If ball A has 1kgm/s and B has none then after collision the pair will a sum total of 1 kgm/s. How that is split between the balls depends upon how full on they collide. With a perfect strike ball A would have 0kgm/s and B would have 1kgm/s. A 45degree hit and they would both have 0.5kgm/s. Friction only plays a part after the collision when each ball is a separate system again.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #684 on: May 20, 2015, 03:30:43 PM »
If I understand Legion's position correctly (he will undoubtedly claim I don't), sails should not work.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #685 on: May 20, 2015, 03:57:58 PM »
So now some maths involving 'pool balls' will somehow prove that rockets work in vacuum...

Nice try with yet another FALSE ANALOGY but can we stick to REALITY, please?

I know it's painful for you, but give it a go; you may even find it liberating...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #686 on: May 20, 2015, 04:46:16 PM »
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.

Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
A simplistic example doesn't help if it gives the wrong answer.

So: the action/reaction pairing occurs within the rocket 'engine' itself.

But WHERE, precisely?

The front?

The back?

Somewhere inbetween?
Yes.  The initial action/reaction occurs in the combustion chamber where expanding gasses push against the walls of the chamber (action) and the walls of the chamber push back (reaction).  Now if it were a sealed chamber like a balloon, then the action/reaction is balanced in all directions.  However, there is an opening called the throat.  As the gasses escape through the throat, the action of that gas does not balance the action in the opposite direction, therefore the rocket wants to move opposite direction of the escaping gasses.

Now consider that as the gasses are being pushed from the relatively large combustion chamber through the relatively small throat, the gasses increase in pressure and velocity.  Also remember that the gasses still have mass.  The mass and velocity of the escaping gasses are used to calculate the specific impulse of the engine.

After the exhaust gas passes through the throat, it enters the nozzle where the gas expands once again.  The expanding gas will push against the nozzle (action) causing still more reaction.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #687 on: May 20, 2015, 04:55:15 PM »
The specifications of the BuK M2E long-range ground-to-air missile are freely available on the web; www.army-technology.com has them for example.

Look in the performance stats & you will find that it has a 'maximum operating altitude above sea level' of 3,000 metres.

Why on earth should this be, if rockets are not reliant on atmospheric pressure in order to function?
First if all, I think that you missed a zero.  A maximum altitude of 3000 meters (about 10,000 feet) sounds pretty useless for a long range surface to air missile.  30,000 meters (about 100,000 feet) sounds a lot more reasonable.

Secondly, the rocket motor is for propulsion, but the missile still needs air for the steering fins to work.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #688 on: May 20, 2015, 11:40:01 PM »
To be fair Marko, if they don't understand momentum then the rocket equation is going straight over their heads.

Was trying to provide a very simplistic example.
A simplistic example doesn't help if it gives the wrong answer.


The answer was correct given the analogy. I said fuel was ejected out the back as a single unit to demonstrate a simple conservation of momentum calculation. It s fine if you then want to expand into ejection of fuel of a period of time.

As I said they need to understand conservation of momentum first before trying to explain rocket equation.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #689 on: May 20, 2015, 11:41:57 PM »
So now some maths involving 'pool balls' will somehow prove that rockets work in vacuum...

Nice try with yet another FALSE ANALOGY but can we stick to REALITY, please?

I know it's painful for you, but give it a go; you may even find it liberating...

This was demonstrating the princes of conservation of momentum which are required in explaining how rockets work in a vacuum. You'll notice I gave an example of an explosion and a collision.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.