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

SOCK-arul: LOL!!!

Words are not Reality, nut-case.

Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.

My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.

But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.

As usual.

Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.

But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.

Which is, as ever, LOL!!!

If you want to you can become an astronaut or an engineer by NASA. Anyone can, if they put a fair bit of dedication into it.

LOL!!!

Are you mikeman's even more retarded twin sibling?

Who the f**k would want to be a NASA engineer? They do NOTHING!

Or, even worse, be like Chris Bloody Hadfield; playing guitar in a zero-g f**king plane?!?

Yeah - that takes some REAL 'dedication', don't it?

Dedication to being a repugnant, fraudulent scumbag?

NO THANKS!!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

LOL!!!

Are you mikeman's even more retarded twin sibling?

Who the f**k would want to be a NASA engineer? They do NOTHING!

Or, even worse, be like Chris Bloody Hadfield; playing guitar in a zero-g f**king plane?!?

Yeah - that takes some REAL 'dedication', don't it?

Dedication to being a repugnant, fraudulent scumbag?

NO THANKS!!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

I you became NASA engineer you could teach them that their rockets don't work and provide the public with proof that NASA is a fraud.

If I became a NASA engineer I'd be too busy spending your tax money on hookers, blow & bizarre magickal rituals to give even 1 single flying f**k about rockets or any other 'outer space' crap; that'd be for the CGI & cartoon department to deal with.

If I became a NASA engineer I'd be too busy spending your tax money on hookers, blow & bizarre magickal rituals to give even 1 single flying f**k about rockets or any other 'outer space' crap; that'd be for the CGI & cartoon department to deal with.

Why don't you do it then? Sounds great right?

Because I value my Soul, kid...

& so should you.

Now; enough derailing for one night.

Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.

If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 22, 2015, 03:04:46 PM

SOCK-arul: LOL!!!

Words are not Reality, nut-case.

Rama Set: Good for you; as for me, I am happy you are not a real person with a real point.

My point is that an exhausted gas, through the simplest of experiments, can be shown to move a solid mass; how it does it is irrelevant: it still remains a FACT.

But, as ever, in your attempts to 'win' a debate that was already lost weeks ago, spectacularly missed that point & descended into shitposting & ad homs.

As usual.

Facts are Facts, cultists; you cannot just wish them away.

But keep trying; the more you do so the stupider you look.

Which is, as ever, LOL!!!

Explain how the exhaust moving in one direction can propel the rocket in the other direction using your logic.

Backing up claims is tough.

Because I value my Soul, kid...

& so should you.

Now; enough derailing for one night.

Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.

If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!

The action of exhaust flying back has the reaction of the rocket flying forwards. Exhaust goes back, rocket goes forwards. Rocket science 101.

Mr. Sock: Not as tough as actually comprehending what I write is for yourself, it seems; because if you COULD comprehend what I'd written, you'd know I've already answered your dumb, trolling question.

Repeatedly.

Plus provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my claims.

Really, Mr. Sock; there is something very badly wrong with your brain.

Be honest; are you retarded?

Cos if not, you are trolling & will be reported as such every single time you post from now on, Mr. Sock.

Okay?

LOL!!!

Mikeman v2.0: Wrong. Read the thread. STFU.

Mr. Sock: Not as tough as actually comprehending what I write is for yourself, it seems; because if you COULD comprehend what I'd written, you'd know I've already answered your dumb, trolling question.

Repeatedly.

Plus provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my claims.

Really, Mr. Sock; there is something very badly wrong with your brain.

Be honest; are you retarded?

Cos if not, you are trolling & will be reported as such every single time you post from now on, Mr. Sock.

Okay?

LOL!!!

Mikeman v2.0: Wrong. Read the thread. STFU.

The rocket moves in the north direction. The exhaust moves in the south direction. How again can south moving exhaust impart a force to move a rocket north, from pushing on air?

This will shut you up.

According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.

Which would be inconvenient.

According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.

It's not hard to understand.

Unless you don't WANT to, that is...

You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?

Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!

LMFAO!!! 

According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.

Which would be inconvenient.

According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.

It's not hard to understand.

Unless you don't WANT to, that is...

You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?

Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!

LMFAO!!!

If exhaust flies backwards, where does it get that energy from?

What 'energy'?

Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?

Any comments on Free Expansion yet?

According to your model, the rocket & exhaust should separate & continue in different directions.

Which would be inconvenient.

Which they clearly do.
You think the exhaust shouldn't leave the rocket?  Are you aware that your car exhaust leaves the tail pipe?

According to my model, the exhaust & rocket are 1 object, creating 1 action, which then creates an action/reaction pairing with a separate mass, i.e. the atmosphere (object 2), thus creating motion.

And I keep pointing out there is no way for a force to be transferred from the exhaust hitting air to the rocket. You have not explained how it is done. Stacking is not a response as the exhaust is clearly not changing directions.

It's not hard to understand.

Then why do you have trouble?

Unless you don't WANT to, that is...

You gonna spam me with your '2 dots & an arrow' drawing again?

Go on; I know you're dying to - it'll DESTROY me you know!

LMFAO!!!

No, I'm still just waiting for you to explain how exhaust traveling the opposite direction of a rocket can impart a force on it from hitting air.

Needing something extrinsic to push on is the Totality of Newton's 3rd Law.

Object A; and Object B...

Further; if a Gas could not push on another Gas, then we would not have weather, would we?

Or will you now start denying that weather exists too, Mr. Science-Hater?

Whatever; let's leave it there for the night, Spock-a-roony; you have clearly been sampling too much of your own product & are incapable of Rational Thought.

Toodle-pip, Cultists!

&, as ever, LOL!!!

Needing something extrinsic to push on is the Totality of Newton's 3rd Law.

Object A; and Object B...

For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. No part of that claims to objects have to hit each other. A force is required to accelerate the exhaust of the rocket engine so in return, an opposite force accelerates the rocket.

Further; if a Gas could not push on another Gas, then we would not have weather, would we?

Never said it couldn't. Just said exhaust can't move one direction while creating a force as you describe in the other direction. 

Or will you now start denying that weather exists too, Mr. Science-Hater?

Once again, not related to the topic at hand.

Whatever; let's leave it there for the night, Spock-a-roony; you have clearly been sampling too much of your own product & are incapable of Rational Thought.

Toodle-pip, Cultists!

&, as ever, LOL!!!

Why don't you explain in detail how the force is transferred from the exhaust hitting an air molecule.

Because I value my Soul, kid...

& so should you.

Now; enough derailing for one night.

Please explain how you believe the principle of Free Expansion would affect the functioning of NASA's gas-powered rockets in the Vacuum of space.

If you read all this thread you'll be able to pick up useful pointers on how to avoid the point & deny the existence of basic physical laws from other cultists; off you go, goodbye!

How do you reconcile the free expansion of gas with the behavior of gas as a single body. Also, how do you reconcile your prodigious use of ad hominems with your disdain for ad hominems?

What 'energy'?

Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?

Any comments on Free Expansion yet?

You don't know what energy is?

In this case, the movement.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 22, 2015, 04:41:25 PM

What 'energy'?

Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?

Any comments on Free Expansion yet?

You don't know what energy is?

In this case, the movement.

@Master Evar,   don't bother reading the whole thread,  I'll summarize for you.   Papa Legba,  doesn't understand free expansion,   in a rocket the expansion occurs inside the combustion chamber,  ( Oh he doesn't understand combustion either ),  the other things he fails to grasp, are conservation of momentum,  Newton's third law,   solid rocket boosters,  kinetic energy,  oxidizers, cryogenics,  in fact pretty much anything that requires more than grade school maths.   In short he's an imbecile,  and we just like to rattle his cage and watch him spew forth inane LOL's and insults.   Most gave up trying to educate him ages ago.   One or two still try.

Watch him come out of his cave and jump up and down rattling the bars.   You can throw him  peanuts if  you like.

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 22, 2015, 11:52:45 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 22, 2015, 04:41:25 PM

What 'energy'?

Oh, & you read the whole thread fast, didn't you?

Any comments on Free Expansion yet?

You don't know what energy is?

In this case, the movement.

@Master Evar,   don't bother reading the whole thread,  I'll summarize for you.   Papa Legba,  doesn't understand free expansion,   in a rocket the expansion occurs inside the combustion chamber,  ( Oh he doesn't understand combustion either ),  the other things he fails to grasp, are conservation of momentum,  Newton's third law,   solid rocket boosters,  kinetic energy,  oxidizers, cryogenics,  in fact pretty much anything that requires more than grade school maths.   In short he's an imbecile,  and we just like to rattle his cage and watch him spew forth inane LOL's and insults.   Most gave up trying to educate him ages ago.   One or two still try.

Watch him come out of his cave and jump up and down rattling the bars.   You can throw him  peanuts if  you like.

I've read most of the thread already, just haven't posted until now.

As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.

I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.

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

Forces result from interactions.

When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

What is object B?

It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.

Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.

& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.

Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.

Does a gas molecule have mass?

Yes.

Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.

It's all simple stuff...

You just don't want it to be.

Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.

Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?

If not, try this: IDIOTS.

LOL!!!

As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.

I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.

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

Forces result from interactions.

When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

What is object B?

It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.

Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.

& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.

Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.

Does a gas molecule have mass?

Yes.

Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.

It's all simple stuff...

You just don't want it to be.

Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.

Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?

If not, try this: IDIOTS.

LOL!!!

Object A is rocket, object B is exhaust. Rocket pushes exhaust, exhaust pushes rocket. Why do you think exhaust flies back? If exhaust is a part of the rocket, it would follow the rocket. It doesn't.

The problem with Papa Legba is that he doesn't understand basic stuff,   we need to regress him back to a 5 year old,  and start again. 

Conservation of momentum.    101.   

What is momentum?  Papa,  your definition of momentum please.

As per usual, you make fools of yourselves every time you post.

I will repeat, for the slow: Needing something extrinsic to push against is the totality of Newton's 3rd Law.

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

Forces result from interactions.

When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

What is object B?

It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.

Avoiding, or lying about, this FACT, or any others, such as the FACT that free expansion clearly states gas does no work in a vacuum does not make them untrue.

& sock-arul; if you are genuinely claiming that a gas molecule cannot push against another gas molecule then you are beyond redemption.

Any object with mass can push against any other object with mass.

Does a gas molecule have mass?

Yes.

Ergo, a gas molecule can push against another gas molecule.

It's all simple stuff...

You just don't want it to be.

Because you want to live in a sci-fi fantasy instead.

Does that count as an ad-hom, Rama Set?

If not, try this: IDIOTS.

LOL!!!

Another post full of crap and still no answer on how the exhaust hitting air propels a rocket. It's because you can't. I asked for the step on how it's done and got nothing. Obviously gas molecule can hit each other. What I want to know is how two molecules hitting each other 10 feet away from a rocket can propel the rocket. You still cannot answer this. You still cannot explain how the force is transferred. You still don't understand Newton's laws.

When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

What is object B?

It cannot be either the rocket or its exhaust because they are object A; it must be something extrinsic.

If the rocket and its exhaust are the same object, then why is one a solid object going in one direction and the other a gas going in the opposite direction?

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?

It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...

So what is it, Cultists?

Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.

A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

The exhaust reacts against the rocket.  You idiot.

LOL!!!

ROFL!!!

LOLOLOLOLO!!!

Can't you guys understand that the rocket exhaust exiting the nozzle creates high pressure under the rocket. If the rocket was in space the exhaust gas would just expand in the nothingness off space and not push the rocket. However when the rocket is in an atmosphere the exhaust gas pushes against the standing atmosphere at the end of the nozzle, which creates high pressure in the area of the nozzle . The high pressure then pushes against the nozzle and rocket , creating movement.

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?

It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...

So what is it, Cultists?

Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.

The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).



That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 23, 2015, 02:24:53 AM

A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

The exhaust reacts against the rocket.  You idiot.

LOL!!!

ROFL!!!

LOLOLOLOLO!!!

It was already determined that the exhaust is part of the rocket until it leaves the nozzle. So you are saying the rocket pushes itself. Which as any idiot knows is impossible. If you don't believe it, try as Legba has said. Lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoes.