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

Quote from: Poko on July 24, 2015, 03:49:25 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 03:33:01 PM

Pokpo: so a rocket is like a gun, now?

Yes, a rocket is exactly like a gun. In this analogy, the bullet and gunpowder are like the rocket fuel and the barrel is like the back end of the engine. The rest of the gun is like the rest of the rocket.

In a gun, the gunpowder ignites and shoots a bullet out the barrel. The shape of the barrel is designed so that the bullet goes forward. This forces causes the gun to go backward, a phenomenon we call "recoil".

In a rocket, the rocket fuel ignites and shoots exhaust out the back of the engine. The shape of the engine is designed so that the exhaust goes downward. This force causes the rocket to go upward, a phenomenon we call "thrust".

We just explained this to him yesterday.

Papa Legba pay the fuck attention.

Did you use the gun analogy? If so I'm shocked that he still doesn't understand. Actually, I'm not shocked.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

Actually, it does. 

Really tiny ones.

Lots of them.

Very quickly.

They're called "exhaust gasses".

Or do you think that rocket exhaust doesn't have any mass?

LOL!!

Markjo: IGNORED for being a proven sock-puppeteer, troll & shameless liar.

You don't ignore someone by acknowledging their existence.

IDIOT!!

ROTFL

I'm just curious Papa, what do you think is causing rockets to fly? I mean, any civilian could have gone and watched a shuttle launch before the program was cancelled. Is God pulling them up by a string?

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 02:22:06 PM

Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?

As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.

You know; like you just spammed?

'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?

Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.

Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...

Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.

Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.

I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.

That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.

Hoppy: hello.

Is this picture clear enough?

Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.

No. The arrows pointing up is ambient air pressure and is also show by arrows all around the rocket engine giving no net effect.

Once we will ask, when the exhaust hits the air outside how does that translate as force on the rocket?

What actually happens is that the exhaust particles strike the air and transfer a slight bit of energy to the air particles pushing the air down and away from the rocket and slowing the exhaust gas slightly. There is no force effect on the rocket.

All the force on the rocket is shown by the rather larger arrows in the combustion chamber Pi and the exit nozzle Pe.

Hitler launched over 1400 V2 rockets at London in WWII and over 500 actually hit London. If rockets can't work then how was it possible for Germany to do this.

Or is WWII also a conspiracy?

Wernher von Braun is considered the father of rockets, he is the chap that designed and build the V2 rockets and then worked for the USA after WWII

Watch " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ep 02 of Nazi Mega Structures on the V2 rockets

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 24, 2015, 02:32:44 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 02:22:06 PM

Poko: NASA has a model of rocketry that contradicts Newtonian physics, specifically Newton's 3rd; what the hell do you think the last 60-odd pages have been about, Helen Keller?

As for myself, I have no objection to Newtonian physics, merely to deliberate misinterpretations of it.

You know; like you just spammed?

'More fuel + more fast = more go'; does that sound like any kind of physics at all, Newtonian or otherwise, Helen?

Cos it sounds like gibberish to me.

Still, if it's what you need to keep your space fantasies alive, believe what you like...

Just don't impose it on others as 'scientific fact'.

Sock-arul: we have already seen that video & it is laughably fraudulent; so stop spamming it.

I know you will be unable or unwilling to see that fraud, but others will & have.

That is why all the comments were deleted then disabled.

Hoppy: hello.

Is this picture clear enough?

Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.

No, that is the pressure caused by the exhaust. In fact, the ambient pressure (in this case the atmospheric pressure) decreases the thrust, as seen in this equation:



Where Pa is the ambient/atmospheric pressure.

Source:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html

I can work with that bulletless gun analogy, Legba. Question: does a cannon or a musket without a bullet have recoil?
I will also add that  in this kind of engines, there is a distinction between fuel and propellant. Fuel heata the propellant  and shoots it. In chemical conventional rockets, fuel and propellant are basically the same. In most nuclear rockets, the fuel is the fissible material, and the propellant is usually hydrogen or water.

Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.

When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.

What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?

Answering this question with another question, as conker has just done, will not suffice.

Also, his referring to 'nuclear rockets' as if they are things that actually exist does not help his case.

But, as you are all hopelessly mired in a science-fiction fantasy world already, where words outrank reality & numbers outrank even words, it is not surprising.

You haven't answered my question,  nor the question on how does exhaust interact with air. I will answer the question, though: it does have recoil. And, believe it or not, nuclear engines have been built. If you dont like the example, ion engines have that distinction too. The fuel is plutonium if the probe is equiped with RTGs, or nothing if its solar powered.  Xenon or another similar gas woyld be the propellent.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 24, 2015, 04:33:23 PM

Poko: stop trying to fudge; the gun is Object A; the bullet is Object B; the propellant sits between them.

When the propellant is ignited, it creates an interaction between Objects A & B, thus propelling Object B (the lesser of the 2 masses) out of the barrel.

But a rocket does NOT fire bullets.

So; to be analogous with a rocket, you must remove the bullet, Object B, from the equation, leaving only the gun, Object A, & the propellant, which now represents the exhaust of the rocket.

What other mass, then, will replace Object B in order to create an action/reaction pairing - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - & produce thrust, Helen Keller?

Answering this question with another question, as conker has just done, will not suffice.

Also, his referring to 'nuclear rockets' as if they are things that actually exist does not help his case.

But, as you are all hopelessly mired in a science-fiction fantasy world already, where words outrank reality & numbers outrank even words, it is not surprising.

I'm going to ask you this as you seem to have missed my previous post. What do you think causes rockets to fly? Any civilian could have gone and watched the shuttle launches back when they were still happening. My dad personally saw a rocket launch, and I hardly think that my dad is part of The Conspiracy.

Conker; so are you saying that when a gun fires a blank it DOES produce recoil?

If so, what extrinsic mass has replaced the bullet as Object B - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - in order to create the action-reaction pairing necessary to produce that recoil?

Poko: So; answering a question with another question?

Again?

Quite the habit with you cultists, isn't it?

LOL!!!

If so, what extrinsic mass has replaced the bullet as Object B - as explicitly demanded by Newton 3 - in order to create the action-reaction pairing necessary to produce that recoil?

The end product from the gunpowder, aka exhaust.

But we have just seen that the bullet was Object B; when it is removed, it must be replaced by another mass or no recoil will be produced.

This is elementary stuff, mikeman v2.0.

*Sigh!*

We are back to the whole 'rocket pushing on itself' (lol!) thing, are we not?

Except now it is a blank-firing gun which 'pushes on itself'...

LOL!!!

More Magical Cult-Physics for Magical Space-Cult rockets!

Enjoy your febrile fantasy-lives, Cultists; I'll post poetry from now on whenever you spout nonsense.

At least that way any cultured readers will still get something worthwhile from this shambles of a thread.

But we have just seen that the bullet was Object B; when it is removed, it must be replaced by another mass or no recoil will be produced.

This is elementary stuff, mikeman v2.0.

*Sigh!*

We are back to the whole 'rocket pushing on itself' (lol!) thing, are we not?

Except now it is a blank-firing gun which 'pushes on itself'...

LOL!!!

More Magical Cult-Physics for Magical Space-Cult rockets!

Enjoy your febrile fantasy-lives, Cultists; I'll post poetry from now on whenever you spout nonsense.

At least that way any cultured readers will still get something worthwhile from this shambles of a thread.

We have also seen that the exhaust is object B. Did you know that the gunpowder and the bullet is the same object? They are connected, so they are closer to being object B than the gunpowder and the gun is to be object A. In fact, the gunpowder is a object B and the bullet is then a object C. The gunpowder pushes the gun, that pushes the gunpowder. The gunpowder pushes the bullet. (All that after ignition). Fuel and exhaust is not part of a rocket, they are separate objects from the rocket.

Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.

Ever fired a muzzle-loader, cretinous mikeman v2.0?

LOL!!!

& it's objects A, B AND C now, is it?

All somehow bouncing back & forth between each other inside the barrel until something somehow happens & therefore SPACE TRAVEL!!!

LMFAO!!!

Whatever; you have now proven you have absolutely NO idea how Newton 3 works; as a reward ypouu cann hazz spayse-shipps!

Derrr...

ROFLMFAO - at YOU, cultists!!!

Ever fired a muzzle-loader, cretinous mikeman v2.0?

LOL!!!

& it's objects A, B AND C now, is it?

All somehow bouncing back & forth between each other inside the barrel until something somehow happens & therefore SPACE TRAVEL!!!

LMFAO!!!

Whatever; you have now proven you have absolutely NO idea how Newton 3 works; as a reward ypouu cann hazz spayse-shipps!

Derrr...

ROFLMFAO - at YOU, cultists!!!

I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.

Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.

So, now imagine shooting billions of bullets out of a nozzle. These bullets going faster than a bullet normally would.

Once again, Rama Set, we are lucky you are not a real person; because you are incapable of taking anything in its correct context & thus would be a horrible embarrassment at any social occasion.

But enough of that; how about some more poetry, for intelligent people to appreciate, whilst you Thought-Police shit-post?

'Down the winding caverns we groped our tedious way, till a void boundless as the nether sky appeared beneath us, and we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said: if you please we will commit ourselves to this void and see whether Providence is here also.'

Do you believe in Providence in the unknown, Rama Set?

Or that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God?

Or anything of any true value?

You do not believe in the laws of physics; because you absolutely refuse to apply them correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.

So; what, exactly, do you believe in?

Apart from ruthlessly crushing any attempt at free-thought on obscure web forums, that is...

Not lol, shameful harasser Rama Set.

Not lol at all.

I never said you should not be free to think what you want. You should not however be allowed to engineer anything. Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot. If you still want to maintain that exhaust gases are part of a rocket you display nothing but a cognitive gap. Think away though!  You are entitled!

Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.

That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.

It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.

If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 24, 2015, 02:32:44 PM

Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.

Good catch, Hoppy!

If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.

LOL!!!

In your face, cultists!

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2015, 05:09:28 AM

Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.

That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.

It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.

If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.

I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.

Quote

Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.

Do you have any explanations for this?

Quote from: hoppy on July 24, 2015, 11:09:56 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 24, 2015, 02:32:44 PM

Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.

Good catch, Hoppy!

If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.

LOL!!!

In your face, cultists!

That is not ambient pressure, that is exhaust pressure. EXHAUST PRESSURE. The pressure of the EXHAUST pushing the rocket. Meaning that the exhaust is pushing the rocket.

IN YO FACE.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2015, 05:09:28 AM

Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.

That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.

It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.

If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.

Your terrible analogy is not how rockets work. It is a false analogy. M

Can you explain yet how force is transferred to a rocket through its exhaust plume?

Quote from: hoppy on July 24, 2015, 11:09:56 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 24, 2015, 02:32:44 PM

Yes it is clear, it shows the force lifting the rocket as outside the nozzle. That would be a high pressure generated by the engine exhaust hitting the ambient air. It is shown with arrows pointing up against the nozzle.

Good catch, Hoppy!

If we ignore the large, yet ultimately distracting, arrow at the top of the drawing, we get a true - albeit mis-labeled - representation of how rocket thrust is produced.

LOL!!!

In your face, cultists!

Further to what Master Evah posted the Rocket Equation uses the area of the exhaust port to determine thrust so it is obviously an integral place in the force balancing. The more you learn...

Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...

Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.

I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?

Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...

Just like I am now, in fact.

& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.

A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.

If you CAN do a push-up, that is...

Which I doubt.

LOL!!!

Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...

Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.

I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?

Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...

Just like I am now, in fact.

& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.

A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.

If you CAN do a push-up, that is...

Which I doubt.

LOL!!!

The arrows at the nozzle is pointing at the exhaust, not the engine, so how is that force transfered to the engine?

ALSO:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 25, 2015, 05:39:55 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2015, 05:09:28 AM

Anyone can look at a rocket and describe the physical processes and then decide it's like "pulling up on your ankles" has obviously lost the plot.

That is the logical consequence of YOURS & NASA's interpretation of how Newton 3 applies to how a rocket works, 'Rama Set', not MINE.

It is YOU who are claiming that both the forces described by Newton 3 can be created on the same object & produce motion; not ME.

If you do not like this FACT, then learn how a rocket really works & free yourself from the blatant logical contradictions inherent in YOUR model.

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 25, 2015, 04:51:09 AM

I have fired unloaded soft-air guns. The only things that comes out of them is pressurized air(like exhaust), yet they have recoil.

Quote

Quote any of us where we said that the rocket pushes itself. Do it. Otherwise you can't prove yourself right.

Do you have any explanations for this?

Post as much desperate spam as you like, cultists...

Because your beloved drawing clearly shows that the action/reaction pairing necessary in order to fulfil Newton 3 & produce thrust is created AT THE NOZZLE.

I wonder if you'll stop spamming us with it now?

Well that is what I said. To reiterate, the rocket equation is affected, in part, by the area of the exhaust nozzle. So I am glad we agree.

Probably not; but every time you do, neutrals will be laughing at you...

What a weird rhetorical device, trying to read the minds of a hypothetical audience.

Just like I am now, in fact.

& it's an exhaust COLUMN, Rama Set, not your weasel-word 'plume'.

A column of highly-compressed gas molecules, in fact, which are clearly capable of transferring force, in exactly the same way that force can be transferred up the molecules of your arm, to your shoulder, when you do a push-up.

How compressed is it?  Can you cite figures?  What maintains its integrity?  How efficient is it at transferring force?  What should the maximum achievable altitude be? Can you provide any figures to support this?

<irrelevant ad-hom>

fascinating.

Legba, I told you about 30 pages ago that in complex flows newtons laws apply on a molecular basis. You cant just call object A and object B things that not only are different materials going in different directions. They arent even on the same matter state. Apply Newton's laws in the integral form to the complex flow of exhaust, and you will see. I am aware that sich a flow isnt easy to solve, specially on a particulate form. You can download a FEA tool, and work it out yourself, there are many rocket nozzles with schematics out there. Of course, doing that would take you months of work, and that assuming you have any kind of education on flow physics, which is why I told you I wouldnt do it. Do it yourself. Prove NASA wrong. Win a nobel.
And you clearly havent ever shot a blank or even dropped a flowing water cleaner's hose.
I recommend you check how Newton's laws apply to flows and complex particulate bodies.

Funny how there's ALWAYS at least two of you spamming me at the same time, isn't it, cultist Thought-Policemen?

Funny, that...

YOU lot NEVER give any evidence or experiments whatsoever in support of your claims; yet you constantly demand them from me.

& when I DO provide them, you ignore or misrepresent them.

As you also ignore every valid point I make.

You can NOT explain how Newton 3 is applied to rocket propulsion; all you do is blindly shout 'It just DOES! BELIEVE US NOW!'

Well; NO, I will NOT believe you, brainwashing Cultists.

The FACT is, that the ONLY place your silly drawing shows a definitive action/reaction pairing being created is AT THE NOZZLE.

if you do not like this FACT, or cannot cope with its implications, it is not my fault.

& conker: why does a rocket even have a nozzle at all, genius?

It is only in MY model that a nozzle would be required, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible from the exhaust column's interaction with the external mass of the atmosphere back up to the base of the rocket.

Stop spamming math & learn to THINK.

Now; carry on.