.....

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 07:28:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:14:38 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 07:10:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 06:47:14 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 06:23:10 AM

So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you  have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.

All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.

I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.

Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.

Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.

Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.

A contracted spring is a different matter. That would send both balls opposite ways.

A bomb explosion would mean release of gasses with that energy, gas is matter.

Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.

(By the way, If you press Ctrl while moving the mouse wheel up, you can maximize the screen to read the small letter)

Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?

Yes.

And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?

In a way, yes.  Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).

It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.

What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?

After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."

I haven't changed my mind about anything I've said.
I might have told you that I understand what you are saying on things, it doesn't mean I agree with it.

Newtons law will not and never will work in the vacuum of space. No matter how you dress it up or how rocket scientists dress it up..a rocket will not work in space.

The vacuum would instantly swallow up anything inside that rocket the second the fuel was released ready to fire.
If a rocket somehow managed to get out of the atmosphere into space, that's where it would stop.

Vacuum being called vacuum has nothing to do with a vacuum cleaner, it does not suck anything. A word in english, closer to the concept vacuum in space should be, would be something like "void".

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 07:14:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:06:57 PM

Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?

Yes.

Quote

And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?

In a way, yes.  Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:08:06 PM

It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.

What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?

What do you mean?

What part don't you understand?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 23, 2012, 07:23:09 PM

After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."

Can you elaborate here, I'm not with you here.

Never mind.
An explosion releases gases at high pressure in every direction, gas is matter, that gas is moving against the rocket, pushing it, if you push something, it moves. The rocket moves.
We can make it more simple by understanding that if I push something it will move.

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 07:38:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:29:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 07:14:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:06:57 PM

Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?

Yes.

Quote

And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?

In a way, yes.  Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:08:06 PM

It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.

What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?

What do you mean?

What part don't you understand?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

You asked and I answered 3 questions.  Which of those answers are you having trouble with?

Yes that is more simple. If you push something, it moves.

If you push your own car, it moves but you are outside of your car when you push it, with your feet on the ground , using your legs as the energy source.

For your working rocket, you are asking me to believe that I can get into my car , shut the door and push it   from inside.

Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.

Well, is not the rocket actually pushing against itself, its the gasses at high pressure (expanding a lot faster than if they were just released into vacuum) pushing against the rocket.
I can't make a comparison of it with a man pushing a car, because the gasses are constantly leaving the rocket. So it would be like the man just pushed the car once and stayed outside, but that would be just one explosion, it would be more like a bus full of men, one jumps out of the back window and pushes it, then the next does, but they are pushing using friction against the floor to move the bus more efficiently, in the rocket, the explosion is gas expanding, only pushing against the rocket, so it would be more like each man jumping in the air and kicking the bus, the men are the fuel, the bus is the rocket and the kick is the explosion. Of course that is not at all an effective way of moving a bus, just trying to make a comparison of what would it really be like if we wanted to transfer this to men and car, this explosions generate a lot of energy, enough to move the rocket.

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 08:03:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:44:01 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 07:38:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:29:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 23, 2012, 07:14:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:06:57 PM

Do you accept that a balloon filled with air and let go of, is a simple form of rocketry?

Yes.

Quote

And would you say that the very same balloon is doing exactly what a rocket would do, except for the burn?

In a way, yes.  Burning the fuel and oxidizer constantly replenishes the air in the "balloon" (rocket engine).

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:08:06 PM

It's you that doesn't understand that Newtons law won't work in a vacuum, not me.

What does the principle of action-reaction have to do with a vacuum?

What do you mean?

What part don't you understand?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

You asked and I answered 3 questions.  Which of those answers are you having trouble with?

I'm not having trouble with any answers, I'm just trying to work out what you are getting at.

I was trying to get at answering your questions.  What were you trying to get at?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 23, 2012, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2012, 07:32:42 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 23, 2012, 07:23:09 PM

After I told you that an explosion would push an object the same way a spring would, and added it was the release of gases (matter) that would actually move the objects, "you said Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space."

Can you elaborate here, I'm not with you here.

Never mind.
An explosion releases gases at high pressure in every direction, gas is matter, that gas is moving against the rocket, pushing it, if you push something, it moves. The rocket moves.
We can make it more simple by understanding that if I push something it will move.

Yes that is more simple. If you push something, it moves.

If you push your own car, it moves but you are outside of your car when you push it, with your feet on the ground , using your legs as the energy source.

For your working rocket, you are asking me to believe that I can get into my car , shut the door and push it   from inside.

Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.

Eh, no. This is stupid.

He is saying that the rocket is the car. The fuel is inside, until it burns and the gases are expelled outside, into space, pushing the rocket.

Everyone is really trying to explain these things simply, as you requested.

Guys, I think we are just being cleverly trolled.  This guy is from 4chan or something.  Seriously.

What is the force that releases the fuel from a rocket in space?

It is the force caused by the expansion of gases by chemical and thermal energy. In the end, what matters is the kinetic energy of the gases that are being released.

In other words, when a cold, combustible solid, liquid or gas mixes with a comburant the mix is a hot gas that accelerates from nothing (relative to the rocket) to a very high speed before reaching the end of the nozzle. There you have the mass and the acceleration, so Newton's Second Law of Motion gives you the force.

Stop believing you know all the holes in Newton's Laws. You have not found a single one.

Guys, I think we are just being cleverly trolled.  This guy is from 4chan or something.  Seriously.

You have to be right.

No one can be this ignorant.

Basically you are telling me that the rocket pushes against itself.

I do not mind so much that you have no idea whatsoever about Physics. But this claim by you is just plain lying.

You are trying to say that your opponent is an ignorant, when the only thing that is happening is that you are playing word games, showing in the process your own ignorance.

Maybe you cannot debate cleanly because you have already lost a couple of weeks ago and have nothing to add since then.

I'm not saying I know all the holes in Newtons laws, I'm simply saying that Newtons law is rendered useless in space

Could you tell us how Newton's Laws of motion are "rendered useless" in space?

Quote from: Father Luke Duke on November 24, 2012, 05:40:43 AM

Could you tell us how Newton's Laws of motion are "rendered useless" in space?

 Space is a vacuum, it's devoid of matter.

So what?  Newton's Third Law is this:

Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Do you see a vacuum mentioned?

If you truly believe a vacuum magically nullifies a physical law, then this would be trivial to prove.  Create a vacuum and carry out some simple motion experiments in it.  Any basic lab would be able to do it.

Of course you won't.  You have no interest in learning, just posturing as a pseudo free-thinker by denying well established facts.

But you lot aren't explaining it simply. It may seem simple to you but you are asking me to understand something that I find impossible to work.

I'd like a very basic simple explanation with a crude diagram if possible as to exactly how the fuel pushes the rocket without any external influence.

This is, again and again, your Average Joe ruse. You cannot combine your "I'm more intelligent than the whole scientific community together" speeches with your admissions that you don't understand the Third Law of Motion, with your claims that other people say objects push themselves.

Take a stand and stay with it, or concede defeat.

if rockets can't exist in space, how does the sun, planets, stars, moon, ect do?

To you and others, Newtons law in space is fine because you have been told how a rocket works and you go with it because You accept space travel, so everything is fine.

I have, as so many others, seen the Laws of Newton working in a vacuum. They work. The only thing you have to argue is that you know, even though nobody else does, that the vacuum of space is different from the vacuum on Earth.

Anyhow you say it, you are an arrogant ignorant who has nothing to say, but still declares himself better than the whole scientific community as a whole.

I could have been spoon fed a little or a lot, but experiments do not have any compassion for spoon fed lies. Experiments work or experiments do not work. And you have done just about no experiments in your life. Worse, you have lied about doing them.

A vacuum nullifies the propulsion of a rocket by means of the fuel they use, it's as simple as that.

I didn't ask about rockets or fuel.  I asked how a vacuum nullifies Newton's third law.  Please answer this question.

I'm not saying I am smarter than anybody.

You are saying you are smarter than rocket scientists.  You are saying you are smarter than Newton, Einstein and Feynman.  You are saying you are smarter than all of the PhD physicists alive in the world today.

All of these people use (or actually formulated) Newton's Laws, and all of them think they apply in a vacuum (or anywhere else for that matter).  You are saying they are wrong about this, and you are right.  You are therefore claiming you are smarter than them.

 

You talk of an explosion....is it an actual explosion or is it simply a fuel burn.

For instance:
In a car, the fuel is squirted into the piston cylinder and is ignited by the spark plug and it ignites and expands, forcing the piston to move and this can be construed as an explosion.
This turns the crank etc and your car moves as soon as you put it in gear.
Now a car engine experiences these explosions on every full piston movement,

So are you saying that a rocket constantly explodes its fuel like this, or does it simply ignite once and "burn?"

Its more like a constant controlled explosion, because is always releasing gases at high pressure.

Who's to say they aren't just following protocol, or lose their jobs?

Who? Newton and Einstein?  You think Newton formulated his Laws of Motion do he didn't lose his job?

Protocol?  What the hell are you on about anyway?  How do you think engineers build stuff like skyscrapers and bridges without using the Third law?

Still, you are still avoiding the question of how a vacuum invalidates the laws of motion?

combustion!

ask thork. he is backing you

You are still avoiding my questions.

1  How does a vacuum invalidate the laws of motion?

2  How do engineers still manage to build stuff like skyscrapers, bridges tunnels under the sea etc if the science they use is completely wrong?

Quote from: Flat Eric on November 24, 2012, 08:19:52 AM

combustion!

  Combustion is simply a burn..I want to know how the rocket expels high pressure burning fuel.

No, you said yourself, that a combustion engine moves the piston by causing little explosions, that is also combustion.

Yes, in a piston engine. Does a rocket have pistons?

No, in any internal combustion engine

A rocket ignites and simply burns it's fuel.
I asked what pressure was used to expel it as in...is it gravity fed or a pump or what?

No, most rockets also use internal combustion engine, instead of using the energy to move a piston, they use a more energy to move the rocket.

Regardless...it's still a constant burn. It's not like mini bombs going off every second is it.


I'll ask again.
How does a rocket expel it's fuel at high pressure?

Just as in any internal combustion engine, if im not mistaken, i remember you said you knew how they worked, well i don't, but you can find that information anywhere.
Wikipedia: The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the combustion of a fuel occurs with an oxidizer in a combustion chamber that is an integral part of the working fluid flow circuit. In an internal combustion engine (ICE) the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases produced by combustion apply direct force to some component of the engine.

If you don't know how rockets work, why are you telling me that they work according to Newtons third law?

I don't know what causes the gas expansion at high preassure in a combustion engine, that doesn't cause it when you simple burn fuel, but i know it works because its used in cars, jets, misiles, etc. I was explaining how that expansion makes the rocket moves.

Yes, but not exactly the fuel pushing the rocket, but the high pressure of the gases in expansion.