.....

I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.

I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.

The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.


If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.

The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.

Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.

If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.

Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.

Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 29, 2012, 12:56:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:50:06 PM

I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.

I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.

The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.


If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.

The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.

Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.

If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.

Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.

Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?

No, you are pushing it.

Take that car off the road and suspend it in the air with you suspended in the air with your hands on the back of it.
Now see if you can push it.

Actually I could, it would move forward and me backward, while both still falling.

@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Quote from: markjo on November 29, 2012, 01:00:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:50:06 PM

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.

Explain?

We already did. Read the thread over.

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 12:35:54 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:27:29 PM

To even say that the expanded burning fuel actually pushes back up the nozzle is madness.

In space, that fuel has nothing to expand into to give it lift or movement as space just simply takes what's thrown at it and gives nothing back, rendering the rocket absolutely 100% unmoveable space junk, unless hit by a meteorite or something wandering space.

I am interested to see what data you have to back up the bolded claim.

What is your theory on what propels meteorites through the heavens?

I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.

I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.

The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.


If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.

The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.

Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.

If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.

Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.

A more accurate test would be if i were hold an explosive to my chest then set it off to see get pushed away by the rapidly expanding gasses.

If you are saying that a rocket gifted a large mechanical arm could not push itself through space then I agree - but that's not what combustion does.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 29, 2012, 01:04:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:59:10 PM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 29, 2012, 12:56:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:50:06 PM

I don't know what propels meteorites through space, the same as I don't know what powers the sun or what the moon is made of or what stars really are.

I could guess, yet my guess could be so far out it's pathetic, yet could be closer than what we are told to accept it is.

The point is though. This isn't about things we can only guess at, this is about rockets and vacuum.


If space is the vacuum we are told it is, then the propulsion we use to power them, renders them pointless in space.

The clever science answer to supposedly prove they do work is to basically say in a nutshell that rockets simply propel themselves by expanding their own fuel back into the rocket and that's basically saying that rockets are working against themselves which is stupid.

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

Here's something for you that doesn't require an atmosphere.

Stand up in an empty space and with one hand, push against your chest and tell me if you fall over or get pushed backwards.

If you manage to push yourself backwards or make yourself fall over, I'll accept defeat and say I was wrong and rockets can actually push against themselves.

Have a try and tell me the result and we can end this debate right now.

Why you keep repeating that? If you get out of your car and push it, is the car pushing itself?

No, you are pushing it.

Take that car off the road and suspend it in the air with you suspended in the air with your hands on the back of it.
Now see if you can push it.

Actually I could, it would move forward and me backward, while both still falling.

Does suspended mean falling?

ok forget about the line after the coma, happy?

Well that's settled then.

I've obviously misunderstood the science behind rockets.

I was under the impression that the fuel is under constant burn but it's obvious is propelled by explosives constantly going bang.

Glad I was able to help -

Think of it as one long explosion going bang until the fuel runs out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 01:09:15 PM

Well that's settled then.

I've obviously misunderstood the science behind rockets.

I was under the impression that the fuel is under constant burn but it's obvious is propelled by explosives constantly going bang.

Glad I was able to help -

Think of it as one long explosion going bang until the fuel runs out.

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

Sceptimatic, how have you made this important discovery in rocket science bs.

Quote from: markjo on November 29, 2012, 01:00:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2012, 12:50:06 PM

It is literally like saying you can pick yourself up and throw yourself away by grabbing your own legs with your own arms.

No, it's like saying that you can push a boat forward by jumping out the back.

Explain?

Newton's second law.  You know, action/reaction.

@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really.  There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.

I thought you were clear on the process - i'm confused.

It appears you are descending into madness.

Sceptimatic, how have you made this important discovery in rocket science bs.

I'm not saying your theory is bs, I just want to know how you have made this important discovery.

When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?

When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?

Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.

This is getting old.  Here is a video of a fire hose that went out of control, not that anyone needs a reminder.  #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fire Hose Gets Away

Sceptimatic explain, citing some sort of evidence, how a fire hose would be stationary in space.  Explain how space will "suck up" the water causing the fire hose not to move at all. You seem to have a great understanding of all that is involved so it shouldn't be a problem.   

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 03:43:19 PM

When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?

Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.

I assure you my vehicle has never been anything but forthright and honorable.

Sceptic, did you develope this theory on your own? Is there anymore material to read about this?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:05:49 PM

@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really.  There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.

That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:17:09 PM

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.

See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 02:07:06 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:05:49 PM

@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really.  There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.

That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 02:07:06 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:17:09 PM

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.

See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.

Hmmm. In a sceptiworld this might make sense.
But I have picked up something different form his ramblings.

To me it seems that Scpetimatic thinks the vacuum of space is so full, so dense, so powerful that it can actually 'suck up' and resist all forms of energy from having any effect. Which to me sounds like the exact opposite of a vacuum.

But then, what do I know? I am a spoon fed monkey that cannot think for myself.
©Sceptimatic, 35 pages of sh*t, TFES 2012

Quote from: mexicanwave on November 30, 2012, 06:06:50 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 30, 2012, 05:55:39 AM

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 02:07:06 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:05:49 PM

@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really.  There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.

That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 02:07:06 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 01:17:09 PM

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.

See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.

Hmmm. In a sceptiworld this might make sense.
But I have picked up something different form his ramblings.

To me it seems that Scpetimatic thinks the vacuum of space is so full, so dense, so powerful that it can actually 'suck up' and resist all forms of energy from having any effect. Which to me sounds like the exact opposite of a vacuum.

But then, what do I know? I am a spoon fed monkey that cannot think for myself.
©Sceptimatic, 35 pages of sh*t, TFES 2012

Then you haven't been reading the thread.

I don't think a vacuum is full of anything and especially not rockets.

You are just mixed up and don't understand it but it's ok, I'm not here to mock you.

Nope, you are merely here to perpetuate a paranoid delusion that has the entire world fooled with you as the only enlightened soul that has seen through the lies.

You say you believe is full of nothing, but you don't accept it to behave like nothingness, as you say its constantly sucking what you throw at it, that is not what nothingness does, it does nothing. You seem to compare it to what vacuum behaves on earth, but on earth is air pressure trying to fill the vacuum, not the vacuum sucking air.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 06:32:27 AM

You say you believe is full of nothing, but you don't accept it to behave like nothingness, as you say its constantly sucking what you throw at it, that is not what nothingness does, it does nothing. You seem to compare it to what vacuum behaves on earth, but on earth is air pressure trying to fill the vacuum, not the vacuum sucking air.

I don't mention suck, I say swallow but in effect it's how it can be construed to behave.

Your air pressure on Earth is indeed trying to fill the vacuum , you are correct there.

Air on Earth is a pressure and is all around us. Think of Earth's atmosphere as like space except it's filled with matter against a small vacuum flask.

The air wants to get into that flask and any breach in that flask will allow the air to rush into it.


Now on that note, imagine it all, the opposite way round.

Space is the vacuum and the rocket is the air filled, instead of vacuum flask.

The Air pressure inside that rocket wants to escape and the vacuum of space is only too ready and willing to aid its escape as fast as it comes out because the vacuum of space is a willing mouth intent of biding it's time until there is a breach in that rocket.

Again, you take vacuum as an active force or energy reacting to what it in it, it is not. The only thing that could make a "breach" in the rocket due to pressure, is pressure itself, the one inside the rocket, but outside there is nothing, and one would think that an engine is made to stand the pressure it creates without problems.

The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.

Quote from: hoppy on November 29, 2012, 03:49:38 PM

Quote from: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 03:43:19 PM

When you tilt up the bonnet of your automobile and look at your engine do you do you also shout at it about carrying on the ruse?

Easy Kendrick, you seem to be descending into madness.

I assure you my vehicle has never been anything but forthright and honorable.

The events of the last 12 hours have lead me to retract this statement - my vehicle engaged in some serious knavery and should now be regarded with a healthy sense of suspicion.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 07:25:35 AM

The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.

But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.

But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........

The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.

End result = no propulsion.

Again, you can't imagine vacuum as nothingness can't you?
If the engine is turned on, the expansion of the gases will cause propulsion, if they close it, the expansion stops, easy as that. Is not like the pressure inside the rocket is increasing constantly like if you keep shaking a soda. There is no reason for things inside to try to expand if they are under pressure (and is the lack of pressure what makes gasses and water expand in space), so they don't.
Look, water is always causing causing pressure in the pipe system, it has a higher pressure than the atmospheric, that is the reason if you open the tap, water will go out, but if you close it, it will stop going out. That has never been a problem.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 07:25:35 AM

The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.

But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.

But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........

The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.

End result = no propulsion.

In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the low pressure environment on the other side.

You can test this by purchasing a CO2 cartridge like this and puncturing it either with a hammer and nail or some other method.

As with anything Zetetic - care should be taken to equip yourself with the appropriate safety gear, I recommend American football pads and a helmet along with shatterproof safety goggles.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 08:25:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2012, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 30, 2012, 07:25:35 AM

The balloon is made to be elastic, so it will simply expand until it can't, then it will explode. You can't compare the resistance of a rubber balloon to that of a rocket. A rocket is not made to be elastic so it will keep the pressure inside.

But this is just the point.
The gases will expand inside that rocket because they want out and there is no pressure against that rocket to arrest that, so they will keep expanding until the rocket is breached.

But let's assume that the rocket is strong enough to hold these expanding gases inside it. It can do so forever if it's strong enough but like a patient cat waiting for an injured bird to drop out of the tree, the vacuum will be ready to swallow up any breach that is made to the rocket..................meaning..........

The minute the valve is opened for propulsion, the vacuum of space has it in it's mouth until the rocket is empty.

End result = no propulsion.

Again, you can't imagine vacuum as nothingness can't you?
If the engine is turned on, the expansion of the gases will cause propulsion, if they close it, the expansion stops, easy as that. Is not like the pressure inside the rocket is increasing constantly like if you keep shaking a soda. There is no reason for things inside to try to expand if they are under pressure (and is the lack of pressure what makes gasses and water expand in space), so they don't.
Look, water is always causing causing pressure in the pipe system, it has a higher pressure than the atmospheric, that is the reason if you open the tap, water will go out, but if you close it, it will stop going out. That has never been a problem.

You simply get mixed up with Earth and the vacuum of space in how we are told it works.

What is your point now? As I said, the pressure inside the rocket is not constantly increasing, so when the engines are turned on, it won't  be expelled all into vacuum. It will keep the propulsion of the rockets because of the high pressure combustion it causes.

There is no low pressure in space. There is no pressure at all.

Ok - let me make a slight change in the wording of my explaination to make it more clear:

In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the zero pressure environment on the other side.