Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 211634 Views
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2013, 04:02:09 AM »
Your theory is incorrect and I can swear to that 100%.
Rockets cannot work in a vacuum and I'm not 99.9% sure of this, I'm 100% sure of it.
If you are an honest person and a genuine scientific theorist, then you should know this and I'm being serious.

How can you possibly know with 100% certainty that you are correct when you have never even tested your ideas? It's all well and good to think that you're right, but until you actually test your ideas, they aren't worth a pinch of shit.

Just go and do the balloon in a vacuum chamber experiment. At least then you actually will know with 100% certainty.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2013, 04:40:57 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2013, 04:48:45 AM »
A simple explanation is alright up to a certain point. The point of the equations is that they act as a proof for the explanation and provide a predictive element, without them it becomes a game of "my explanation makes more sense to me".
The simple explanation is usually the correct one, you know this...but this explanation I give, although simple, is counteracted by bull shit.
Not by you or others I might add...but by those that try to amaze us with their scientific misinformation.

I said that my goal is to smash the round rotating earth theory and this will go a long way into achieving that...because proving rockets do not work in a vacuum, proves that "all" missions and "all" probes/satellites/space stations/Hubble and "all" video and photographs of earth and space are fabricated.

If your goal is to smash the concept of RE, then this is a piss poor job at doing it.  Even your own force diagram of the balloon failed to show an force from the air surrounding the balloon acting upward on it to provide propulsion.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2013, 04:53:54 AM »
Your theory is incorrect and I can swear to that 100%.
Rockets cannot work in a vacuum and I'm not 99.9% sure of this, I'm 100% sure of it.
If you are an honest person and a genuine scientific theorist, then you should know this and I'm being serious.

How can you possibly know with 100% certainty that you are correct when you have never even tested your ideas? It's all well and good to think that you're right, but until you actually test your ideas, they aren't worth a pinch of shit.

Just go and do the balloon in a vacuum chamber experiment. At least then you actually will know with 100% certainty.
The proof is right there for anyone to look at and read what I said.
You are simply duped by adhering to anything told to you by official explanations of it.

I don't trust what you say scepti, just like you don't trust anyone else. The big difference is, I can actually prove I'm right (and have done), whereas you haven't even done a single experiment to test your own ideas. If you had, you'd know you were wrong.

I mean no offense by any of that, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in your reasoning in order to assist you in improving it.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2013, 05:06:44 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2013, 05:21:17 AM »
You have just told lies right there saying you have done the experiment that proves I'm wrong.

No, I haven't lied. I have done experiments which prove the principles of rocket science, therefore I have done experiments that prove you wrong. Go do some experiments yourself, because thinking you know something means nothing until you actually prove it.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2013, 05:45:01 AM »
You have just told lies right there saying you have done the experiment that proves I'm wrong.

No, I haven't lied. I have done experiments which prove the principles of rocket science, therefore I have done experiments that prove you wrong. Go do some experiments yourself, because thinking you know something means nothing until you actually prove it.
I'm calling you out as a liar, unless you explain to me exactly what you did that proved that rockets work in a vacuum.

The principle behind the movement of a rocket is the same as the principle behind the movement of deflating balloon, a garden hose releasing water under pressure, the 'kick' of a shotgun, the recoil of a cannon, Newton's cradle etc. It's called the conservation of momentum. No atmosphere is needed.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2013, 06:06:22 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2013, 06:10:47 AM »
You have just told lies right there saying you have done the experiment that proves I'm wrong.

No, I haven't lied. I have done experiments which prove the principles of rocket science, therefore I have done experiments that prove you wrong. Go do some experiments yourself, because thinking you know something means nothing until you actually prove it.
I'm calling you out as a liar, unless you explain to me exactly what you did that proved that rockets work in a vacuum.

The principle behind the movement of a rocket is the same as the principle behind the movement of deflating balloon, a garden hose releasing water under pressure, the 'kick' of a shotgun, the recoil of a cannon, Newton's cradle etc. It's called the conservation of momentum. No atmosphere is needed.
The principles are the same, it's just the environment that differs and how each separate thing is conducted.
It all boils down to how much force/thrust you use and against what.
The point is, they all need a solid base or a liquid or an atmosphere to all work.

No they don't. Let's use the shotgun example. The mass of the bullet multiplied by its speed will be the same as the mass of the gun multiplied by the speed of its recoil. The shoulder of the shooter is a much firmer base than the air in front of the gun so why does the shooter feel such a kick?

If the gun were to be fired under water the same equation would still hold:
speed of bullet x mass of bullet = speed of recoil x mass of gun. When you change the environment and the same equation holds one can only conclude that the environment has no effect on the principle. 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2013, 06:11:57 AM »
Ok. So the exhaust is nothing, it's the fuel that's pushing the rocket up it's own arse type of thing.

Ok then tell me if this rocket would still fly and if it would, tell me why and if it won't, tell me why.






No, it won't fly, because the two thrust vectors are opposed to each other (one is pushing to the left, one is pushing to the right), thus cancelling each other out.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2013, 06:22:28 AM »
You have just told lies right there saying you have done the experiment that proves I'm wrong.

No, I haven't lied. I have done experiments which prove the principles of rocket science, therefore I have done experiments that prove you wrong. Go do some experiments yourself, because thinking you know something means nothing until you actually prove it.
I'm calling you out as a liar, unless you explain to me exactly what you did that proved that rockets work in a vacuum.

The principle behind the movement of a rocket is the same as the principle behind the movement of deflating balloon, a garden hose releasing water under pressure, the 'kick' of a shotgun, the recoil of a cannon, Newton's cradle etc. It's called the conservation of momentum. No atmosphere is needed.
The principles are the same, it's just the environment that differs and how each separate thing is conducted.
It all boils down to how much force/thrust you use and against what.
The point is, they all need a solid base or a liquid or an atmosphere to all work.

No they don't. Let's use the shotgun example. The mass of the bullet multiplied by its speed will be the same as the mass of the gun multiplied by the speed of its recoil. The shoulder of the shooter is a much firmer base than the air in front of the gun so why does the shooter feel such a kick?

If the gun were to be fired under water the same equation would still hold:
speed of bullet x mass of bullet = speed of recoil x mass of gun. When you change the environment and the same equation holds one can only conclude that the environment has no effect on the principle.
You seriously and I mean seriously underestimate the strength of the atmosphere at sea level.

I'll buy it. What is the strength of the atmosphere at sea level? And what does that have to do with invalidating my example.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #131 on: June 05, 2013, 06:23:00 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #132 on: June 05, 2013, 06:24:23 AM »
Ok. So the exhaust is nothing, it's the fuel that's pushing the rocket up it's own arse type of thing.

Ok then tell me if this rocket would still fly and if it would, tell me why and if it won't, tell me why.






No, it won't fly, because the two thrust vectors are opposed to each other (one is pushing to the left, one is pushing to the right), thus cancelling each other out.
They're just two "exhaust" pipes into the atmosphere, you know, the one that makes no difference to a rockets propulsion.

I never mentioned the atmosphere, because it is not relevant to this diagram, or to the function of a rocket in general. Read my comment again.

Something else: try stepping off a small boat onto a jetty without mooring the boat or holding onto anything. Typically, the boat will be pushed out from under you and you will fall into the water. Why is this? Going by your logic, the water, being denser than air, should provide more resistance to the movement of the boat than the air does to the movement of your body, so the boat should stay put while you step onto the dock. Why doesn't it?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2013, 06:26:57 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #134 on: June 05, 2013, 06:33:23 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2013, 06:44:16 AM »
Ok. So the exhaust is nothing, it's the fuel that's pushing the rocket up it's own arse type of thing.

Ok then tell me if this rocket would still fly and if it would, tell me why and if it won't, tell me why.






No, it won't fly, because the two thrust vectors are opposed to each other (one is pushing to the left, one is pushing to the right), thus cancelling each other out.
They're just two "exhaust" pipes into the atmosphere, you know, the one that makes no difference to a rockets propulsion.

I never mentioned the atmosphere, because it is not relevant to this diagram, or to the function of a rocket in general. Read my comment again.

Something else: try stepping off a small boat onto a jetty without mooring the boat or holding onto anything. Typically, the boat will be pushed out from under you and you will fall into the water. Why is this? Going by your logic, the water, being denser than air, should provide more resistance to the movement of the boat than the air does to the movement of your body, so the boat should stay put while you step onto the dock. Why doesn't it?
stepping off a boat onto a jetty will only push the boat away once you create a force which comes from your imbalance, meaning one foot is on the boat and the other is about to hit the jetty, meaning you are leaning forward so naturally you kick your foot back against the boat, it's just action/reaction, so what.

What's this got to do with rockets working in a vacuum?

Action/reaction, Newton's 3rd law, which is one way to explain how rockets work. Picture the rocket as the boat, and the person stepping off as the exhaust gasses. The person moves one direction, the boat moves the other; the exhaust gasses move one direction, the rocket moves the other. Do you get it yet?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #136 on: June 05, 2013, 06:44:51 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2013, 07:01:22 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
The way to get a rocket to lift off, is down to thrust as long as that thrust creates more force than the weight of the rocket and fuel the rocket will fly.
The reason it will fly, is because that thrust, is thrust against the atmosphere, which in turn pushes back to fill the void that the thrust opened up and so on and so on, until the rocket fuel is spent.

Utter bollocks.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2013, 07:06:10 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
You may also want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2013, 07:17:05 AM »
The simple way to understand how a rocket works in reality instead of bull shit science is to imagine this:

Think of a person (rocket) skipping slowly on the spot. We will call this, idling.
Ok, how do we get this skipper to lift off?

Firstly you needs lots of paving stones and a person strong enough to slip them under the skippers feet at speed.
We say to the skipper, "oi you... we need you to reach that ceiling in 20 seconds by skipping really fast."
If the skipper tell you to piss off, just tell them it's for an experiment and if he/she does not comply, threaten them with the bloke swinging the paving stones about as if they were polystyrene, will beat him/her up.

Anyway, let's assume that the person is sensible and wants to enjoy more years of skipping without crushed face/legs/arms etc and does comply.  ;D

Ok, so the skipper (rocket) starts to skip and on each skip, the bloke (atmosphere) puts a paving stone( atmospheric barrier) under the skippers (rockets) feet (thrust) as soon as they come off the floor and the faster the skipper (rocket) , skips, the faster the bloke (atmosphere) puts a paving stone(atmospheric barrier) under the feet (thrust), until it's happening so fast, it just looks like a blur and before you know it, the skipper has reached the ceiling before collapsing in a heap due to having no more energy.

And this my friends, is how rockets work in an atmosphere.

There is no bloke or paving stones in space, so poor skipper keeps skipping on the spot, expending all of his/her energy and gaining nothing other than fatigue (spent fuel)

Then why does a rocket work better in the air instead of the water?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #140 on: June 05, 2013, 07:22:27 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
You may also want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

And you might want to read the opening few sentences fron the wikipedia entry on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:

'The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation, describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself (a thrust) by expelling part of its mass with high speed and move due to the conservation of momentum. '

My emphasis.


*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #141 on: June 05, 2013, 07:25:41 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
The way to get a rocket to lift off, is down to thrust as long as that thrust creates more force than the weight of the rocket and fuel the rocket will fly.
The reason it will fly, is because that thrust, is thrust against the atmosphere, which in turn pushes back to fill the void that the thrust opened up and so on and so on, until the rocket fuel is spent.

Utter bollocks.
I'm right and you have been misdirected and blinded by science.

I would much rather be blinded by science than be blinded by my own ignorance and prejudices. When I'm blinded by science I still have the capacity to reject the science. Your prejudices will blind you for the rest of your life.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #142 on: June 05, 2013, 07:30:58 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
The way to get a rocket to lift off, is down to thrust as long as that thrust creates more force than the weight of the rocket and fuel the rocket will fly.
The reason it will fly, is because that thrust, is thrust against the atmosphere, which in turn pushes back to fill the void that the thrust opened up and so on and so on, until the rocket fuel is spent.

Utter bollocks.
I'm right and you have been misdirected and blinded by science.

I would much rather be blinded by science than be blinded by my own ignorance and prejudices. When I'm blinded by science I still have the capacity to reject the science. Your prejudices will blind you for the rest of your life.
At least I know I'm correct on this, so it tells you all you need to know about the space program.

You don't know this. That is a lie. You believe this. C'mon man. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #143 on: June 05, 2013, 07:35:36 AM »
If you have an explosion in a vacuum do you agree that the particles and energy released by the explosion will expand in all directions?
Yes.
Ok so if the particles released from the explosion hit a flat piece of metal nearby will the energy in those particles be transferred to the metal?
Yes.
So what will happen to the metal?
It would probably get pushed away if it was close enough.
And that is basically how a rocket works!

No it's not!
Yes it is, but a rocket engine encloses the explosion except for an exhaust.

No it isn't. Rockets, jet engines and any machine which uses expelled gases for propulsion uses the conservation of momentum. The product of the mass and the speed of the gases
in one direction is matched by the product of the mass of the object and its speed in the opposite direction. That's why the exhaust gases have to be at such high speeds so that the comparatively small mass of the exhausted gas is enough to provide the momentum for the much larger mass of the rocket. They don't push against anything, they don't transfer energy; the whole system of engine, rocket and exhausted gases conserve momentum.

Google 'the rocket equation'.
The way to get a rocket to lift off, is down to thrust as long as that thrust creates more force than the weight of the rocket and fuel the rocket will fly.
The reason it will fly, is because that thrust, is thrust against the atmosphere, which in turn pushes back to fill the void that the thrust opened up and so on and so on, until the rocket fuel is spent.

Utter bollocks.
I'm right and you have been misdirected and blinded by science.

I would much rather be blinded by science than be blinded by my own ignorance and prejudices. When I'm blinded by science I still have the capacity to reject the science. Your prejudices will blind you for the rest of your life.
At least I know I'm correct on this, so it tells you all you need to know about the space program.

No, it tells me all I need to know about you.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #144 on: June 05, 2013, 08:12:50 AM »
Your theory is incorrect and I can swear to that 100%.
Rockets cannot work in a vacuum and I'm not 99.9% sure of this, I'm 100% sure of it.
If you are an honest person and a genuine scientific theorist, then you should know this and I'm being serious.

I am a genuine physicist.

You are 100% sure that a rocket doesn't work in a vacuum, because you don't want it to work in a vacuum.

If you fail to understand the physics behind it, at least trust me on it, ok? They work.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #145 on: June 05, 2013, 08:36:27 AM »

You may also want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

And you might want to read the opening few sentences fron the wikipedia entry on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:

'The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation, describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself (a thrust) by expelling part of its mass with high speed and move due to the conservation of momentum. '

My emphasis.

1: I had just about got Sceptimatic to accept that expanding gases in a vacuum can create motion, thanks for derailing that.
2: By all means why don't you explain how gases coming out of the back of a rocket can create motion in the opposite direction without exerting any force on the rocket.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #146 on: June 05, 2013, 08:38:40 AM »
Your theory is incorrect and I can swear to that 100%.
Rockets cannot work in a vacuum and I'm not 99.9% sure of this, I'm 100% sure of it.
If you are an honest person and a genuine scientific theorist, then you should know this and I'm being serious.

I am a genuine physicist.

You are 100% sure that a rocket doesn't work in a vacuum, because you don't want it to work in a vacuum.

If you fail to understand the physics behind it, at least trust me on it, ok? They work.
No offence but I don't care if you are god himself. I'm telling you that rockets do not and never will work in a vacuum, unless they come up with some way to overcome propulsion in a void.

You are under the impression that we are more intelligent than we are as a race.
We can solve many of our earth problems but we know jack shit about space in terms of going into it with anything but an eye piece from earth, as in, a telescope and even then we can only just see a tiny portion of it, not the bloody Christmas tree light effect of a so called cosmos.

I promise you and I stand by this. I promise you that rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Relax, like I said before in my laser experiment post, I've done experiments myself with rocket propulsion in a vacuum.
I really hope I can take you on a rocket ride some day. Oh my, I just made a music reference... gosh.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 08:40:58 AM by icanbeanything »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #147 on: June 05, 2013, 08:42:06 AM »
icanbeanything:
If you do manage to take me on a rocket ride, it certainly won't be into space.

Pity, 'cause that's what I meant.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #148 on: June 05, 2013, 08:53:32 AM »
Still haven't done any research?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #149 on: June 05, 2013, 09:07:58 AM »
icanbeanything:
If you do manage to take me on a rocket ride, it certainly won't be into space.

Pity, 'cause that's what I meant.
Well, forget your dream of going into space. I'll save you the heartache of finding out that you never will.
On that understanding, it may be wise for you not to actually go into any rocket, because once it's fuel is spent so many miles up, you will be coming back down extremely fast, still stuck inside it and you know what the end result of that is.

I probably never will, but not because it isn't possible.
And from my experience, the end result of anything like that is a parachute. I know a lot about those too, I've even done some skydiving.

Quote
Don't expend too much energy guessing what I do, concentrate on helping you fellow roundies out, which means, try and put a case forward for rocket propulsion in space.
Nobody can do it yet, maybe you can stump me.

We've all done that already. I even said I performed experiments that confirmed to my eyes that rockets work in a vacuum. But you'll never believe me on that, unless you do it yourself. And I know why you don't want to do it... Because you don't want to have even the slightest chance of finding out you were wrong.