Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 211631 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #270 on: June 09, 2013, 10:48:46 PM »
The great thing about scepti's beliefs is that they have no influence on reality. Of course, reality has no influence on scepti's beliefs, and that is a bit of a shame, it would be nice if he actually did some research instead of telling the people who have done it that they got it wrong.

Scepti, you keep saying you know these things with 100% certainty, but how could you? You've never done a single unbiased experiment in your life, as far as I can tell. So instead of saying you know, how about you just say you believe? That at least would be more honest.
Because I don't divulge experiments, does not mean I don't do them.
All I ever see from you lot is.."Oh I've done this and that."
Type or talk is cheap when things like this is discussed, so take it how you will as I do with comments about me.
I'm right and you and others are wrong on this.
Put your logic head on and you will see. If not, I'm not bothered.

The irony in this statement is staggering.  Scepti-you sit there and tell others how talk is cheap, and then go on to show time and again, that you are too lazy to even read a link (look over our 9/11 conversation about pancake collapses again if you forget you monumental failure to read a single page of text.)  So really all you do is talk... and talk... and talk... It would be outstanding if you could contribute more to a conversation than being the sideshow people pay a quarter to see. 

You say you can tell us why space is not a vacuum?  Well you should, because if you really want to destroy the current view of the Earth, the one that direct human observation to back it up, you are going to have to get ante up and show that you are more than some misanthrope in their mother's basement.

You say you have done experiments?  Why don't you stop being selfish and enlighten the world?  And to save you the trouble, yes, we will doubt you (you have earned it), yes we will ridicule you (you have earned it), but the fact of the matter is, if your experiments actually work, then we will be the ones with egg on our face.

Until such time (when hell freezes over) please try and hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to.  Thanks 10^3000 times!
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #271 on: June 13, 2013, 05:31:29 AM »
A hot air balloon should tell you all how a rocket works but some of you are so engrossed in your own scientific world, you cannot comprehend how it relates to a rocket.
So you're saying that rockets work because of buoyancy?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #272 on: June 13, 2013, 05:32:54 AM »
Average atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7psi. That means that the force the atmosphere applies over 1 square inch of surface area of any object is only 14.7psi.

The diameter of the Saturn V (which hundreds of people have watched lift off in person) is 33 feet. That means the area of it's base would have an area of 123,163in2.

So, the most force the atmosphere could apply to the base of the Saturn V would be almost 1,810,500 pounds. The Saturn V weighed 6,200,000 pounds all up.

So even if there was no atmospheric pressure acting on the upper parts of the rocket, there is no way that the atmosphere could even lift the rocket, let alone accelerate it to speeds approaching 1.5 miles per second.

Edit: For the sake of curiosity, the difference in pressure between what is acting downwards on the Saturn V (from the air on top), and what is acting upwards (from the air underneath) is 22,615 pounds (as best I can figure). What this means, is that if the Saturn V weighed less than 22,615 pounds, it would float!
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 05:52:14 AM by Scintific Method »
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."

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #273 on: June 13, 2013, 06:50:08 AM »
So the hot air expelled by the rocket causes a pressure differential which creates high pressure behind the rocket which then causes the rocket to rise?   Is that the jist of it?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #274 on: June 13, 2013, 07:05:06 AM »
So the hot air expelled by the rocket causes a pressure differential which creates high pressure behind the rocket which then causes the rocket to rise?   Is that the jist of it?
Yep...you're getting there.
You probably won't accept it, because you , like others, seriously underestimate the atmosphere and how it actually works in it's entirety with the rocket.
No offence but you are finding it hard to grasp, because rocket science has told you different.
I could explain it bit by bit using other analogies...but it would mean you have to go through it with me, piece by piece, so we can agree as we go...instead of me typing it all out for people to say, 'no that's not right.'

I think you may be underestimating the fluidity of the atmosphere and overestimating the effects of pressure on an open system,  but what the hell, I'll bite.  Let's see your take on rockets and pressure.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #275 on: June 13, 2013, 07:09:52 AM »
A hot air balloon should tell you all how a rocket works but some of you are so engrossed in your own scientific world, you cannot comprehend how it relates to a rocket.
So you're saying that rockets work because of buoyancy?  ???
Not as in water, but very similar, yes.
To understand it, you have to use your common sense, which you have plenty of, yet would rather simply just dismiss every word I type.
You can carry on doing this of course...but it isn't going to help you understand.
???  What makes you think that rockets work by common sense?  There is a reason that "rocket science" is slang for something very difficult and complex.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #276 on: June 13, 2013, 07:28:50 AM »
An open system allows outside elements in and internal elements out.   When talking about creating pressure differentials,  open systems are incredibly inefficient,  most often to get point of not working.   Think of a puddle of brake fluid versus a brake line.   The first is open and the second is closed.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #277 on: June 13, 2013, 07:49:35 AM »
An open system allows outside elements in and internal elements out.   When talking about creating pressure differentials,  open systems are incredibly inefficient,  most often to get point of not working.   Think of a puddle of brake fluid versus a brake line.   The first is open and the second is closed.
Let's use a water bottle rocket as an example here.
You tell me, how you think it works and I'll tell you why you're wrong in thinking it.

The inside of the bottle is pressurized to the point of non containment.    Once this happens the seal breaks and the pressure starts to equalize with the outside environment. In the process,  the high pressure expels the water,  and the bottle moves in the opposite direction due to the conservation of momentum principle,  zero net momentum prior so there must be zero net momentum after.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #278 on: June 13, 2013, 08:30:08 AM »
I can't do diagrams at the moment but I'll simplify.   High pressure pushes the water out one end and the bottle moves in the other because the force cancelling the upward force is non existent.   The diagram a few pages back of the balloon works well enough.   One force backward and an equal and opposite force forward.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #279 on: June 13, 2013, 09:58:41 AM »
I can't do diagrams at the moment but I'll simplify.   High pressure pushes the water out one end and the bottle moves in the other because the force cancelling the upward force is non existent.   The diagram a few pages back of the balloon works well enough.   One force backward and an equal and opposite force forward.
So what exactly is doing the work?...and by what means is it doing the work against the bottle?

The air inside is acting on the top of the bottle as well as the water,  pushing the bottle up and the water down.  So technically the airinside is doing the work.   The water acts as a pressure rrelease valve of sorts.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #280 on: June 13, 2013, 10:20:47 AM »
It's the water that's being released at high velocity due to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bottle that is shooting it up. A pressurized bottle (without releasing any water) won't have a force applied to it because the system is closed and there are no external forces present.

It's basically like a hose. You can turn on the water pressure but have the nozzle shut so no water is released, and the hose sits there. Open up the nozzle so water is released and then suddenly the hose will go flying in the opposite direction.

And finally, rockets work in the same way except that it's gas being propelled outwards instead of liquid. Oh, and in case you hadn't figured it out for yourself, the pressure is created by burning the fuel. If you're curious as to how pressure is created by burning of fuels, just ask.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 10:24:33 AM by Puttah »
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #281 on: June 13, 2013, 10:41:40 AM »
I can't do diagrams at the moment but I'll simplify.   High pressure pushes the water out one end and the bottle moves in the other because the force cancelling the upward force is non existent.   The diagram a few pages back of the balloon works well enough.   One force backward and an equal and opposite force forward.
So what exactly is doing the work?...and by what means is it doing the work against the bottle?

The air inside is acting on the top of the bottle as well as the water,  pushing the bottle up and the water down.  So technically the airinside is doing the work.   The water acts as a pressure rrelease valve of sorts.
So let's just make this clear.
What you are saying is... the air pressure is pushing the top of the bottle whilst pushing the water and once the water is released from the bottle top, the water is useless and it's simply the air inside the bottle sort of shooting it's way up, if you like?

Is this how you think a bottle rocket works?

The water isn't the actual thing producing the work,  but far from useless as this regulates the pressure release from being a nearly instant burst to a more drawn out one.  Going with a personification of air analogy,  it's like a large guy with 2 kids cramping him,  so he pushed them both away.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #282 on: June 13, 2013, 12:15:16 PM »
Can you explain how the gaseous atmosphere can provide much of a resistive force against the stream of water?  Gases and liquid tend to move out of the way for the most part.   Your diagram appears to work if the bottle were in a closed system with no where for the air to go, but that's not the case in open atmo.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #283 on: June 13, 2013, 02:08:39 PM »
Water is very compression resistant,  which makes it hard to excite it with pressure.   And your analogy is that if a closed system where the air molecules can't escape.   In the open atmo, the air can move in any direction and moves out of the way of more dense objects.   Higher velocities meet resistance,  but high velocities meet any substantial resistance (aka terminal velocity).  Even then it doesn't prevent movement,  just stops acceleration.   Think medicine ball sized balloons that are filling and open pain fairly sparsely then apply your hyper kids.   The balloons will get out of the way and but really apply much resistance in the long run afterwards.

Question,  2 identical bottle rockets,  one on a boat on top of the water horizontal and the other underneath a boat horizontal,  both attached to said different boats,  which would go further?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #284 on: June 13, 2013, 02:26:47 PM »
Can you explain how the gaseous atmosphere can provide much of a resistive force against the stream of water?  Gases and liquid tend to move out of the way for the most part.   Your diagram appears to work if the bottle were in a closed system with no where for the air to go, but that's not the case in open atmo.
Ok, Ill explain as clear as I can.

Water is denser than atmospheric pressure, so if you had a bottle full of water and poured it out, it would simply hit the ground with very little resistance, because the water simply pushes it out of the way in a thin stream of dense mass. The air cannot compress water and the water wants to be on the ground.
It's like letting loose a dense 'slow' locomotive against the air.

If you put that same water under very high pressure and aim it at the atmosphere... the molecules in that water become excited and act like a billion 'rubber kids trying to run from the back of a bus, constantly in a stream... onto a  field full of  stacked up medicine balls...meaning the 'rubber' kids will spread out in a race to see  who can run through the medicine balls to get the furthest in... and finding that they get stopped very quickly...ending up compressing against the medicine balls due to the speed they ran at them...whilst the other kids behind them... run  in to them and compress against those. And so on and so on, until all the kids running off of the bus hit a barrier which forces the bus away from them...and that's your bottle rocket.

Your burning fuel rocket works in a slightly different way...but the principle is exactly the same= outside force on the rockets expelled fuel.
The rocket cannot work against itself and that should be as clear as day to anyone willing to question the bullshit that scientists tell them...
Still using your ignorance as evidence for your arguments I see.
Anyone actually have a water rocket still? I think they were banned. I thought of a easy experiment to shut up sceptic.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #285 on: June 13, 2013, 04:02:24 PM »
Can you explain how the gaseous atmosphere can provide much of a resistive force against the stream of water?  Gases and liquid tend to move out of the way for the most part.   Your diagram appears to work if the bottle were in a closed system with no where for the air to go, but that's not the case in open atmo.
Ok, Ill explain as clear as I can.

Water is denser than atmospheric pressure, so if you had a bottle full of water and poured it out, it would simply hit the ground with very little resistance, because the water simply pushes it out of the way in a thin stream of dense mass. The air cannot compress water and the water wants to be on the ground.
It's like letting loose a dense 'slow' locomotive against the air.

If you put that same water under very high pressure and aim it at the atmosphere... the molecules in that water become excited and act like a billion 'rubber kids trying to run from the back of a bus, constantly in a stream... onto a  field full of  stacked up medicine balls...meaning the 'rubber' kids will spread out in a race to see  who can run through the medicine balls to get the furthest in... and finding that they get stopped very quickly...ending up compressing against the medicine balls due to the speed they ran at them...whilst the other kids behind them... run  in to them and compress against those. And so on and so on, until all the kids running off of the bus hit a barrier which forces the bus away from them...and that's your bottle rocket.

Your burning fuel rocket works in a slightly different way...but the principle is exactly the same= outside force on the rockets expelled fuel.
The rocket cannot work against itself and that should be as clear as day to anyone willing to question the bullshit that scientists tell them...

In order for the rocket to lift off, it needs kinetic energy working on it. How does the kinetic energy get transferred back up the column of propellant?  The energy is clearly shooting away from the rocket the entire time.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #286 on: June 13, 2013, 07:49:06 PM »
I can't do diagrams at the moment but I'll simplify.   High pressure pushes the water out one end and the bottle moves in the other because the force cancelling the upward force is non existent.   The diagram a few pages back of the balloon works well enough.   One force backward and an equal and opposite force forward.
So what exactly is doing the work?...and by what means is it doing the work against the bottle?

The air inside is acting on the top of the bottle as well as the water,  pushing the bottle up and the water down.  So technically the airinside is doing the work.   The water acts as a pressure rrelease valve of sorts.
So let's just make this clear.
What you are saying is... the air pressure is pushing the top of the bottle whilst pushing the water and once the water is released from the bottle top, the water is useless and it's simply the air inside the bottle sort of shooting it's way up, if you like?

Is this how you think a bottle rocket works?

The water isn't the actual thing producing the work,  but far from useless as this regulates the pressure release from being a nearly instant burst to a more drawn out one.  Going with a personification of air analogy,  it's like a large guy with 2 kids cramping him,  so he pushed them both away.
You are wrong.

If the air is pushing down on the water, it's creating an equal force up against the top of the rocket and against the water.
The harder the air pushes against the top...it has to push against the water with equal pressure.
The fact that the top cannot be breached, the air acts on the water, all the way down...'equally.'

the air cannot push the inside of the rocket 'up' because it's acting against an equal weight below, all the time.
The only thing that can push that rocket up, is...the expelling of the water at force against the atmosphere.
The water is at a higher and denser pressure than the atmosphere under it...so the atmosphere under it wants to equalize that pressure and immediately attacks it  and forces its way through is a sort of one winner friction fight, which the atmosphere below the rocket cannot lose, so your rocket gets pushed up.

Here is a diagram showing what I mean.



This diagram makes about as much sense as pushing on a rope.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 07:50:50 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #287 on: June 14, 2013, 01:04:36 AM »
I'm correct and you are wrong.

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."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #288 on: June 14, 2013, 02:11:17 AM »
I'm correct and you are wrong.

Prove it.
I just have. See diagram.

You mean the one where you say the pressure inside the bottle is the same as the pressure outside? How is the water forced out of the bottle then? If the internal pressure and external pressure were the same, the water would not be forced out in a jet.

Going back a few pages, do you recall the example with the person stepping out of the boat? Why did the boat move back, even though water offers much greater resistance to movement than air? Applying that example to the classic water rocket, the water going one way is the person stepping out, and the bottle is the boat.
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."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #289 on: June 14, 2013, 05:25:34 AM »
Quote from: Scintific Method
You mean the one where you say the pressure inside the bottle is the same as the pressure outside? How is the water forced out of the bottle then? If the internal pressure and external pressure were the same, the water would not be forced out in a jet.
Why don't you take note of the diagram and what I said and you might not jump to conclusions.
I said, the pressure 'equalizes' meaning the pressure inside the bottle pushing against the sides, is 'equally counteracted by the air pressure outside. What can't you understand about this?
This is the whole reason the air is under the pressure it is.
Because it's the plastic of the bottle itself holding back the pressure inside, not the air outside.  Yes, the air outside and the air inside want to equalize, but there is a plastic bottle holding them apart.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 05:27:28 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #290 on: June 14, 2013, 05:27:04 AM »
Quote from: Scintific Method
You mean the one where you say the pressure inside the bottle is the same as the pressure outside? How is the water forced out of the bottle then? If the internal pressure and external pressure were the same, the water would not be forced out in a jet.
Why don't you take note of the diagram and what I said and you might not jump to conclusions.
I said, the pressure 'equalizes' meaning the pressure inside the bottle pushing against the sides, is 'equally counteracted by the air pressure outside. What can't you understand about this?
This is the whole reason the air is under the pressure it is.

This may be a poor choice of wording on your part scepti. By saying that the pressure equalises, you are implying that the air inside the bottle is at a pressure equal to the air outside the bottle, ie they are both at 14.7psi. Without a pressure difference, the water will not flow out the neck of the bottle. The only thing that allows the pressure inside the bottle to be higher is the compressibility of air (the air inside the bottle is slightly compressed), and the strength of the bottle (your average soft drink bottle is designed to hold an internal pressure of about 30psi, which is a similar pressure to what car tires run at).

Quote from: Scintific Method
Going back a few pages, do you recall the example with the person stepping out of the boat? Why did the boat move back, even though water offers much greater resistance to movement than air? Applying that example to the classic water rocket, the water going one way is the person stepping out, and the bottle is the boat.

Because the man is going one way and kicking the boat the other way. Why is this relevant to how the rocket works.
If he done this time and time again, it would be like him running on a treadmill. Plenty of energy put in, for basically running on the spot.
How will this move a rocket?

If you had 20 people on the boat, and they stepped off one after another, the boat would end up moving along at a pretty good rate. This is equivalent to what happens with a rocket, the only difference being that the rocket expels exhaust gasses instead of people.
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."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #291 on: June 14, 2013, 06:03:36 AM »
It's the air outside that is stopping the pressurised plastic from blowing apart. It does this by EQUALIZING the pressure from outside.
It's a big bully atmosphere, remember.
In space...there would be NOTHING to push back against that pressure inside. Guess what would happen?

So, what you're saying is, the gas cylinder I have outside that's storing gas at something like 10,000psi is being held together by atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi?

Quote from: Scintific Method
If you had 20 people on the boat, and they stepped off one after another, the boat would end up moving along at a pretty good rate. This is equivalent to what happens with a rocket, the only difference being that the rocket expels exhaust gasses instead of people.

Those people still need friction to make the boat move.
The energy is in their knees as they jump AWAY from the boat. The friction of the air acts on them immediately as they push forward.

What about the friction of the water? Have you ever tried running through water? It's a lot harder than running through air.

You say it's the person pushing against the air that pushes the boat the other way, but the boat is pushing against the water just as hard, and water resists movement more than air, so the boat should stay put according to your logic.
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."

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #292 on: June 14, 2013, 06:29:17 AM »
Scepti, do you have an actual working knowledge of pressure, because it sounds like you are just scratching the surface of its understanding.   Pressure exerts a specific amount of force over an area.  If you were to take a one foot cube pressurized at 20 psi internally (Let's just assume equal area inside and out for simplicity) the external force would be 12, 700.8 lbs pressing inward and 17, 280 lbs of force pressing outward (assuming all 6 sides are exposed to the atmosphere).  There is a much larger force pressing out than in so the construction of the container must account for this.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #293 on: June 14, 2013, 06:37:45 AM »
Scepti, do you have an actual working knowledge of pressure, because it sounds like you are just scratching the surface of its understanding.   Pressure exerts a specific amount of force over an area.  If you were to take a one foot cube pressurized at 20 psi internally (Let's just assume equal area inside and out for simplicity) the external force would be 12, 700.8 lbs pressing inward and 17, 280 lbs of force pressing outward (assuming all 6 sides are exposed to the atmosphere).  There is a much larger force pressing out than in so the construction of the container must account for this.
Yes I do have knowledge about atmospheric pressure, that's why I can tell you that rockets cannot work without it and neither can anything else.
What do you mean by anything else?
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 #294 on: June 14, 2013, 06:44:16 AM »
Scepti, do you have an actual working knowledge of pressure, because it sounds like you are just scratching the surface of its understanding.   Pressure exerts a specific amount of force over an area.  If you were to take a one foot cube pressurized at 20 psi internally (Let's just assume equal area inside and out for simplicity) the external force would be 12, 700.8 lbs pressing inward and 17, 280 lbs of force pressing outward (assuming all 6 sides are exposed to the atmosphere).  There is a much larger force pressing out than in so the construction of the container must account for this.
Yes I do have knowledge about atmospheric pressure, that's why I can tell you that rockets cannot work without it and neither can anything else.

Atmospheric pressure isn't this magical fix all that acts like a gas at low speeds and a solid at high speeds like you are making it out to be.  I think the best thing for you to do is the experiment someone else suggested and contact a university near you and see if you can use their vacuum chamber.  You obviously cannot be shown just how incorrect you are in your knowledge of the workings of a rocket,  and we obviously aren't buying your explanation because it just doesn't make sense and violates a very basic law of motion that has withstood the test of time as being true.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #295 on: June 14, 2013, 06:47:00 AM »
Scepti, do you have an actual working knowledge of pressure, because it sounds like you are just scratching the surface of its understanding.   Pressure exerts a specific amount of force over an area.  If you were to take a one foot cube pressurized at 20 psi internally (Let's just assume equal area inside and out for simplicity) the external force would be 12, 700.8 lbs pressing inward and 17, 280 lbs of force pressing outward (assuming all 6 sides are exposed to the atmosphere).  There is a much larger force pressing out than in so the construction of the container must account for this.
Yes I do have knowledge about atmospheric pressure, that's why I can tell you that rockets cannot work without it and neither can anything else.
What do you mean by anything else?
Anything that does work, requires atmospheric pressure.
Do you mind defining work in the above context, just so I can be sure I understand what you mean.
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 #296 on: June 14, 2013, 06:47:48 AM »
Can you explain how the gaseous atmosphere can provide much of a resistive force against the stream of water?  Gases and liquid tend to move out of the way for the most part.   Your diagram appears to work if the bottle were in a closed system with no where for the air to go, but that's not the case in open atmo.
Ok, Ill explain as clear as I can.

Water is denser than atmospheric pressure, so if you had a bottle full of water and poured it out, it would simply hit the ground with very little resistance, because the water simply pushes it out of the way in a thin stream of dense mass. The air cannot compress water and the water wants to be on the ground.
It's like letting loose a dense 'slow' locomotive against the air.

If you put that same water under very high pressure and aim it at the atmosphere... the molecules in that water become excited and act like a billion 'rubber kids trying to run from the back of a bus, constantly in a stream... onto a  field full of  stacked up medicine balls...meaning the 'rubber' kids will spread out in a race to see  who can run through the medicine balls to get the furthest in... and finding that they get stopped very quickly...ending up compressing against the medicine balls due to the speed they ran at them...whilst the other kids behind them... run  in to them and compress against those. And so on and so on, until all the kids running off of the bus hit a barrier which forces the bus away from them...and that's your bottle rocket.

Your burning fuel rocket works in a slightly different way...but the principle is exactly the same= outside force on the rockets expelled fuel.
The rocket cannot work against itself and that should be as clear as day to anyone willing to question the bullshit that scientists tell them...

In order for the rocket to lift off, it needs kinetic energy working on it. How does the kinetic energy get transferred back up the column of propellant?  The energy is clearly shooting away from the rocket the entire time.
It has kinetic energy. Translational.

How does the kinetic energy travel from the base of the propellant column to the mass of the rocket when the propellant column is constantly sending kinetic energy away from the rocket's mass? 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #297 on: June 14, 2013, 06:53:09 AM »
Oh scepti, I leave you for the day and you manage to shit all over everything.

There's nothing to see here folks. The scepti science is still a work in progress but I assure you it'll soon revolutionize everything we understand about our world. And the best thing about it is you won't even need to conduct any experiments, and screw numbers (mainly powers of 10) as they're useless indoctrinations too.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #298 on: June 14, 2013, 06:53:21 AM »
The only law it violates, is the law of bull shit science.
It's already been shown to you how your idea violates the law of conservation of motion and by extension the equal and opposite force.   Mass is accelerated out the back of the bottle or rocket, this is a force.   Forces do not exist without their pair.   So since a force is applied out the back,  the same amount of force is applied to the front.  It is literally as simple as that.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #299 on: June 14, 2013, 07:01:40 AM »
Everything didn't require atmospheric pressure to work,  everything works with atmospheric pressure.   There is a major difference in those two statements.  There are plenty of things that work with more and less pressure,  our lungs included.  Oxygen is the key to what just about everything needs to work.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.