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

LOL!!!

You say you are capable looking at evidence, then state that rockets can work in vacuum, despite ALL the evidence & experiments I have provided proving they can not, & you lot providing ZERO evidence & experiments to prove that they could...

You are utterly lost in your psychotic delusions, vile space-nonce mainframes.

Now; if - as the laws of physics demand - the light in the sky we see CAN NOT be the ISS, then offer alternative explanations as to what it in fact is.

Just Try, eh, criminals...?

Btw; this is post 19; next post turns the page so get the 1st word in shills...

LMFAO - at how pathetic you all are!!!

You haven't produced a single piece of evidence or experiment that shows rockets are impossible in a vacuum.

LMFAO AT HOW STUPID YOU ARE!

Yes I have & it's all in this very thread, starting around page 40-ish, psychotic space-nonce.

I beat on all you shills like a set of bongos, & everybody knows it.

Words are Not Reality, mental-case nonce; so stop Lying.

& start explaining what the light in the sky you impossibly claim to be the ISS actually is.

Yes I have & it's all in this very thread, starting around page 40-ish, psychotic space-nonce.

I beat on all you shills like a set of bongos, & everybody knows it.

Words are Not Reality, mental-case nonce; so stop Lying.

You proved squat. Unless of course you want an honest debate of course, then feel free to explain again how your experiments and evidence work. I'm all ears and happy to discuss.

& start explaining what the light in the sky you impossibly claim to be the ISS actually is.

It's the ISS.

Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2015, 05:52:51 PM

How many of those "real scientists" that you "know" believe that rockets work just fine in a vacuum?

LOL!!!

'work just fine'; yet another phrase straight from the shill handbook.

Just come off-duty from policing the youtube comments section, Troll?

As for the scientists I've met; you jealous, bro?

Plus, I note that chtwrone has just barfed up yet another THREE shitposts inside 20 minutes on 'flat earth general' alone...

STARTING TO SEE THE PATTERN YET, NEUTRALS?

Yes, that you are exceedingly dismissive, abusive and like to take the long way around when you avoid answering questions.

Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.

Do you claim the ISS is on the end of my arm now, psychotic space-nonce?

How low are you prepared to stoop in order to defend your madness?

We already know you have serious psycho-sexual problems connected to this whole 'space' issue; perhaps you would be better occupied seeking therapy for these rather than reinforcing them through your unhealthy participation in this thread?

I'm trying to Help you here, pervert; please accept this Help...

& markjo: would you like me to call the WAAAAAAmbulance for you?

Or would you prefer to just F**k Off?

Quote from: Mainframes on September 13, 2015, 08:01:59 AM

Analogy:
Start explaining what that weird fleshy lumpy thing on your arm, that you impossibly claim is you hand, actually is.

Do you claim the ISS is on the end of my arm now, psychotic space-nonce?

How low are you prepared to stoop in order to defend your madness?

ANALOGY! It was meant to be an example to show how ridiculous your question was. If you claim the the thing on the end of your arm isn't your hand then what is it?

Of course it's your hand and could only be your hand. In the same way that the light in the sky is definitely the ISS.

We already know you have serious psycho-sexual problems connected to this whole 'space' issue; perhaps you would be better occupied seeking therapy for these rather than reinforcing them through your unhealthy participation in this thread?

What? Psycho-sexual problems? Where do you get that from?

You're the one throwing supposed penis pictures around.......

Anyway. Back to the topic at hand. Please show us again your evidence and experiments again, if you're so confident of them and let's engage in honest discussion.  If you don't you're just an idiot talking rubbish and is too gutless to back his claim that all of science is wrong.

Of course it's your hand and could only be your hand. In the same way that the light in the sky is definitely the ISS.

So; my hand IS like the ISS?

You are insane.

& no, we won't be rehashing the rockets in a vacuum topic, psychotic space-nonce.

It is all there for neutrals to read, starting around page 40; I beat your asses red & everyone knows it.

No second chances, losers!

Rather, we will talk about what the light in the sky that you impossibly claim to be a manned space station actually is.

You will use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses, or you will f**k off.

Understand?

& markjo: would you like me to call the WAAAAAAmbulance for you?

No, I want you to tell me what your "real scientist" buddies think about rockets in a vacuum.

Or would you prefer to just F**k Off?

No, I'd prefer that you stop being such a rude, obnoxious jerk.  It adds nothing to the discussion or your credibility.

LOL!!!

Read the thread, dumbass; you'll find all the proof you need here that rockets rely on an outside mass in order to produce thrust, including simple evidence & experiments you can try at home which support my case.

Also, you just made another THREE shitposts on 'flat earth general', but in 25 minutes this time... Slowing down a bit so it doesn't look too obvious, are you, shill?

THE PATTERN IS CLEAR, NEUTRALS.

Now f**k off, & take your enormous spammed photos of laughably fake space-toys with you, Troll.

Which still leaves us with the problem of your light in the sky.

It cannot be a manned space station, so what is it?

Any ideas?

For people who've invested their entire existences into concocting & supporting cosmic space-fantasies, your Imaginations are surprisingly sluggish on this issue...

I wonder why?

It's clear that you actually have NO idea at all about how a rocket engine provides thrust. It does NOT require 'an outside mass' at all, whatever that means anyway?

A rocket engine works by throwing huge amounts of mass (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage) out of its engine nozzles, at over 4 km/second. Obviously the rocket is going to be propelled in the opposite direction to that of the ejected burnt fuel.

Take the example of a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that this person now throws a heavy bowling ball outwards as hard as they can. Guess what happens to the person standing on the skateboard - they move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. 
Please don't tell me that the bowling ball is pushing off the atmosphere which is turn forces the person on the skateboard in the opposite direction - that would just be too silly for words, lol.

Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them.  That's how they work in space.

Read replies #622 on page 32 & #1569 on page 79 of this thread for a thorough debunking of the man-on-skateboard b.s. that is the ONLY evidential experiment the space-tards have for the ludicrous concept of gas-powered rockets functioning in a vacuum.

Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.

The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.

So; what else could that light in the sky be?

Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.

Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?

Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.

The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.

Is that what your "real scientist" buddies told you?

No; it is what I have proven on my own throughout this thread, shitposting weirdo & coprophage Markjo.

Back to the ISS...

Now; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.

The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.

So; what else could that light in the sky be?

Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.

Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?

No; it is what I have proven on my own throughout this thread, shitposting weirdo & coprophage Markjo.

Does that mean that your "real scientist" buddies are lying criminals too?

No; it means you are a shitposting coprophage.

& a lying criminal too.

Funny how all you shills want me to talk about the ISS & such on other threads, but refuse to respond here, isn't it?

Is that because this thread is becoming too much of a solid body of evidence against 'space-travel', so you want me to disperse my efforts?

Yes, it is.

Now; carry on lying, derailing, denying, diverting & shitposting.

Or f**k off.

I'd prefer the latter...

Everyone else; there is a light in the sky that you claim to be a manned space station.

The laws of physics state that this cannot be true.

So; what else could that light in the sky be?

Please use your imaginations & offer alternative hypotheses.

Or does your space-religion ban such Heresy?

The laws of physics do not in any way state that the ISS cannot be true.

And if you want refer back to the earlier discussion we murdered your incoherent babbling on rockets before you changed the subject to something else that we beat you on too.

Rockets work perfectly in a vacuum. All of physics agrees with this.

It's not our fault you're a retard.

Well, I have provided in another thread a mathematical equation that can prove that the ISS/light in the sky is in space, and we are pretty sure that it is something manmade, wether it's a balloon, plane or space station, it definitely is in space.

I'll also make a sketch that'll show why rockets don't need atmosphere to work, and that rockets in fact work better the less atmosphere there is.

Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.

Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.

As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.

If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.

[incoherent babble]

But but but the rocket exhaust needs to push on the air to go forward like your arm pushes on a wall to move away

[\incoherent babble]

Made the picture work

Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.

Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.

As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.

If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.

I will correct you and say that the assertion that as long as exhaust pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure the rocket will be propelled forwards assumes that there is no other force acting on the rocket, including, for example, friction (which ought to be if there is pressure at all). And of course, that includes gravity.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 14, 2015, 12:44:43 AM

Red lines are pressure by exhaust gas/propellant.

Blue lines are atmospheric pressure.

As you can see, atmospheric pressure is exerted on a greater area of the front than on the back of the rocket. That means that the total force exerted on the rocket by the atmosphere is pushing it back. So less atmosphere is better. The propellant pressure is unchanged by the atmospheric pressure.

If atmospheric pressure was as great as the pressure of the propellant the rocket would not move, as the difference between pressure on the front and the back of the rocket would be 0. As long as the atmospheric pressure is lesser than the exhaust pressure the net force will be positive, and the rocket will be propelled forwards.

I will correct you and say that the assertion that as long as exhaust pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure the rocket will be propelled forwards assumes that there is no other force acting on the rocket, including, for example, friction (which ought to be if there is pressure at all). And of course, that includes gravity.

Yes, that's what I mean by propelled forwards. If an object is being propelled forwards other forces can still force it in another direction. But thanks for the correction anyways,a s a clarification.

Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them.  That's how they work in space.

Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?

A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.

This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 13, 2015, 07:35:33 PM

Rockets do indeed need gas to push in, but they generate tons of gas when you fire them.  That's how they work in space.

Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?

A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.

This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.

What he means is that it is the pressure the exhaust/propellant is exerted on the rocket inside the combustion chamber and nozzle that propells the rocket. In order for the propellant to be launched out of the rocket a force is needed, this force comes from that pressure. This pressure is however not connected to the atmospheric pressure in any way.

Funny how all you shills want me to talk about the ISS & such on other threads, but refuse to respond here, isn't it?

Funny that you keep demanding straight answers from us but never provide any straight answers of your own.

Is that because this thread is becoming too much of a solid body of evidence against 'space-travel', so you want me to disperse my efforts?

No, we just want straight answers to simple questions that you seem to be afraid to answer, such as: What do your "real scientist" buddies have to say about rockets working in a vacuum?  Come now, it's a very simple question.  If they agree with you that rockets can't work in a vacuum, then that's evidence that's you're right and we're wrong. Of course if they disagree with you, then that means that they're lying, criminal scumbags too.

Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?

A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.

This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.

Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back.  This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.

I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.

A rocket works anywhere - in air or vacuum - by ejecting mass (fuel) in one direction and accelerating in the other (opposite) direction.

It works as long as the rocket can eject mass (fuel). When there is no more mass (fuel) in the rocket to eject, the rocket cannot accelerate or brake by its own means.

It is similar to a car, e.g. a $100 000 Tesla. When it runs out of fuel after only 500 miles, it stops, and you have to push it to a electric plug to fill it up (with electric charge).

Quote from: chtwrone on September 14, 2015, 05:02:27 AM

Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?

A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.

This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.

Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back.  This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.

I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.

LOL!!!

Crank-fest!

None of you space-tards can even agree how rockets work...

Cos you refuse to comprehend Newton 3.

LMFAO!!!

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 14, 2015, 08:19:31 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on September 14, 2015, 05:02:27 AM

Mike, not quite sure what you mean by 'rockets need a gas to push in?

A rocket is propelled in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the burnt fuel going in the other direction.

This is the same principle as the recoil of a gun when a bullet is fired out of its barrel - the mass of the bullet going in one direction causes the gun to be forced (recoiled) in the opposite direction.

Rockets work by pushing on gas that they create, and that also causes the gas to push back.  This causes the mass of the gas to be expended backwards.

I am not saying you are wrong, physics has this odd tendency to be explain things in many equivalent ways.

LOL!!!

Crank-fest!

None of you space-tards can even agree how rockets work...

Cos you refuse to comprehend Newton 3.

LMFAO!!!

Clearly we need educating.

Please explain to us the mechanics of how rockets work including a detailed description of how Newtons third is used.

Already done it, psycho.

Starting at page 32 of this thread.

Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.

Why is that so hard for you?