People on skateboards.

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 02, 2015, 12:44:28 AM

Quote from: sokarul on October 01, 2015, 06:12:02 PM

He pushes off the ball so of course he won't move if you remove the ball.

Exactly! Now you're getting there...

Learning to think at last.

Of course, a more accurate way of factoring the vacuum into your model would be to reduce the mass of the ball to Zero, thus reproducing the Zero pressure found therein.

But that may be a little confusing for you, so let's stick with just removing it altogether for now...

Baby steps, eh?

Still, you've got the basic idea: you can't push off Nothing.

TexasH: irrelevant; off-topic; goodbye!

Mass is independent of air pressure. Why would we set it to zero?

I have no idea what you two are on about now...

Get some fresh air.

Force = mass x velocity...

LMFAO!!!

You are such a bone-head, not-bijane...

Firstly: learn to read.

Then, read the equation at the bottom of this laughable NASA cartoon:



F=mv.

O rly?

LULZ!!!

Can someone please inform Newton that NASA have changed his 2nd law?

it says: F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae Here, the "m dot" term is important. It means mass expelled per unit time and multiplying it with velocity you get exactly the same units as force. So, there is no mistake with NASA's explanation here,

You are such a bone-head, not-bijane...

Firstly: learn to read.

Then, read the equation at the bottom of this laughable NASA cartoon:



F=mv.

O rly?

LULZ!!!

Can someone please inform Newton that NASA have changed his 2nd law?

The equation they are using is:

Force = mass flow rate x velocity

The units would be N = kg/s x m/s

Compare this to:

Force = mass x acceleration

With units: N = kg x m/s2.

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 08:04:05 AM

The equation they are using is:

Force = mass flow rate x velocity

The units would be N = kg/s x m/s

Compare this to:

Force = mass x acceleration

With units: N = kg x m/s2.

So, basically, they've altered one of the longest-established laws of physics in order to meet their deceptive agenda of being able to send rockets into space.

Already knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 02, 2015, 08:27:00 AM

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 08:04:05 AM

The equation they are using is:

Force = mass flow rate x velocity

The units would be N = kg/s x m/s

Compare this to:

Force = mass x acceleration

With units: N = kg x m/s2.

So, basically, they've altered one of the longest-established laws of physics in order to meet their deceptive agenda of being able to send rockets into space.

Already knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.

A couple of things... First, have you never taken a physics class?  Did your teacher/professor never derive an equation from another equation?  Second, the concept of thrust predates NASA by quite a bit.

I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?

Quote from: Yendor on October 02, 2015, 10:15:57 AM

I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?

Jet engines don't work in space as they require oxygen in the environment around them.  Rocket engines carry an oxidizer with them and do not require oxygen in the environment, so they will work fine in space.

Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.

They carry an oxidiser to ensure thrust into the atmosphere is enough to propel the rocket.

If the rocket just had fuel without pressure than it would be like the water bottle rocket without the added air pumped into it. The water would simply be pushed out by the in rushing atmosphere leaving it useless.

Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.

Yes and I'm well aware the acts don't take off but the principle of what they do to eject the lit fuel over a distance, is down to the air they have stored to push the fuel out, which is only LIT away from the lips...or to marry it up to a rocket...it would be the nozzle.

No combustion chamber inside rockets that carry liquid fuel.

Now a solid fuel rocket is a different matter. The only issue is, they are mainly confined to fire work rockets and small rocket's. No good for large rockets such as the fictional solid rocket boosters of the shuttle. lol.

The only combustion chambers that would work are those on cars and stuff like that. Basically combustion chambers are internal explosions that allow mechanical vehicles ,move along the surface of Earth, HORIZONTALLY due to aiding pistons to turn drive shafts and wheels.

No need for that when you're going ballistic Maverick (reference to Goose in top gun)... because the rocket fuel and oxidiser is enough to thrust against the ATMOSPHERE to SPRINGBOARD the rocket into the air. It's an AIR verses FUEL and oxidizer pressure fight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2015, 10:44:42 AM

They carry an oxidiser to ensure thrust into the atmosphere is enough to propel the rocket.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Jet engines work fine in the atmosphere. 

Quote

If the rocket just had fuel without pressure than it would be like the water bottle rocket without the added air pumped into it. The water would simply be pushed out by the in rushing atmosphere leaving it useless.

You realize the fuel is being ignited right?  The oxidizer isn't to provide pressure, it is required to create combustion.  Are you familiar with how fire works?

Quote

Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.

Yes and I'm well aware the acts don't take off but the principle of what they do to eject the lit fuel over a distance, is down to the air they have stored to push the fuel out, which is only LIT away from the lips...or to marry it up to a rocket...it would be the nozzle.

What?  Rocket fuel is ignited inside the rocket, not outside.

Quote

No combustion chamber inside rockets that carry liquid fuel.

Yes, there is.  Go read up on an internal combustion engine.

Quote

Now a solid fuel rocket is a different matter. The only issue is, they are mainly confined to fire work rockets and small rocket's. No good for large rockets such as the fictional solid rocket boosters of the shuttle. lol.

Are you saying the rocket boosters on the shuttle are actually using liquid fuel?  I'm not sure how you can say they are fictional.  Arguing whether they are capable of reaching and working in space is one thing, but many have actually seen them launch.

Quote

The only combustion chambers that would work are those on cars and stuff like that. Basically combustion chambers are internal explosions that allow mechanical vehicles ,move along the surface of Earth, HORIZONTALLY due to aiding pistons to turn drive shafts and wheels.

Jet engines seem to work pretty well.

Quote

No need for that when you're going ballistic Maverick (reference to Goose in top gun)... because the rocket fuel and oxidiser is enough to thrust against the ATMOSPHERE to SPRINGBOARD the rocket into the air. It's an AIR verses FUEL and oxidizer pressure fight.

Again, the oxidizer isn't there to provide pressure.  It is required for combustion.

Hmm. I don't  think you're as dense as you're making out, so I'll accept that you know nothing and leave it at that. Don't reply to this because I'm 100% finished with dealing with you.
What a clown. 

Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.

I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?

I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.

I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.

I hope that makes sense. 

Quote from: Yendor on October 02, 2015, 12:05:00 PM

I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.

Read the very next sentence and report back.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2015, 10:44:42 AM

Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.

They don't get pushed backwards when the flame pushes against the atmosphere either, do they?  No, they don't.

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 01:21:33 PM

I hope that makes sense. 

You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.

No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.

You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.

Care to explain what doesn't make sense to you?  I'm not seeking a reward.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2015, 01:53:27 PM

No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.

You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.

That's all a rocket is. Just a flame thrower.
That's how a flamethrower works.

Quote from: Yendor on October 02, 2015, 12:05:00 PM

I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.

Sorry, Yendor; I didn't see this.

Good find & case closed you'd think...

If you were dealing with intellectually honest people, that is.

Unlike sock-arul, who is desperately trying to twist the meaning of how the article is worded as I write...

You have to remember - we are dealing with addicts here; both to 'space travel' & to... well - let's just say 'other things'.

& an addict will do ANYTHING to get their next fix.

Oh, speaking of which, after its last tl;dr spam-fest:

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 01:21:33 PM

I hope that makes sense. 

You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 01:54:49 PM

Care to explain what doesn't make sense to you?  I'm not seeking a reward.

All of it.

& yes you are.

Quote from: TexasH on October 02, 2015, 01:57:35 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2015, 01:53:27 PM

No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.

You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.

That's how a flamethrower works.

That's all a rocket is. Just a flame thrower.