People on skateboards.

Quote from: Mainframes on October 07, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 02:13:28 PM

I'll try again.

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200

The reason I don’t believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newton’s third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth…sorry.

This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.


All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.

All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.

After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.

If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.

So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum?  Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction? 

I'll try again.

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.

The reason I don’t believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done.

What does a vacuum cleaner have to do with free expansion?

The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newton’s third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth…sorry.

Do you understand the difference between freely releasing a gas and forcibly ejecting a gas?  Do you agree that a significant portion of the fuel oxidizer mix is burned inside the combustion chamber causing a dramatic build up of chamber pressure?  Or do you think that those burning gasses can freely escape the combustion chamber faster than the burning fuel/oxidizer mix can build up the pressure?

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 04:36:30 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on October 07, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 02:13:28 PM

I'll try again.

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200

The reason I don’t believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newton’s third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth…sorry.

This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.


All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.

All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.

After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.

If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.

So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum?  Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction?

When the molecules hit the walls of the container they exert force in the container. As per newtons 3rd the walls then exert equal and opposite force on the molecules which results in them bouncing off in the opposite direction and eventually through chance they will exit the container.

Simple application of newtons 3rd. The vacuum does absolutely nothing.

Quote from: frenat on October 07, 2015, 04:46:09 PM

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 04:36:30 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on October 07, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 02:13:28 PM

I'll try again.

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200

The reason I don’t believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newton’s third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth…sorry.

This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.


All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.

All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.

After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.

If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.

So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum?  Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction?

When the molecules hit the walls of the container they exert force in the container. As per newtons 3rd the walls then exert equal and opposite force on the molecules which results in them bouncing off in the opposite direction and eventually through chance they will exit the container.

Simple application of newtons 3rd. The vacuum does absolutely nothing.

I agree.  Yendor said it was wrong though so I'm curious what he thinks changes the directions of those molecules do they don't hit the opposing wall.

If you believe rockets have to push off the atmosphere, then give us the equation that takes that into account and makes accurate predictions.

No one?

We are all told by NASA that space is a vacuum.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html

Physics along with most sources defines vacuum as such.

Vacuum Physics

Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.


I underlined the part that is most important. Basically it says that exhaust particles in space have no effect on the work they are being asked to do. In other words they do nothing to cause a rocket to move.

I can agree with Mainframe when he said, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

This is how physics definitions what the end results will be when you are trying to get any particle to do work in a vacuum.

This cycle will continue during the whole time the engine is running, exerting no force. The engine will run until it runs out of fuel or if it is stopped. If the engine is stopped and then restarted at a later time. The same cycle as before will begin all over again.

Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.

Very simple isn't it?

We've already agreed that the molecules moving towards the side removed would exert no force.  The question was what about all the others moving in different directions?

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 02:13:28 PM

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.

LOL!!!

Pompous Humpty Dumpty Markjo thinks WE'RE the idiots for not believing his retarded perversion of Newton 3 that claims an object can somehow push on itself until it gets to 'space' then push on nothing once it gets there.

LMFAO!!!

Frenat; you are a Troll.

Goodbye!

Quote from: markjo on October 07, 2015, 08:54:45 PM

Quote from: Yendor on October 07, 2015, 02:13:28 PM

The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.

I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.

LOL!!!

Pompous Humpty Dumpty Markjo thinks WE'RE the idiots for not believing his retarded perversion of Newton 3 that claims an object can somehow push on itself until it gets to 'space' then push on nothing once it gets there.

LMFAO!!!

Frenat; you are a Troll.

Goodbye!

The gas molecules in the combustion chamber and nozzle push on the rocket and the rocket pushes on the gas molecules with an equal and opposite force.

We are all told by NASA that space is a vacuum.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html

Physics along with most sources defines vacuum as such.

Vacuum Physics

Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.


I underlined the part that is most important. Basically it says that exhaust particles in space have no effect on the work they are being asked to do. In other words they do nothing to cause a rocket to move.

I can agree with Mainframe when he said, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

This is how physics definitions what the end results will be when you are trying to get any particle to do work in a vacuum.

This cycle will continue during the whole time the engine is running, exerting no force. The engine will run until it runs out of fuel or if it is stopped. If the engine is stopped and then restarted at a later time. The same cycle as before will begin all over again.

Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.

Very simple isn't it?

Quote from: frenat on October 08, 2015, 09:23:14 AM

We've already agreed that the molecules moving towards the side removed would exert no force.  The question was what about all the others moving in different directions?

The other molecules produce no thrust and have no effect at all in moving a rocket forward. This NASA illustration explains it rather well.



In aerospace engineering, the principal of action and reaction is very important. Newton's third law explains the generation of thrust by a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, hot exhaust gas is produced through the combustion of a fuel with an oxidizer. The hot exhaust gas flows through the rocket nozzle and is accelerated to the rear of the rocket. In re-action, a thrusting force is produced on the engine mount. The thrust accelerates the rocket as described by Newton's second law of motion.

As we learned earlier from Mainframe and I believe you agree, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

Ref: https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton3r.html

that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened. 

The molecules moving away from the open side will collide with the walls of the container. When they collide they will exert force on the container and by newtons third the container will exert force on the molecules. The result is the molecules bounce off in the opposite direction and the container experiences a force. Eventually the molecules will be bounced towards the open side and exit.

Quote from Frenat:

that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened.

The molecules that are not rushing towards the side to the vacuum is used to apply forward force or the ACTION to the rocket. The REACTION is the exhaust particles rushing into a vacuum

This NASA illustration explains it rather well.



In aerospace engineering, the principal of action and reaction is very important. Newton's third law explains the generation of thrust by a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, hot exhaust gas is produced through the combustion of a fuel with an oxidizer. The hot exhaust gas flows through the rocket nozzle and is accelerated to the rear of the rocket. In re-action, a thrusting force is produced on the engine mount. The thrust accelerates the rocket as described by Newton's second law of motion.

As we learned earlier from Mainframe and I believe you agree, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

Ref: https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton3r.html




We are all told by NASA that space is a vacuum.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html

Physics along with most sources defines vacuum as such.

Vacuum Physics

Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.


I underlined the part that is most important. Basically it says that exhaust particles in space have no effect on the work they are being asked to do. In other words they do nothing to cause a rocket to move.

I can agree with Mainframe when he said, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

This is how physics definitions what the end results will be when you are trying to get any particle to do work in a vacuum.

This cycle will continue during the whole time the engine is running, exerting no force. The engine will run until it runs out of fuel or if it is stopped. If the engine is stopped and then restarted at a later time. The same cycle as before will begin all over again.

Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.

Very simple isn't it?

The gas molecules in the combustion chamber and nozzle push on the rocket and the rocket pushes on the gas molecules with an equal and opposite force.

Double-speak LULZ!!!

that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened. 

More insane analogies.

Just stick to pictures of people on skateboards, eh?

Quote from Frenat:

that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened.

The molecules that are not rushing towards the side to the vacuum is used to apply forward force or the ACTION to the rocket. The REACTION is the exhaust particles rushing into a vacuum

thank you.  Apparently some others here don't agree though. 

Let's try again.

Quote from Frenat:

that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened.

The molecules that are not rushing towards the side to the vacuum is used to apply forward force or the ACTION to the rocket. The REACTION is the exhaust particles rushing into a vacuum

This NASA illustration explains it rather well.



In aerospace engineering, the principal of action and reaction is very important. Newton's third law explains the generation of thrust by a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, hot exhaust gas is produced through the combustion of a fuel with an oxidizer. The hot exhaust gas flows through the rocket nozzle and is accelerated to the rear of the rocket. In re-action, a thrusting force is produced on the engine mount. The thrust accelerates the rocket as described by Newton's second law of motion.

As we learned earlier from Mainframe and I believe you agree, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

Ref: https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton3r.html




We are all told by NASA that space is a vacuum.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html

Physics along with most sources defines vacuum as such.

Vacuum Physics

Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.


I underlined the part that is most important. Basically it says that exhaust particles in space have no effect on the work they are being asked to do. In other words they do nothing to cause a rocket to move.

I can agree with Mainframe when he said, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."

This is how physics definitions what the end results will be when you are trying to get any particle to do work in a vacuum.

This cycle will continue during the whole time the engine is running, exerting no force. The engine will run until it runs out of fuel or if it is stopped. If the engine is stopped and then restarted at a later time. The same cycle as before will begin all over again.

Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.

Very simple isn't it?

Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...

Frenat: when I pointed out you were wrong earlier in this thread, you admonished me for responding to what you DID say, rather than what you claimed you MEANT to say.

You are a Troll, pure & simple, & as such worthy only of mockery & derision.

The FACT that gas does no Work in a vacuum is not a fanciful idea that I invented; it is established, experimentally-verified science.

So don't argue with me; argue with Joules & Thomson, as well as Newton, from whose laws of motion their work derives.

Because they all state that you cannot Push on Nothing.

Quote from: frenat on October 08, 2015, 11:44:10 AM

Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...

Frenat: when I pointed out you were wrong earlier in this thread, you admonished me for responding to what you DID say, rather than what you claimed you MEANT to say.

You are a Troll, pure & simple, & as such worthy only of mockery & derision.

The FACT that gas does no Work in a vacuum is not a fanciful idea that I invented; it is established, experimentally-verified science.

So don't argue with me; argue with Joules & Thomson, as well as Newton, from whose laws of motion their work derives.

Because they all state that you cannot Push on Nothing.

You seem to have an interesting definition of troll.  From what I can gather it consists of "someone who asks questions you don't answer but instead you respond with accusations of liar and troll". 

thanks for the humor!

You cannot Push on Nothing, Troll.

See how all your cultist's explanations clash with & negate each other:

closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.

O rly?

Because some of you are trying to say that conservation of momentum is how a rocket works.

But COM only applies to closed systems..

Silly trolls are silly!

You cannot Push on Nothing, cultists; live with it.

See how all your cultist's explanations clash with & negate each other:

Quote from: frenat on October 02, 2015, 02:35:47 PM

closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.

O rly?

Because some of you are trying to say that conservation of momentum is how a rocket works.

But COM only applies to closed systems..

Silly trolls are silly!

You cannot Push on Nothing, cultists; live with it.

Quote from: frenat on October 08, 2015, 11:44:10 AM

Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...

Frenat: when I pointed out you were wrong earlier in this thread, you admonished me for responding to what you DID say, rather than what you claimed you MEANT to say.

You are a Troll, pure & simple, & as such worthy only of mockery & derision.

The FACT that gas does no Work in a vacuum is not a fanciful idea that I invented; it is established, experimentally-verified science.

So don't argue with me; argue with Joules & Thomson, as well as Newton, from whose laws of motion their work derives.

Because they all state that you cannot Push on Nothing.

Papa, You are correct. Even if you look at the means they use to move satellites, It's a joke. Ion thrusters, here they are throwing out ion particles into a vacuum and people believe it will move a satellite along just fine. All of these notions can easily be proven they won't work right here on Earth. I can't see how well educated people can believe such nonsense. All to just pay homage to NASA. How in the world can NASA have so much power over them. I was debating someone about Navy fire control radar. The Sparrow missile radar has an advertised direct line of sight to a surface ship out 30+ nautical miles. Now that is what they advertise. Now I was in the Navy and I actually worked on missile launchers and was very familiar with the distance our FCR would see out to. Believe me, it was out past 30 miles then in the early 70's. I would bet they can see out 60 miles now. So tell me, how can FCR track a ship out 30+ nautical miles if the Earth is round. In fact, we actually had a camera with a rotating lens system mounted on the dish so we could physically see the ship or plane we were going to kill.

In this discussion of how rockets work in a vacuum, have you considered what causes a gun to recoil?
Surely you will all agree that it is the conservation of momentum of (mainly) the gun body and the bullet.  The bullet (say 7.5 gm for 9 mm) heads right at 381 m/s (about 952 gm for Baretta M9), so the pistol tries to head left at a much lower velocity - you work in out!
Now, surely you are not going to say that this caused by the bullet pushing against the air?  Would the pistol have the same recoil in a vacuum? Of course!!!!!
What is the difference between this and the case of a mass of exhaust gas leaving a rocket?

In this discussion of how rockets work in a vacuum, have you considered what causes a gun to recoil?

Yes; in tiresome detail.

So why not read the thread, then return to address The Mystery of the Missing Mass Two, eh?

(clue: it is not the exhaust).

The exhaust IS mass two. I cannot state this anymore categorically.

No one wants to provide an equation?

Well, try this. Throw a lightweight object. Then throw something heavier. Continue throwing heavier and heavier objects. You'll gradually feel that you start to get pushed back more and the object you are throwing less, as the object get's heavier (e.g. if you throw another person or something even heavier). Both you and the object are getting pushed with an equal force, but depending on the mass of the object
a. The object will not accelerate at the same rate
b. Because of a, you'll have time to build up a larger force which will push yourself back.

If a rocket "throws" out exhaust, it HAS to be exerted to a force. Otherwise you are breaking Newton's Third.

Also, free expansion only implies an expansion where the gas does not change temperature. Pressure is still applied normally. Basically, it is irrelevant and off-topic.

So why not read the thread, then return to address The Mystery of the Missing Mass Two, eh?

(clue: it is not the exhaust).

Are you saying that the exhaust does not have any mass? 

Mass 1: rocket full of fuel and oxidizer
Energy: burning fuel and oxidizer in the combustion chamber
Mass 2: the residual gasses created by the burning of the fuel and oxidizer

Think about how fire works: you have fuel and oxygen, you have flame and you have smoke and ash residue.  The mass of the smoke and ash residue is the same as the mass of the fuel and oxygen before burning (give or take a very little bit converted to light and heat energy).  Why should the same not apply to rocket engines?

*Yawn!*

With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.

But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket,  & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.

No object B, see?

Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.

But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?

Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.

& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.

Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.

Q.E.D.

No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.

No maths required.

But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket,  & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.

No object B, see?

What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?

What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?

It pushes against the Mystery Mass Two That Cannot Be Named by you Satanic space-cultists, even though there is only one possibility for what it could be...

It must be a Religious thing?

Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2015, 11:44:10 AM

What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?

It pushes against the Mystery Mass Two That Cannot Be Named by you Satanic space-cultists, even though there is only one possibility for what it could be...

Then you agree that 50 kg of fuel being burned is 50 kg of mass being ejected out the back of the rocket?

Yes, retard; 50kg of expanding mass, all expanding against THE MASS THAT CANNOT BE NAMED!!!

BOW DOWN & AVERT YOUR EYES, FELLOW CULTISTS! FOR MASS TWO WILL NEVER BE SEEN OR HEARD OR MENTIONED!!!

ALL ROCKETS PUSH ON THEMSELVES!!!

ALL ROCKETS PUSH ON NOTHING!!!

BOW DOWN!!!

AVERT YOUR EYES!!!

THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

WE ARE NOT THE THOUGHT POLICE!!!




































lol.