People on skateboards.

Would you care to point out the "shit and lies" in that post?

I already have, repeatedly.

But, against all REASON, you ignored that in order to create a ridiculous & futile circular argument...

Why?

Because you are a Liar & a Shitposter!

Q.E.D.

Toodle-pip, Humpty Dumptard!

Quote from: sokarul on October 30, 2015, 03:31:11 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 30, 2015, 03:13:08 PM

Imagine the person as the rocket and the rocket fuel as the medicine ball. Works perfectly. Physics 101.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

sokarul, I watched your video of the guy on the skateboard and I tried my best to relate that to a rocket. Didn't you say you were a scientist or something like that? My question to you is don't you realize that when the guy threw the ball outwards he was throwing against the air in the room. The air in the room was acting like a wall and he was PUSHING against it with the ball and he was able to roll backwards because the skateboard had wheels on it.

Judging by the video, I'd say the ball is at least 10 to 12 inches in diameter. Let's say 10 inches in diameter, that will give us a surface area of just the face of the ball around 78 square inches. Let's just say the atmospheric pressure is just 14 psi assuming the guy is at sea level. If we multiply 78 x 14 = 1092. That is a 1000 pound wall of air the guy is pushing the ball against. Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm correct, wouldn't you think that would be enough force acting in the opposite direction to propel the guy on the skateboard backwards?

Papa Legba, just wondering if you agree with Yendor's contention that a man on a skateboard is being propelled in one direction because of the atmosphere pushing on the medicine ball in the other direction?

If you do in fact agree with him, then you will obviously think that a man throwing a beach ball the same size as the medicine ball, at the same speed, will produce exactly the same amount of propulsive force?

If this is the case, I'm wondering why the experiment would incorporate the use of a heavy and cumbersome medicine ball?  I'm starting to think that perhaps it's the large mass of the medicine ball that is producing the momentum force required to move the man on the skateboard?

Remember this little exchange?

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.

LOL!!!

It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.

Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.

But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.

And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.

Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.

Simple stuff.

So; when you write this:

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.

You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.

Seems you still haven't learnt a thing from it...

Come back when you have, eh, special-needs kid?

Anybody who thinks that a rocket's exhaust is still physically attached to the rocket itself, they are the 'special needs' kid, lol.

Next you'll be saying that a medicine ball is still attached to a man who has just thrown it?


How dumb can someone be, if they actually think that when an object has left the system, that it is still part of it, lol.

When you breathe air out, is it still attached to your body?  Of course fucking not, so how is a rocket's exhaust still attached to a rocket?


Answer the question, or STFU loser.

Next you'll be saying that a medicine ball is still attached to a man who has just thrown it?

LOL!!!

Will the man's arm still be attached to the man who throws the ball?

You know - the arm that, by EXPANDING BETWEEN TWO MASSES, is responsible for producing Motion?

If your answer to the above is 'Yes', then go away, have a little think about it all, then come back when you've wised up.

Or don't; nobody cares what you think anyway.

But at least you've finally found the right thread to spam your nonsense in...

GOOD little 'special-needs' chtwrone; you see - Learning can be Fun!

'When you breathe air out, is it still attached to your body?  Of course fucking not, so how is a rocket's exhaust still attached to a rocket?'


It's no surprise that you didn't answer the above question - you are such a pathetic coward.


Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?


But I predict that you will refuse to answer this question, as your 'let's make some shit up' theories can't be explained at all, lol.

Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?

Do you know the difference between the words combustING & combustED?

Can you tell SMOKE from FIRE?

If 'Yes', go away & have a little think abou...

Oh, you know the drill.

*Yawn!*

Toodle-pip, special little chtwrone!

Quote from: chtwrone on November 02, 2015, 03:28:23 AM

Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?

Do you know the difference between the words combustING & combustED?

Can you tell SMOKE from FIRE?

If 'Yes', go away & have a little think abou...

Oh, you know the drill.

*Yawn!*

Toodle-pip, special little chtwrone!

It makes no differences if it is combusting or combusted. Once the fuel/oxidiser/exhaust mix has left the nozzle then it plays no part in interacting with the rocket.

O Rly?

Then how does the rocket produce thrust in your little fantasy-world?

O Rly?

Then how does the rocket produce thrust in your little fantasy-world?

Plenty of information online about rockets, please link to any you disagree with.

So you've all finally given up?

Good; I win.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Read this before you go though; may help somewhat?

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.

LOL!!!

It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.

Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.

But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.

And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.

Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.

Simple stuff.

So; when you write this:

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.

You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.

The force acts on the fuel.

So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?

Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).

So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?

Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).

Do you understand how pressure works?

Do you understand how pressure works?

Don't YOU understand that there can be no pressure in a vacuum?

REMEMBER THE VACUUM, HELEN KELLER?

*Sigh!*

Looks like it's School-time again!

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.

It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...


Plus this:

You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.

Here is why it is not:

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; only common sense.


Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.

*Yawn!*

Read & Learn, Raown Derfers...

But most importantly of all; REMEMBER THE VACUUM!

Do YOU understand that you can have localised pressure within a vacuum environment if you use a container with a small exit and are pumping in liquid vapour faster than the gas can leave. Therefore the container will contain gas and this creates pressure.

Gas does not follow the path of least resistance toward a vacuum. It simply doesn't. Not one law of physics states this. You are thinking of net flux.

Rockets push on their exhaust within the combustion chamber and nozzle.

I am a lying blowhard googling & wiki-ing as fast as I can to gatekeep a subject i know nothing about & will lie lie lie & say anything I need to keep the subject I know nothing about gatekept...

Remember saying this, Liar?

Quote

Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.

It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.

But what's the definition of 'evacuate' in General Physics?

'To create a vacuum'.

BUSTED!

And 'because all of the net effect to zero' is the icing on the cake...

Now GTFO, Liar.

Now; read this, neutrals; then DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH:

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.

It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...


Plus this:

You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.

Here is why it is not:

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; only common sense.


Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.

So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?

Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).

Yes.  Anytime a force is created, that force acts upon the mass that is crating that force and a reaction mass.  In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel.  This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.

So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?

Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).

It's very simple, the fuel/propellent, once ignited, is forced out of the rocket system, with exactly the same weight as it had when it was sitting stationary within the fuel tanks. What is the result of a substantial amount of mass (fuel) being being forcibly ejected with huge velocity out of a rocket system?

A HUGE AMOUNT OF MOMENTUM IS CREATED.

Laughably, Papa Legba thinks that a rocket's exhaust is still 'attached' to the rocket once its left the engine nozzles.  It's only at this point, that he somehow thinks that the exhaust is now pushing on the atmosphere, and then exerts a HUGE force back onto the base of the rocket, propelling it forward/up.

This is THE most ridiculous notion that anybody could ever come up with, and it's clear that this CLOWN knows very little about momentum laws - I bet he even failed his Kindergarten 101 course, lol.

Logically, he also thinks that the expelled breathe that we make with our bodies, is still 'attached' to the Human Body system as well, LOL.



                               
                                   
                                             OBJECT B IS THE FUEL/PROPELLENT.

In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel.  This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.

LOL!!!

So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?

That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!

GTFO, psycho!

Wtf is WRONG with you?

You are trying to create a Frankenstein version of Newton's 3rd from an example of ONLY Newton's 2nd; PLEASE just learn the difference & be done with this Insanity...

Cos it's getting REALLY creepy now!

& chtwrone: WRONG THREAD AGAIN, RETARD!

I made one special for your special needs; go use it, eh?

Quote from: markjo on November 02, 2015, 09:58:44 AM

In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel.  This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.

LOL!!!

So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?

That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!

GTFO, psycho!

Wtf is WRONG with you?

You are trying to create a Frankenstein version of Newton's 3rd from an example of ONLY Newton's 2nd; PLEASE just learn the difference & be done with this Insanity...

Cos it's getting REALLY creepy now!

& chtwrone: WRONG THREAD AGAIN, RETARD!

I made one special for your special needs; go use it, eh?

So you really think that the burnt fuel/propellent mass, being forcibly ejected out of a rocket system, has had NO momentum imparted onto it at all?

I already answered you.

See?

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.

LOL!!!

It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.

Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.

But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.

And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.

Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.

Simple stuff.

So; when you write this:

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.

You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.

[/quote]

And now you are making an ass of yourself even more...

Are you a masochist?

Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2015, 07:49:17 AM

Do you understand how pressure works?

Don't YOU understand that there can be no pressure in a vacuum?

REMEMBER THE VACUUM, HELEN KELLER?

*Sigh!*

Looks like it's School-time again!

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

As explained to you, a vacuum is not a force. The only way for the exhaust to leave the combustion chamber is from it's own pressure.  This take a finite amount of time. In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting.  Higher exhaust speed means more thrust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

As explained this is incorrect. The gas will still just bounce of each other and whatever else is around. The gas is not self aware and able to know when it's next to a vacuum.
 

This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.

Why did you change it to the fuel tank? You used to claim it was the combustion chamber that would go to zero, now it's the fuel tank?

It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...

You do not understand physics.

Plus this:

You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.

Here is why it is not:

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?

B is the exhaust.
This is seen when a gun firing blanks will still have some recoil.

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; only common sense.[/b]

Noe.

Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Incorrect. You do not understand momentum.

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

We all know you are just trolling. No one is really that stupid to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. I mean really really no one is so fucking stupid as to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. It would be nobel prize winning research to show that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.

Why do expanding gases cool?

*Yawn!*

I think with getting your argument crushed so many times it gave you brain damage.

Read & Learn, Raown Derfers...

But most importantly of all; REMEMBER THE VACUUM!

Yes remember a vacuum is not a forced and air isn't self aware.

Quote from: markjo on November 02, 2015, 09:58:44 AM

In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel.  This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.

LOL!!!

So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?

That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!

The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions.  However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards.  I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.

The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions.  However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards.  I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.

Because you've somehow done it again; cobbled together a Frankenstein version of Newton 3 out of what is only an example of Newton 2, i.e. the rocket system creating a force.

Until you learn that there can be no internal pressure without external pressure then you'll be stuck here forever.

And, of course, there can be no pressure at all if the rocket is in a vacuum...

REMEMBER THE VACUUM?

As for sock-arul's pathetic attempt:

'In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting.' - O rly?

'Noe.' - LOL!!!

'Yes remember vacuum is not a forced & air isn't self aware' - Speaking in Tongues now?

'You do not understand momentum.' - well I understand it enough to know that it can only be created via some form of Pressure, or Push; which you somehow don't.

Whatever - more Fail from the Sock...

How cute, you can't respond to everything because you have nothing.

...As for sock-arul's pathetic attempt:

'In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting.' - O rly?

'Noe.' - LOL!!!

Are you claiming raising temperature has no affect on a gas?

'Yes remember vacuum is not a forced & air isn't self aware' - Speaking in Tongues now?

No. You can't comprehend that a vacuum isn't a force?

'You do not understand momentum.' - well I understand it enough to know that it can only be created via some form of Pressure, or Push; which you somehow don't.

Pressure is a force over an area. It is not momentum. Try again.

Whatever - more Fail from the Sock...

The only fail is how everyone can pick apart your whole post and you can only attempt to respond to a few points.

Better luck next time.

Quote from: markjo on November 02, 2015, 04:21:55 PM

The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions.  However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards.  I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.

Because you've somehow done it again; cobbled together a Frankenstein version of Newton 3 out of what is only an example of Newton 2, i.e. the rocket system creating a force.

Are you saying that you can have an application of Newton's 2nd without having Newton's 3rd staring you in the face?

Are you saying that the force created by burning propellant does not create an action that, in turn, creates an equal and opposite reaction?

If force=mass x acceleration, then how can you not have action/reaction? 

If the burning of propellant within a combustion chamber creates a force, is that force not acting on both the mass of the resultant combustion gasses and the mass of the combustion chamber?

Until you learn that there can be no internal pressure without external pressure then you'll be stuck here forever.

Huh?  What are you talking about?  Are you referring to the internal pressure of the combustion gasses being balanced by the external pressure of the combustion chamber?

And, of course, there can be no pressure at all if the rocket is in a vacuum...

REMEMBER THE VACUUM?

Q:  What's the difference between a vacuum and seal level?
A: 14.7 PSI.

What is so special about a vacuum that makes it mightier than any man made attempt to burn fuel within a relatively small chamber with an even smaller opening exposed to that vacuum?

LOL!!!

Physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'No'.

Noe.

GTFO.


As for this, I'm just leaving it to stand alone as testimony to markjo's utter ignorance:

Are you saying that you can have an application of Newton's 2nd without having Newton's 3rd staring you in the face?

Are you saying that the force created by burning propellant does not create an action that, in turn, creates an equal and opposite reaction?

If force=mass x acceleration, then how can you not have action/reaction? 

If the burning of propellant within a combustion chamber creates a force, is that force not acting on both the mass of the resultant combustion gasses and the mass of the combustion chamber?

What is so special about a vacuum that makes it mightier than any man made attempt to burn fuel within a relatively small chamber with an even smaller opening exposed to that vacuum?

You sound a bit confused, markjo; are you drunk, or has the terminal Alzheimer's finally kicked in?

Assuming you are capable of comprehending it, perhaps a book on high school physics would help?

LOL!!!

Physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'No'.

Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2015, 03:02:44 PM

Noe.

GTFO.

You know that's actually "nope"? You see how the P is missing? Kinda like your brain is missing.
And see how you can't form a proper rebuttal? You have nothing. All you do is get destroyed. You literally couldn't make a rebuttal against anything said. Nothing. This is why I'm paid to be a scientist and you run a deep fryer.
You couldn't even respond to ONE thing. Not one.

Quote from: Papa Legba on November 02, 2015, 08:46:52 PM

LOL!!!

Physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'No'.

Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2015, 03:02:44 PM

Noe.

GTFO.

You know that's actually "nope"?

Okay then; physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'nope'.

Happy now, retard?

Feel smarter?

Learnt how momentum is created yet?

Or how gas behaves in a vacuum?

Actually, that last bit's probably too complicated, so here's a few tips to get you going; I've revised the bit about the fuel tank & combustion chamber, as you seemed unable to grasp the rather obvious fact that they are both connected & thus part of the same system.

Hope it helps, retard!

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.

Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.

Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.

This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.

It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...


Plus this:

You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.

Here is why it is not:

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; only common sense.


Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...

Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?

Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.