People on skateboards.

Quote from: Göebbels on December 15, 2015, 09:09:01 AM

Papa did you acknowledge my post?

You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?

what do you mean by expanding into? As in converting, turning into something? You've seen this reaction everytime you pour soda into a glass, you see the gas making efervescence, if that's the english word, and goes to the top. Everytime you shake a gassified soda can, bottle, gas that was expanding inside, tries to escape from any exit in pressure. This causes an action/reaction force. If the force is strong enough to lift the container's weight, it will make it move. That is first and third newton's laws.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 15, 2015, 09:17:11 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 15, 2015, 09:09:01 AM

Papa did you acknowledge my post?

You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?

what do you mean by expanding into? As in converting, turning into something? You've seen this reaction everytime you pour soda into a glass, you see the gas making efervescence, if that's the english word, and goes to the top. Everytime you shake a gassified soda can, bottle, gas that was expanding inside, tries to escape from any exit in pressure. This causes an action/reaction force. If the force is strong enough to lift the container's weight, it will make it move. That is first and third newton's laws.

Explain where it causes this action/reaction force in your world, because all you're explaining to me is exactly what you've been told about how rockets work  by expanded gases being thrown against the atmosphere and the atmosphere being compressed by the expanded gas until it springs back against it.
A lot like a person (imagine this) doing a super huge fart onto a trampoline and pushing himself up by forcing that fart against that trampoline fabric which warps because it's stretched to resistance and creates a barrier springboard for that enormous fart.
If that fart continued and that trampoline resistance followed, you would have your rocket propulsion.

There are no resistant trampolines in your space to react to action, meaning space rockets are now reclassified as non-space rockets,

thrust is NOT produced by pushing against atmosphere

Quote from: Göebbels on December 15, 2015, 09:21:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 15, 2015, 09:17:11 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 15, 2015, 09:09:01 AM

Papa did you acknowledge my post?

You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?

what do you mean by expanding into? As in converting, turning into something? You've seen this reaction everytime you pour soda into a glass, you see the gas making efervescence, if that's the english word, and goes to the top. Everytime you shake a gassified soda can, bottle, gas that was expanding inside, tries to escape from any exit in pressure. This causes an action/reaction force. If the force is strong enough to lift the container's weight, it will make it move. That is first and third newton's laws.

Explain where it causes this action/reaction force in your world, because all you're explaining to me is exactly what you've been told about how rockets work  by expanded gases being thrown against the atmosphere and the atmosphere being compressed by the expanded gas until it springs back against it.
A lot like a person (imagine this) doing a super huge fart onto a trampoline and pushing himself up by forcing that fart against that trampoline fabric which warps because it's stretched to resistance and creates a barrier springboard for that enormous fart.
If that fart continued and that trampoline resistance followed, you would have your rocket propulsion.

There are no resistant trampolines in your space to react to action, meaning space rockets are now reclassified as non-space rockets,

Action reactions occurs between 2 objects, object A is the bottle and object B is the gas. This action/reaction of forces occurs whether there is atmosphere or not. I'm not even talking about the mechanics of where this 2 forces come from. If you do this experiment you will get that result. That same principle is used in rockets.

Markjo's explanation of 'Newtonian Multitasking' started with this:

Very simple.  Jump up into the air.

The floor is object A

You are object B

Where is the propellant?

Then after 4 pages of gibberish, evasion, blatant Lies, sock-puppetry (hiya, goebbels!) & forum manipulation, finally ended up in this logical car-crash of a non-sequitur:

Is a glass of beer one object or two?

Yeah - Science!

LOL!!!

Oh, and as for the goebbels sock-puppet's question, the answer is to be found in the following, if he is capable of rational thought:

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.

Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!

Markjo's explanation of 'Newtonian Multitasking' started with this:

Quote from: markjo on December 13, 2015, 03:16:15 PM

Very simple.  Jump up into the air.

The floor is object A

You are object B

Where is the propellant?

Then after 4 pages of gibberish, evasion, blatant Lies, sock-puppetry (hiya, goebbels!) & forum manipulation, finally ended up in this logical car-crash of a non-sequitur:

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 09:07:41 AM

Is a glass of beer one object or two?

Yeah - Science!

LOL!!!

Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?

I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.

Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?

Is this what passes for polite conversation in yours?

  If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.

Oh, & do try not to be so obvious with your 'goebbels' sock-puppet.

But as we're way past the point where anyone believes anything you say, I gotta wonder why you still bother?

You'll still get your JPL pension whatever happens, so can afford the Alzheimers medication you clearly need.

Time to retire, perhaps, old chap?

Toodle-pip, Loser!

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 08, 2015, 12:42:56 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 08, 2015, 12:19:39 PM

Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.

Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time.  I, however, am not.

Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.

You were right, it was really easy.  I had to go back one post to find the last time you were wrong (from the time you made the request;  I'm sure there are many more examples, now):

Who's works in a pharmacy? Is that another one of your claims? Millionair assistant?

Who's is a contraction of 'who is' and sometimes 'who has', which makes no sense in the context of your statement.
'Millionaire' is the correct way to spell the word you were attempting to use.

Look, 'engy baby'; just go to the appropriate thread in 'angry ranting' & say 'he is'.

That's what the rest of us do now.

Or maybe read this, noting the words I bolded, & ban him for sock-puppeting?

I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.

Though as markjo is painfully obviously the main sock-puppeteer on this forum, that'd be unfair...

Best ban em both, eh?

LOL!!!

Like that'll happen...

Toodle-pip, 'engy baby'!

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 11:49:15 AM

Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?

Is this what passes for polite conversation in yours?

For the most part, I've been quite civil with you.  I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.

I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.

What, a jerk like this?

  If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.

Or a jerk who thinks this proves 'space travel'?

Is a glass of beer one object or two?

Or a jerk who employs such laughably obvious sock-puppets as this?

I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.

Sorry; what was that about being 'civil' again?

Cos it looks to me - & every other neutral out there - like you've used every single dirty trick in the book to try & force your lies upon us...

Meh; no biggy.

No-one's buying your crap anyway; just take your pension & begone for God's sake, old-timer...

Before I lock this thread:

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 05, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.

No motion is produced?  Hmm, that's a new one.

Quote

Nor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.

I'm sure you don't know many 'engineers'.

Quote

But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.

Well, most of the engineers that I know, don't make engines.  Some design them, but not many make them.

Quote

Mathematical smatterers like computer programmers do not count.

Here is your idea of 'engineering': 11000110100111011010110110100110100001001101010...

No, my idea of engineering is graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering.  Then getting a job as a rocket scientist.  Well, technically, as a missile scientist.

Quote

But hey; if REAL engineering & physics offends you, just 'lock the thread & turn off the lights', eh?

Yep.  If I had had my mod powers restored at the time I would have locked the thread.  But, alas, we are 36 pages deep into this now.

Quote

Cos that wouldn't be either censorship or trolling or just plain ignorance, would it... 'Engy Baby'?

No, no and no.

Quote

Hey, 'Engy'; WHERE ARE YOU?

I solved the problem on the first page.  I figured you idiots would like to argue again for another 200 pages.

Quote

Yeah; still waiting for that 'cool calm logical moderation', Mr. 'Engineer'

My moderation is far from cool or calm.  I prefer to be dictatorial and arrogant.

I solved the problem on the first page.

So you claim; funny how you ignored this though ain't it?

Expansion of gas, Free, in a Vacuum.

The end.

Turn off your brains & go back to sleep.

But whatever; do your little Nazi turn to save markjo's bacon yet again...

Let everyone know for sure what your agenda is, just in case there's the slightest doubt left.

Toodle-pip, Loser!

Quote from: sokarul on December 08, 2015, 06:43:17 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 08, 2015, 12:42:56 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 08, 2015, 12:19:39 PM

Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.

Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time.  I, however, am not.

Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.

You were right, it was really easy.  I had to go back one post to find the last time you were wrong (from the time you made the request;  I'm sure there are many more examples, now):

Quote from: sokarul on December 08, 2015, 09:52:23 AM

Who's works in a pharmacy? Is that another one of your claims? Millionair assistant?

Who's is a contraction of 'who is' and sometimes 'who has', which makes no sense in the context of your statement.
'Millionaire' is the correct way to spell the word you were attempting to use.

Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity. Better luck next time.

Nice, you could only find a typo. Better luck next time.

Yuo difeetd adn distroyyd himm!!1!11!!111

Quote from: sokarul on December 15, 2015, 02:01:59 PM

Nice, you could only find a typo. Better luck next time.

Yuo difeetd adn distroyyd himm!!1!11!!111

If your argument were so strong, it wouldn't have needed 53 pages of your trolling.

Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.

Well, you asked for me to find the last time you were wrong.  So I looked one post back and found it.  You were right about one thing though: finding the last time you were wrong was easy.

Too bad for you, you really suck at, well, everything.

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 12:28:13 PM

I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.

What, a jerk like this?

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2015, 08:27:55 AM

  If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.

Is that worse than any of your typical posts?

Or a jerk who thinks this proves 'space travel'?

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 09:07:41 AM

Is a glass of beer one object or two?

That wasn't to prove space travel.  It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.

BTW, I notice that you never did answer the question: is a glass of beer one object or two?

Or a jerk who employs such laughably obvious sock-puppets as this?

Quote from: Göebbels on December 15, 2015, 12:03:23 PM

I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.

Why would I need a sock puppet? 

Sorry; what was that about being 'civil' again?

Cos it looks to me - & every other neutral out there - like you've used every single dirty trick in the book to try & force your lies upon us...

If you think that I've lied about how rockets work in a vacuum, then you're free to link to a credible source that contradicts me.  However we both know that will never happen because you know that I'm right, so all you can do is insult me.

Oh, and let the neutrals speak for themselves. 

It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.

LOL!!!

Funny that, cos this is what you said earlier on the exact same subject:

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 14, 2015, 12:57:13 PM

Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.

Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?

Answer Yes or No, thank you please!

No.

So you agreed the man IS one object, but said the rocket is NOT...

Seems a thing can only be viewed as a single system when markjo says so; hypocrite much?

Or is it the Alzheimers makes you forget you say these things?

Of course, a rocket with its fuel inside IS one object, in the exact same way as a man is, and they both use stored energy inside them to create a Force against a second, external, Object in order to move.

In the case of the rocket, this external Object is the atmosphere through which it moves.

There; that wasn't hard, was it, old man?

No need for 'Newtonian Multitasking' at all...

Anyhoo; Carry on Lying!

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 03:39:44 PM

It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.

LOL!!!

Funny that, cos this is what you said earlier on the exact same subject:

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2015, 01:02:06 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 14, 2015, 12:57:13 PM

Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.

Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?

Answer Yes or No, thank you please!

No.

So you agreed the man IS one object, but said the rocket is NOT...

Correct.  In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object, just like a glass is one object and the beer within it is another object.

Seems a thing can only be viewed as a single system when markjo says so; hypocrite much?

Whether something is viewed as a single system or separate components of that system depends on the context of the analysis.  You do understand the concept of context, don't you? 

Of course, a rocket with its fuel inside IS one object, in the exact same way as a man is, and they both use stored energy inside them to create a Force against a second, external, Object in order to move.

You seem to be hung up on the word "external".  Why can't an external object come from within another object?

In the case of the rocket, this external Object is the atmosphere through which it moves.

If the rocket is pushing on the atmosphere, then how does the atmosphere push back with an equal and opposite reaction?

In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object

Wrong again.

Please read the section on gun recoil in the following post:

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.

Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2015, 04:46:22 PM

In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object

Wrong again.

Please read the section on gun recoil in the following post:

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.

Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!

Well explained.

And this "time until the equilibrium is reached" would be very short due to the enormous difference of/gradient in pressure from imaginary fuel tanks in space to the 10^-16 bar vast nothingness of space near vacuum that forms the unescapable environment. Like opening an airplane door at cruise altitude but then some orders of magnitude stronger and faster.

Almost instantaneously the "gas molecules" would turn solid or superfluid (for H, He) and be dissepated into the nothingness as separate almost static (3 K temperature) molecules providing not a single bit of work at all.

The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the blah, blah, blah...

How many times and how many different ways do I have to show how wrong you are with that tired old piece of copy-pasta before you finally give it a rest?

Quote from: sokarul on December 15, 2015, 02:01:59 PM

Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.

Well, you asked for me to find the last time you were wrong.  So I looked one post back and found it.  You were right about one thing though: finding the last time you were wrong was easy.

Too bad for you, you really suck at, well, everything.

?
Where's your Nobel Prize for proving General Relativity?

Like I said, here in the real world you couldn't find where I was wrong. You had to find a typo. And like I said, better luck next time.

And this "time until the equilibrium is reached" would be very short due to the enormous difference of/gradient in pressure from imaginary fuel tanks in space to the 10^-16 bar vast nothingness of space near vacuum that forms the unescapable environment. Like opening an airplane door at cruise altitude but then some orders of magnitude stronger and faster

Wrong!!!!
Pressure gradient is the same between 1 bar-vacuum and 2 bar-1bar.
Vacuum doesn't have special property, is just the absence of material

Where's your Nobel Prize for proving General Relativity?

What?

Like I said, here in the real world you couldn't find where I was wrong.

But I just posted where you were wrong last (relative to the request).  Which is what you asked for.  And I easily found.

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...

You clearly have no understanding of the operation of a choked de Laval nozzle.
Just how is it that at say 128,000 ft with the pressure about 0.0038 Atm a rocket works fine, but suddenly fails at some unknown altitude above that?  The simple answer is that it does not fail!

The reason is simply that the combustion chamber (and nozzle) are NOT exposed to the extremely low outside pressure - vacuum if you like, so long as we have choked flow in the throat of the nozzle.
The "choked flow" condition in the de Laval (or convergent-divergent) nozzle is reached when the flow velocity in the throat reaches sonic speed.  The gas  expanding past the throat increases to hypersonic speeds before exiting the nozzle.
At above sonic velocities sound (or any disturbance) cannot propagate back up the gas flow from outside the nozzle into the nozzle or throat.  That is why the flow is "choked" and the mass flow rate is no longer dependent on the pressure outside the nozzle, no matter how low.
These shows the way mass flow rate depends on ambient pressure.  I'd get you the equation for (mass flow rate) ~ (ambient pressure), but I know how papa hates "NASA approved equations" - even though de Laval knew this in 1888!

I know papa legba will not take notice of someone like Robert H. Goddard, but his work did predate NASA by decades.

The important point is that, once the choked flow condition is reached, the outside pressure, no matter how low, can have no effect on mass flow.

BTW  if you insist on your Objects A, F and B:
(1) Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
(2) The law of conservation of momentum could have told you all this right from the start - of course it was used to derive the equations.

You clearly have no understanding of the operation of a choked de Laval nozzle.

Has your convergent/divergent nozzle got a hole in it?

Yes.

Then the gas will simply expand, freely, through that hole, doing no work on the way.

Now back to youtube with you, there must be some flat earth/rocket-fraud videos you haven't trolled yet.