Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.

Try thinking for a moment, how come none of the thousands of physicists have realized that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum. Maybe the reason is because they do, because if none of them can see it how come you can, is it because you're special and can see something no one else can, I doubt it.

agreed. If rockets didnt work in space hundreds if not thousands of physicists all over the world. Many well known. Yet you hear not one of them objecting the facts that rockets work in a vacuum. They all agree, aswell as anyone in that field who fully understands it. Papa somehow seems to be the one who objects to these people... with as much evidence as about fuck all.

Rockets don't work in a vacuum, space travel is impossible and the ISS is apparently a plane with a big spotlight attached to it...

Papa isn't looking for facts, he makes assumptions without evidence or any knowledge in a given subject area.

He is a sociopath, just set him to enemy and ignore him.....

Try thinking for a moment, how come none of the thousands of physicists have realized that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum. Maybe the reason is because they do, because if none of them can see it how come you can, is it because you're special and can see something no one else can, I doubt it.

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy. The last hope of the defeated. But it's well and truly game over losers! I thought it would end like this when the worn out old husk that goes by the handle, rama, asked whether we had checked our understanding with a physics teacher.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 09:25:38 AM

Coming from a military family, it seems that you should recognize the necessity of respecting proper authority.

Coming from a military family, I recognise the necessity of reacting appropriately to correct Information.

As well as being permanently vigilant against enemy Disinformation.

Which is why you Disinfo-Scum will never beat me.

Cos I got your number.

And you hate me for it.

Hence all your gaslighting & gang stalking.

Oh look, here's some more:

Quote from: Generic Sock Puppet on February 22, 2016, 11:32:46 AM

Rockets don't work in a vacuum, space travel is impossible and the ISS is apparently a plane with a big spotlight attached to it...
Papa isn't looking for facts, he makes assumptions without evidence or any knowledge in a given subject area.
He is a sociopath, just set him to enemy and ignore him.

All you got is Lying & Bullying, basically...

How do you think that'll work out for you?

Toodle-pip, Psychopathic Liars!

FITE ME M9

^Astroturfing.

Coming from a military family, it seems that you should recognize the necessity of respecting proper authority.

Coming from a military family, I recognise the necessity of reacting appropriately to correct Information.

As well as being permanently vigilant against enemy Disinformation.

Which is why you Disinfo-Scum will never beat me.

Cos I got your number.

And you hate me for it.

Hence all your gaslighting & gang stalking.

Oh look, here's some more:

Rockets don't work in a vacuum, space travel is impossible and the ISS is apparently a plane with a big spotlight attached to it...
Papa isn't looking for facts, he makes assumptions without evidence or any knowledge in a given subject area.
He is a sociopath, just set him to enemy and ignore him.

All you got is Lying & Bullying, basically...

How do you think that'll work out for you?

Toodle-pip, Psychopathic Liars!

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy.

Hmm.  Perhaps you missed it when I told PL, but...

Appealing to a legitimate authority in the relevant field is not a fallacy. 

In fact, it's a rather sensible thing to do. 

That's why courts of law do it all the time.

Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

Quote from: Empirical on February 22, 2016, 11:04:03 AM

Try thinking for a moment, how come none of the thousands of physicists have realized that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum. Maybe the reason is because they do, because if none of them can see it how come you can, is it because you're special and can see something no one else can, I doubt it.

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy.

Appealing to experts has to be better than appealing to, "I have known this guy on a web-forum for some-time."

The last hope of the defeated. But it's well and truly game over losers! I thought it would end like this when the worn out old husk that goes by the handle, rama, asked whether we had checked our understanding with a physics teacher.

Learn to read, I asked:

1. Have you consulted with a working engineer or physicist on this?

If you have a problem with this, how can you justify posting a link to any information?  You do it frequently.  Oh wait, you are a hypocrite, that's how.

Quote from: legion on February 22, 2016, 11:40:14 AM

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy.

Hmm.  Perhaps you missed it when I told PL, but...

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 07:20:44 AM

Appealing to a legitimate authority in the relevant field is not a fallacy. 

In fact, it's a rather sensible thing to do. 

That's why courts of law do it all the time.

Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

You are assuming that all physicists agree with you. That is the first fallacy.

The second fallacy is that a particular physicists opinion on whether rockets work in the vacuum is no more relevant than mine, or anyone else's. Here is what the rocket expert physicists at nasa have to say:

Why Does a Rocket Work?
In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.

This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.

-- http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

It's the same crap you losers have been saying. All entirely refuted in the preceding pages.

Quote from: legion on February 22, 2016, 11:40:14 AM

Quote from: Empirical on February 22, 2016, 11:04:03 AM

Try thinking for a moment, how come none of the thousands of physicists have realized that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum. Maybe the reason is because they do, because if none of them can see it how come you can, is it because you're special and can see something no one else can, I doubt it.

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy.

Appealing to experts has to be better than appealing to, "I have known this guy on a web-forum for some-time."

Quote

The last hope of the defeated. But it's well and truly game over losers! I thought it would end like this when the worn out old husk that goes by the handle, rama, asked whether we had checked our understanding with a physics teacher.

Learn to read, I asked:

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2016, 01:27:54 PM

1. Have you consulted with a working engineer or physicist on this?

If you have a problem with this, how can you justify posting a link to any information?  You do it frequently.  Oh wait, you are a hypocrite, that's how.

rama, give it up. You already look stupid. If you carry on, you'll be at sokarul's level.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2016, 01:27:54 PM

1. Have you consulted with a working engineer or physicist on this?

If you have a problem with this, how can you justify posting a link to any information?  You do it frequently.  Oh wait, you are a hypocrite, that's how.

Actually, the problem is that PL steadfastly refuses to post any links justifying his position (despite countless requests), because he knows that there are no credible sources on the interwebs that agree with his position.  Essentially, he wants us to take his word for it that he's right.

You are assuming that all physicists agree with you. That is the first fallacy.

Then why don't you find a physicist that disagrees with me?  Shouldn't be that hard.

The second fallacy is that a particular physicists opinion on whether rockets work in the vacuum is no more relevant than mine, or anyone else's. Here is what the rocket expert physicists at nasa have to say:

Quote

Why Does a Rocket Work?
In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.

This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.

-- http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

It's the same crap you losers have been saying. All entirely refuted in the preceding pages.

Are you sure that it isn't your arguments that have been refuted by the rocket science experts?

rama, give it up. You already look stupid. If you carry on, you'll be at sokarul's level.

Should I take your word for it because I have known you for some time?

Another summary:

1. Your standard of evidence for something you agree with is, "I have known this guy for some time, I agree."

2. Your standard of evidence for something you do not agree is, "Empirical evidence that has no other interpretation other than what your position is.  And not from someone who has studied the field for decades, but from you, anonymous web page user."

So we can see clearly that you have no interest in dealing with your obvious biases, yet you insist on claiming it us who are indoctrinated.  Nice.  Have a date for the prom yet by the way?

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 12:15:56 PM

Quote from: legion on February 22, 2016, 11:40:14 AM

At last. The all the experts agree with me fallacy.

Hmm.  Perhaps you missed it when I told PL, but...

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 07:20:44 AM

Appealing to a legitimate authority in the relevant field is not a fallacy. 

In fact, it's a rather sensible thing to do. 

That's why courts of law do it all the time.

Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

You are assuming that all physicists agree with you. That is the first fallacy.

The second fallacy is that a particular physicists opinion on whether rockets work in the vacuum is no more relevant than mine, or anyone else's. Here is what the rocket expert physicists at nasa have to say:

Quote

Why Does a Rocket Work?
In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.

This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.

-- http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

It's the same crap you losers have been saying. All entirely refuted in the preceding pages.

Opinion on wether rockets work or not is irrelevant. There is mountains of evidence that rockets do work in a vacuum and are regularly in use. It's not our fault that you stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la trying to desperately ignore evidence in front of your face.

One major problem with your view of what happens to a rocket in space, it violates conservation of momentum.
You think that the gas leaves the rocket, so it gains momentum, while the rocket stays still.Take the system to be just the gas and rocket, so there are no external objects acting on the system. You now have an isolated system gaining momentum, which is impossible, some object must gain momentum in the opposite direction to the gas'.
Also you stupidly deny that a force can exist between a gas and a solid.

Actually, the problem is that PL steadfastly refuses to post any links justifying his position

I live & die by my own word, markjo.

Not that of others.

That you cannot comprehend this is only to be expected.

Because there is no 'you'.

Anyhoo; got any genuine science or experiments to support your insane claim that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!)?

Nah; of course 'you' ain't.

Look at the shit 'you' come out with:

Opinion on wether rockets work or not is irrelevant.

lol wut?

Or this:

One major problem with your view of what happens to a rocket in space, it violates conservation of momentum

lol wut?

Completely mental the lot of you...

Thus; Carry On Lying!

Opinion on wether rockets work or not is irrelevant. There is mountains of evidence that rockets do work in a vacuum and are regularly in use. It's not our fault that you stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la trying to desperately ignore evidence in front of your face.

I haven't seen any evidence to explain rockets working in a vacuum. It is possible I missed it, so feel free to present it.

You're probably referring to this:

actually there are entire books explaning how rocket works (even in vacuum), how to design them, how to optimize them for he mission and all the other useful knowledge that goes in bulding them an making them work.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 22, 2016, 12:39:48 PM

Opinion on wether rockets work or not is irrelevant. There is mountains of evidence that rockets do work in a vacuum and are regularly in use. It's not our fault that you stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la trying to desperately ignore evidence in front of your face.

I haven't seen any evidence to explain rockets working in a vacuum. It is possible I missed it, so feel free to present it.

You're probably referring to this:

Although it was demonstrated in another thread that vacuums can't exist, so it's a moot point, here is a video of some guy who thinks he's proved that rockets work in a vacuum. View from 12:40 for slow-mo videos of him ALLEGEDLY proving that rockets work just fine a vacuum.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

(Why can't vacuums exist? Simples. The pump is sucking the air out, but the vacuum also sucks air back in through the pump to compensate! Every action has an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE reaction. Ergo, a state of equilibrium is immediately achieved, with NO VACUUM actually existing.)

actually there are entire books explaning how rocket works

There's a lot of books on a lot of subjects.

Are they ALL true?

GTFO, poodle.

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA UNFAIR!

Meh.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 12:29:14 PM

Actually, the problem is that PL steadfastly refuses to post any links justifying his position

I live & die by my own word, markjo.

That's nice, but if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not live or die by your word.

Anyhoo; got any genuine science or experiments to support your insane claim that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!)?

No, because I've never claimed that.

Claiming that a rocket pushes on the mass of its exhaust is a different story, however.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

NO U!!!

Meh.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 01:06:43 PM

NO U!!!

Meh.

Look!  Someone gave you what you asked and you ignored it!  No one is surprised.

Quote from: POODLE on February 22, 2016, 12:56:13 PM

actually there are entire books explaning how rocket works

There's a lot of books on a lot of subjects.

Are they ALL true?

GTFO, poodle.

hope so, often they are the same books used to design the propulsion system of jet planes... like the one used by your father, and the ones most of us take to travel

WAAAAAAAH!!!!! ROCKETS WORK BY FIRING WATER OUT THE BACK!!! WAAAAAAH!!!!!

^Butthurt I ignored its strawman.

^Should stick to gaslighting.

hope so

^Thinks ALL books on ALL subjects are true.

^Retard.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 22, 2016, 12:47:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 12:29:14 PM

Actually, the problem is that PL steadfastly refuses to post any links justifying his position

I live & die by my own word, markjo.

That's nice, but if it's all the same to you, I'd rather not live or die by your word.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 22, 2016, 12:47:37 PM

Anyhoo; got any genuine science or experiments to support your insane claim that a rocket 'pushes on itself' (lol!)?

No, because I've never claimed that.

Claiming that a rocket pushes on the mass of its exhaust is a different story, however.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

The force acting on the bottle comes from the water in the pipe. There is a nail going through the pipe and the bottle. When the nail is released, the external pressure from the water in the pipe causes the bottle to accelerate upwards. How is that relevant to the thread?

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2016, 01:06:43 PM

Claiming that a rocket pushes on the mass of its exhaust is a different story, however.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

The force acting on the bottle comes from the water in the pipe. There is a nail going through the pipe and the bottle. When the nail is released, the external pressure from the water in the pipe causes the bottle to accelerate upwards. How is that relevant to the thread?

Actually, the force acting on the bottle comes from the compressed air inside the bottle pushing against the bottle and the water inside the bottle.  It's relevant because the "external" force is coming from inside the bottle.

yeah, a part from the fact that usually u would pump air in them (the rocket would have been partially filled with water before being pressurized), if is the water in the pipe that propels them, what is the point of having them filled with water? wouldn't have been better just a empty cone with water sprayed at high pressure at the bottom?


i was talking about books about  propulsion, by the way quite hard to know if they are true or false if u don't read them... i can give u a couple of them so u can read them and then report if they lying or not.... eventhough i have a funny feeling u're not a bit interested in how rocket works... afterall u're a construction worker, why should u bother with rocket...

Actually, the force acting on the bottle comes from the compressed air inside the bottle pushing against the bottle and the water inside the bottle.  It's relevant because the "external" force is coming from inside the bottle.

Which has precisely nothing to do with how NASA's 'shpayze-rokkits' function.

Strawman rejected.

Post 19 btw.