Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Tell me how I can see your post as your writing it? You really know nothing about computers either. Do you have to open a steam valve to turn yours on?

Even though I have a real job unlike you. And no I didn't even know a place like this existed. Or there was such anti NASA, anti space trolls about. That's right I had to google shill because I never heard of it in my entire life.

Clearly talking to you. The only idiot on this thread. With little understanding of rockets. Avoids everything or provides made up answers purely on belief.

Interrogation room. Lol. Don't make me laugh.

Now answer my questions.

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Here it is, dumb little shill who just keeps spamming bullshit even though he's been busted as a shill repeatedly...

It was in the exact same post you claimed to be replying to when you were in fact replying to the post I was writing at the time, you utterly, utterly USELESS little shill.

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM

If a rocket pushed of atmosphere. Which it quite clearly does not. Why do they gain thrust with altitude?

Already explained.

But you ignored it.

Because Lying Disinfo-bullshitter.

You may want to check out my last post about the Rak.1 & then learn how nozzles are tuned to specific back-pressures though.

NOW GTFO MY THREAD, LIAR!

Dumb shill? No not really, nor have I claimed to be. Busted as shill? Where. I dont see such evidence other than your claims I can read your computer screen. When really I just made a post about free expansion answering your post from yesterday. You are insane. Seriously.

Papa is finally learning what back pressure is!

Back pressure in a vacuum. Woooo.

Still no sign of that answer though...

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 11, 2016, 11:05:34 AM

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Here it is, dumb little shill who just keeps spamming bullshit even though he's been busted as a shill repeatedly...

It was in the exact same post you claimed to be replying to when you were in fact replying to the post I was writing at the time, you utterly, utterly USELESS little shill.

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 10, 2016, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM

If a rocket pushed of atmosphere. Which it quite clearly does not. Why do they gain thrust with altitude?

Already explained.

But you ignored it.

Because Lying Disinfo-bullshitter.

You may want to check out my last post about the Rak.1 & then learn how nozzles are tuned to specific back-pressures though.

NOW GTFO MY THREAD, LIAR!

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

I'm just going to leave the following two replies as they are.

Because anyone with a brain who has read my posts, then reads these, will know for sure that the person who wrote them is deeply disturbed.

Dumb shill? No not really, nor have I claimed to be. Busted as shill? Where. I dont see such evidence other than your claims I can read your computer screen. When really I just made a post about free expansion answering your post from yesterday. You are insane. Seriously.

Papa is finally learning what back pressure is!

Back pressure in a vacuum. Woooo.

Still no sign of that answer though...

^wtf?

^Has devolved into speaking gibberish now.

^Hi Luckyfred!

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

^wtf?

^Has devolved into creepy psychopathic mirroring.

^Hi Rayzor!

Seems the psychos have completely given up on science & just want to rely on voodoo instead...

Bad move.

Toodle-pip, idiots!

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:28:43 PM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 11, 2016, 11:05:34 AM

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Here it is, dumb little shill who just keeps spamming bullshit even though he's been busted as a shill repeatedly...

It was in the exact same post you claimed to be replying to when you were in fact replying to the post I was writing at the time, you utterly, utterly USELESS little shill.

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 10, 2016, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM

If a rocket pushed of atmosphere. Which it quite clearly does not. Why do they gain thrust with altitude?

Already explained.

But you ignored it.

Because Lying Disinfo-bullshitter.

You may want to check out my last post about the Rak.1 & then learn how nozzles are tuned to specific back-pressures though.

NOW GTFO MY THREAD, LIAR!

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

Alternatively, you could cite an experiment that shows that the atmosphere cannot provide such a force.

The burden of proof is on the thinkers and the indoctrinated.

Find an experiment to prove your position and you win. Off you go.

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on March 11, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:28:43 PM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 11, 2016, 11:05:34 AM

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Here it is, dumb little shill who just keeps spamming bullshit even though he's been busted as a shill repeatedly...

It was in the exact same post you claimed to be replying to when you were in fact replying to the post I was writing at the time, you utterly, utterly USELESS little shill.

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 10, 2016, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM

If a rocket pushed of atmosphere. Which it quite clearly does not. Why do they gain thrust with altitude?

Already explained.

But you ignored it.

Because Lying Disinfo-bullshitter.

You may want to check out my last post about the Rak.1 & then learn how nozzles are tuned to specific back-pressures though.

NOW GTFO MY THREAD, LIAR!

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

Alternatively, you could cite an experiment that shows that the atmosphere cannot provide such a force.

The burden of proof is on the thinkers and the indoctrinated.

Find an experiment to prove your position and you win. Off you go.

Newton's third law is independent of wheter there is atmosphere or not.

Quote from: legion on March 11, 2016, 01:45:45 PM

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on March 11, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:28:43 PM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 11, 2016, 11:05:34 AM

Kindly quote your answer then... I cannot find it.

Here it is, dumb little shill who just keeps spamming bullshit even though he's been busted as a shill repeatedly...

It was in the exact same post you claimed to be replying to when you were in fact replying to the post I was writing at the time, you utterly, utterly USELESS little shill.

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 10, 2016, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM

If a rocket pushed of atmosphere. Which it quite clearly does not. Why do they gain thrust with altitude?

Already explained.

But you ignored it.

Because Lying Disinfo-bullshitter.

You may want to check out my last post about the Rak.1 & then learn how nozzles are tuned to specific back-pressures though.

NOW GTFO MY THREAD, LIAR!

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

Alternatively, you could cite an experiment that shows that the atmosphere cannot provide such a force.

The burden of proof is on the thinkers and the indoctrinated.

Find an experiment to prove your position and you win. Off you go.

Newton's third law is independent of wheter there is atmosphere or not.

What?

Don't bother mate.

I'm giving these idiots enough rope that they'll end up hanging themselves...

I already got em to say that Free Expansion violates COM & that the Free Expansion thought experiment shows a gas pushing on a piston.

They coulda said even more mad bollocks; frankly I don't read most of their shite...

But anyone with even high school physics will be astonished & repelled by the breathtaking lies I mentioned.

It's all under control; they ARE my bitches & I OWN their disinfo-asses.

Always have done.

Like I say: they're just trained in this shit; I was BORN to it.

They're dead men walking; their only hope is to get a fraud-mod in & lock the thread again...

Where is that scumbag tehEnjynerr anyway?

Hey, 'engy baby'; teh Clown Derfers NEEEEEEED YOOOUUUU!!!!

Please come help them, 'engy baby'...

LOL!!!

'engy baby'...

What a prick.

Don't bother mate.

I'm giving these idiots enough rope that they'll end up hanging themselves...

I already got em to say that Free Expansion violates COM & that the Free Expansion thought experiment shows a gas pushing on a piston.

They coulda said even more mad bollocks; frankly I don't read most of their shite...

But anyone with even high school physics will be astonished & repelled by the breathtaking lies I mentioned.

It's all under control; they ARE my bitches & I OWN their disinfo-asses.

Always have done.

Like I say: they're just trained in this shit; I was BORN to it.

They're dead men walking; their only hope is to get a fraud-mod in & lock the thread again...

Where is that scumbag tehEnjynerr anyway?

Hey, 'engy baby'; teh Clown Derfers NEEEEEEED YOOOUUUU!!!!

Please come help them, 'engy baby'...

LOL!!!

'engy baby'...

What a prick.

HAHAHAhahaha this is soooo funny! I can't think of any other reason for you to post such lengthy nonesense other than the idea that you're paid to do it. Either that or you're bumming off your mom and that's how you are still able to pay for stuff after wasting so much of your life.

If there is nothing to push off of in a vacuum please explain who this works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crookes_radiometer.jpg

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?

Thanks for that.

Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.

Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.

And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.

I have NEVER claimed it does.

This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.

And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Quote from: GlobeDebunker on March 11, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

If you're so smart why don't you show us teh szienzz an experimints proving that the force of the atmosphere is what pushes teh rohkkets up? Oh, wait, you don't have any, silly me.

Alternatively, you could cite an experiment that shows that the atmosphere cannot provide such a force.

The burden of proof is on the thinkers and the indoctrinated.

Find an experiment to prove your position and you win. Off you go.

Another monster logic fail, by the pigeons.   No wonder they can't understand the basics,  they can't even think logically.

Rockets have been tested in vacuum chambers and Horror of horrors the work. You can find them on Youtube IF you know how to find the site and then find the videos.

But belief trumps verifiable facts.

I'm giving these idiots enough rope that they'll end up hanging themselves...

I already got em to say that Free Expansion violates COM & that the Free Expansion thought experiment shows a gas pushing on a piston.

I guess you haven't learnt to read yet! Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".
I did say "You simply have to realise that if your interpretation of 'free expansion' contradicts 'Conservation of Momentum', it is your interpretation of 'free expansion' that is wrong, not the 'Conservation of Momentum'.

That is a very different thing! If you can't understand that what chance do you have of understanding the operation of the DeLaval nozzle (that I have on the brain) and super sonic flow in gases (that I also seem to have on the brain).

Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".

Here you go, Stevie Wonder.

It was only a couple of posts above yours.

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?

Thanks for that.

Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.

Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.

And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.

I have NEVER claimed it does.

This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.

And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Why do you all Lie so much?

Why are you all so shit at your jobs?

Who cares?

It's super-lulzy for me!

Toodle-pip, Losing Liars!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 11, 2016, 05:43:48 PM

Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".

Here you go, Stevie Wonder.

It was only a couple of posts above yours.

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:00:53 PM

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?

Thanks for that.

Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.

Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.

And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.

I have NEVER claimed it does.

This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.

And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Why do you all Lie so much?

Why are you all so shit at your jobs?

Who cares?

It's super-lulzy for me!

Toodle-pip, Losing Liars!

Wow you really can't read.   That's a handicap you'll have trouble with.    The comment you are going bonkers about, is pointing out the error in YOUR logic not the reverse. 

Are all conspiracy wankers so bad at simple logic,  or is it just Papa?

LOL!!!

You answered my post within 6 minutes with this garbage:

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 10:52:12 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 11, 2016, 05:43:48 PM

Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".

Here you go, Stevie Wonder.

It was only a couple of posts above yours.

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:00:53 PM

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?

Thanks for that.

Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.

Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.

And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.

I have NEVER claimed it does.

This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.

And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Why do you all Lie so much?

Why are you all so shit at your jobs?

Who cares?

It's super-lulzy for me!

Toodle-pip, Losing Liars!

Wow you really can't read.   That's a handicap you'll have trouble with.    The comment you are going bonkers about, is pointing out the error in YOUR logic not the reverse. 

Are all conspiracy wankers so bad at simple logic,  or is it just Papa?

Rabinoz clearly Lied about Empirical's Lies...

Then Rayzor the stalking sock-poopet shill & blackmailed slave turns up within minutes to Lie about Rabinoz Lying about Empirical's Lies...

Where will all the lying end?

It'll be soooper-doooooper Luzy finding out!

Told ya; give em enough rope...

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooodle-pip, Lying Circlejerk Monk-Chain of Shills!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 11, 2016, 05:43:48 PM

Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".

Here you go, Stevie Wonder.
It was only a couple of posts above yours.

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:00:53 PM

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?
Thanks for that.
Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.
Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.
And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.
I have NEVER claimed it does.
This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.
And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Learn that as well reading,  you need to understand the meaning of what is written! It is pretty obvious that when  empirical said "It does violate conservation of momentum." meant that your rubbishy ideas violate COM.

And, in any case I did not lie,  with your pages full of garbage I simply did not see that!

If you can't understand the operation of the DeLaval nozzle (that I have on the brain) and super sonic flow in gases (that I also seem to have on the brain).We do find it a bit odd that you never answer any questions we ask! I guess that is because you really know nothing at all and just parrot the words "free expansion in a vacuum". If we press a certain trigger out pops another copy of the same old rubbish. Maybe "Conservation of Momentum" is one or is it "DeLaval nozzle"? Really I think it anything you don't understand!

LOL!!!

I did answer his deliberately incorrectly-phrased bullshit question.

But now you're pretending I didn't too...

Of course, there's no way you're just another sock-puppet shill gang-stalking me with strawman bullshit & lies, is there?

After all, you personally saw teh Ecks-fifteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen & played mother-hen to a nest of Atom bombs, didn't you?

And you have the most not-at-all-made-up-by-an-AI-program name on the forum too.

Just LMFAO at how lame & shit at your jobs you all are!

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?

Who the fuck do you think would fall for a single word of your bullshit?

I swear to God I would LOVE to get you in an interrogation room to hear you try this pompous gobshite schtick to my face...

Now THAT really would be fun!

Toodle-pip, worst disinfo-agents in teh 'Rowndd annd Prwowd' world!

Interrogate me? Why so I can laugh myself to death?  You're entertaining, I'l give you that.

I grew up with Space Program. I lived in not 10 miles from the Rocketdyne (later North American Rockwell) Santa Susanna Engine Test Facility in hills above of Simi Valley. My Dad, worked at Rocketdyne, I had the engine drawings the whole 9 yards. I understood more about rockets by age 10 than you ever will.

As for nukes, I've got an Air Force DD214 I'll bring to the interrogation, which of course you will immediately declare a CGI forgery. All evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy must at all cost be declared fake.

So I'll give you credit that you are also predictable too.

Might as well give you one more thing to build your stress levels so you can vent here.  My IQ is 132

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 09:54:13 AM

LOL!!!

I did answer his deliberately incorrectly-phrased bullshit question.

But now you're pretending I didn't too...

Of course, there's no way you're just another sock-puppet shill gang-stalking me with strawman bullshit & lies, is there?

After all, you personally saw teh Ecks-fifteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen & played mother-hen to a nest of Atom bombs, didn't you?

And you have the most not-at-all-made-up-by-an-AI-program name on the forum too.

Just LMFAO at how lame & shit at your jobs you all are!

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?

Who the fuck do you think would fall for a single word of your bullshit?

I swear to God I would LOVE to get you in an interrogation room to hear you try this pompous gobshite schtick to my face...

Now THAT really would be fun!

Toodle-pip, worst disinfo-agents in teh 'Rowndd annd Prwowd' world!

Interrogate me? Why so I can laugh myself to death?  You're entertaining, I'l give you that.

I grew up with Space Program. I lived in not 10 miles from the Rocketdyne (later North American Rockwell) Santa Susanna Engine Test Facility in hills above of Simi Valley. My Dad, worked at Rocketdyne, I had the engine drawings the whole 9 yards. I understood more about rockets by age 10 than you ever will.

As for nukes, I've got an Air Force DD214 I'll bring to the interrogation, which of course you will immediately declare a CGI forgery. All evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy must at all cost be declared fake.

So I'll give you credit that you are also predictable too.

Might as well give you one more thing to build your stress levels so you can vent here.  My IQ is 132

Just stop feeding him, would be better if we all just blocked him?

Papa is nothing but a troll, a troll with some serious issues (check his latest 'walls are closing in' I'm being watched thread)

Don't bother mate.

I'm giving these idiots enough rope that they'll end up hanging themselves...

I already got em to say that Free Expansion violates COM & that the Free Expansion thought experiment shows a gas pushing on a piston.

They coulda said even more mad bollocks; frankly I don't read most of their shite...

But anyone with even high school physics will be astonished & repelled by the breathtaking lies I mentioned.

It's all under control; they ARE my bitches & I OWN their disinfo-asses.

Always have done.

Like I say: they're just trained in this shit; I was BORN to it.

They're dead men walking; their only hope is to get a fraud-mod in & lock the thread again...

You tell 'em, Poppa!

One day these idiots will realise that thrust is only ever created right at the EXIT of the NOZZLE and NOWHERE ELSE. Exhaust molecule hits an atmospheric gas molecule, creating a force pairing that causes the rocket to move!

It's so blindingly obvious!

The molecules of gas don't have to touch the nozzle at all in order to create a thrust on the rocket, it is the simple interaction between 2 gas particles, right at the EXIT of the NOZZLE, that causes rockets to work in an atmosphere, because Poppa-fysics! 

How can these goons not see the truth that's slapping them in the face!

Any idiot who says that ANY gas molecule in the raging stream of superheated and expanding gases can EVER touch the nozzle is quite simply an idiot.

Because, Poppa-Physics!

I luuuurve Poppa-Physics, Poppa. But most of all, I luuurve you.

Just stop feeding him, would be better if we all just blocked him?

Papa is nothing but a troll, a troll with some serious issues (check his latest 'walls are closing in' I'm being watched thread)

Nah, with a seemingly pathological need for him to get the last word, it's fun to watch what he's typing up next.

Oops, I mean type up next.

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on March 12, 2016, 04:55:34 AM

Just stop feeding him, would be better if we all just blocked him?

Papa is nothing but a troll, a troll with some serious issues (check his latest 'walls are closing in' I'm being watched thread)

Nah, with a seemingly pathological need for him to get the last word, it's fun to watch what he's typing up next.

Oops, I mean type up next.

Nexus, I agree with you. He SHOULD be ignored, but...

I found this site by accident while researching Lunar Landmarks for my new book. (I write Sci-Fi, though I do have a post apocalyptic story out too) when I saw a video pop up and had to take a look. so here I am.

I need a minor  antagonist and I need to understand him so I can write him well. Yeah, that is a problem. If I write him as is... No one is going to believe the character and the reviews will kill the book.

So I need to feed him and others. I need to understand them better. (Other than them being BSC.)

*Yawn!*

Get caught lying...

Pretend it never happened...

Turn the page...

Carry on Lying.

That is the Clown Derfer way.

Again; behold the Lies:

LOL!!!

You answered my post within 6 minutes with this garbage:

Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2016, 10:58:55 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 10:52:12 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 11, 2016, 05:43:48 PM

Noone that I saw said "Free Expansion violates COM".

Here you go, Stevie Wonder.

It was only a couple of posts above yours.

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:00:53 PM

Quote from: Empirical on March 11, 2016, 04:21:55 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on March 11, 2016, 12:16:43 AM

Quote from: Empirical on March 10, 2016, 03:00:10 PM

If gas doesn't conserve momentum then it has to be wrong.

Hi Mainframes! So the 'Empirical' ID is another GP sock-poopet that any of you Clowns can use too?

Thanks for that.

Anyhoo; yet again you are attributing things to me that I never said.

Even though Conservation of Energy is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, they both amount to the same thing.

And Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum violates NEITHER.

I have NEVER claimed it does.

This is all thoroughly-established, repeatedly experimentally-verified scientific FACT.

And it all adds up to NASA's gas-powered rockets not working in a vacuum.

It does violate conservation of momentum. The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

This wasn't answered.

Why do you all Lie so much?

Why are you all so shit at your jobs?

Who cares?

It's super-lulzy for me!

Toodle-pip, Losing Liars!

Wow you really can't read.   That's a handicap you'll have trouble with.    The comment you are going bonkers about, is pointing out the error in YOUR logic not the reverse. 

Are all conspiracy wankers so bad at simple logic,  or is it just Papa?

Rabinoz clearly Lied about Empirical's Lies...

Then Rayzor the stalking sock-poopet shill & blackmailed slave turns up within minutes to Lie about Rabinoz Lying about Empirical's Lies...

Where will all the lying end?

It'll be soooper-doooooper Luzy finding out!

Told ya; give em enough rope...

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooodle-pip, Lying Circlejerk Monk-Chain of Shills!

I grew up with Space Program. I lived in not 10 miles from the Rocketdyne (later North American Rockwell) Santa Susanna Engine Test Facility in hills above of Simi Valley. My Dad, worked at Rocketdyne, I had the engine drawings the whole 9 yards. I understood more about rockets by age 10 than you ever will.

As for nukes, I've got an Air Force DD214 I'll bring to the interrogation, which of course you will immediately declare a CGI forgery. All evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy must at all cost be declared fake.

O rly?

(I write Sci-Fi, though I do have a post apocalyptic story out too)

LOL!!!

I truly could not make this shit up...

Give em enough rope!

Quote

The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

Still no answer, hint, begins with R end ends in T.

Another hint, begins with roc, ends with ket.

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 12, 2016, 04:50:30 AM

I grew up with Space Program. I lived in not 10 miles from the Rocketdyne (later North American Rockwell) Santa Susanna Engine Test Facility in hills above of Simi Valley. My Dad, worked at Rocketdyne, I had the engine drawings the whole 9 yards. I understood more about rockets by age 10 than you ever will.

As for nukes, I've got an Air Force DD214 I'll bring to the interrogation, which of course you will immediately declare a CGI forgery. All evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy must at all cost be declared fake.

O rly?

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 12, 2016, 07:18:59 AM

(I write Sci-Fi, though I do have a post apocalyptic story out too)

LOL!!!

I truly could not make this shit up...

Give em enough rope!

http://starflightpublishing.weebly.com/my-books.html   

You were saying?

The gas leaving the rocket can only leave it in the direction of the hole, so the gas will momentum in the direction of the hole, so for conservation of momentum to be satisfied something must gain momentum in the opposite direction, I wonder what that could be?

^lol.

^Hope there's a few genuine scientists reading this garbage.

^Also doesn't realise I already addressed this.

^Will let it rage a bit more before showing it the relevant post though...

^Cos giving em enough rope to hang emselves.

http://starflightpublishing.weebly.com/my-books.html   

You were saying?

I already know you write science-fiction, aspie.

Look; here it is:

I grew up with Space Program. I lived in not 10 miles from the Rocketdyne (later North American Rockwell) Santa Susanna Engine Test Facility in hills above of Simi Valley. My Dad, worked at Rocketdyne, I had the engine drawings the whole 9 yards. I understood more about rockets by age 10 than you ever will.

As for nukes, I've got an Air Force DD214 I'll bring to the interrogation, which of course you will immediately declare a CGI forgery. All evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy must at all cost be declared fake.

Cool story bro...

Though in typical aspie style you don't seem alive to the nuances of human emotion, do you?

Like sarcasm, irony or even a straight LMFAO right in your dumb face...

Toodle-pip, Aspies & Usefully Useless Idiots!

So you are saying gas can leave through a hole without moving towards the hole first, Papa logic at its best.