Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM

Oh G force as acceleration is easy.

Lets just forget about gravity for a second.

1g is an acceleration (change of direction or velocity) of 9.8m/s².

2g is an acceleration of 19.6m/s².

3g is an acceleration of 29.4m/s².

Etc.

This is easily measured and tested.

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html

This means that it's doing 300 miles per minute, or 5 miles per second.

Or to make it in metres, we have it accelerating at 8045 metres per second.

or around 83 g when you factor in the 9.8m/s/s.

Is this correct?
Am I missing something here?

This is not correct. in order to calculate the amount of G's you need to know how much time it takes for the schuttle to reach this speed. try it in your car. accelerate from 0 to 100 kph in 100 seconds
and then try it again but now in 10 seconds, you would feel quite a difference.

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM

Oh G force as acceleration is easy.

Lets just forget about gravity for a second.

1g is an acceleration (change of direction or velocity) of 9.8m/s².

2g is an acceleration of 19.6m/s².

3g is an acceleration of 29.4m/s².

Etc.

This is easily measured and tested.

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html

This means that it's doing 300 miles per minute, or 5 miles per second.

Or to make it in metres, we have it accelerating at 8045 metres per second.

or around 83 g when you factor in the 9.8m/s/s.

Is this correct?
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the part where velocity is equal to starting velocity plus acceleration times time (v = u + a * t).  The shuttle took about 8 minutes or so to get into orbit at an average acceleration of about 3g.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2017, 03:14:36 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM

Oh G force as acceleration is easy.

Lets just forget about gravity for a second.

1g is an acceleration (change of direction or velocity) of 9.8m/s².

2g is an acceleration of 19.6m/s².

3g is an acceleration of 29.4m/s².

Etc.

This is easily measured and tested.

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html

This means that it's doing 300 miles per minute, or 5 miles per second.

Or to make it in metres, we have it accelerating at 8045 metres per second.

or around 83 g when you factor in the 9.8m/s/s.

Is this correct?
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the part where velocity is equal to starting velocity plus acceleration times time (v = u + a * t).  The shuttle took about 8 minutes or so to get into orbit at an average acceleration of about 3g.

how did you get that? If I use your formula then:
V = 28968(km/h) /  3,6 = 8047(m/s)
U = 0
t  = 8 * 60 = 480s
a = (8047 - 0) / 480 = 16,76 m/s^2 which is quite deadly.

16.76m/s² is deadly?

Not even 2gs.

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Ok, not accelerating instantly to that but I'm talking about the G's like we are told.

Let's look at a jet going ballistic.
It starts off going at 9.8m/s which is supposedly 1g, right?
So 19.6m/s is 2g, right?
And 29.4m/s is 3 g.
Am I right from this point?
Is this how it's measured?

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:22:56 AM

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Ok, not accelerating instantly to that but I'm talking about the G's like we are told.

Let's look at a jet going ballistic.
It starts off going at 9.8m/s which is supposedly 1g, right?
So 19.6m/s is 2g, right?
And 29.4m/s is 3 g.
Am I right from this point?
Is this how it's measured?

Unit of acceleration is m/s^2. Unit of speed is m/s. Velocity means speed with a direction (a vector).
You shouldn't talk about such matters if you don't understand any basics. Educate yourself first.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2017, 08:35:30 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:22:56 AM

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Ok, not accelerating instantly to that but I'm talking about the G's like we are told.

Let's look at a jet going ballistic.
It starts off going at 9.8m/s which is supposedly 1g, right?
So 19.6m/s is 2g, right?
And 29.4m/s is 3 g.
Am I right from this point?
Is this how it's measured?

Unit of acceleration is m/s^2. Unit of speed is m/s. Velocity means speed with a direction (a vector).
You shouldn't talk about such matters if you don't understand any basics. Educate yourself first.

Let's deal with the acceleration and play an honest game.

Acceleration to 1 g is 9.8m/s/s, right?
To stay at 1 g I must keep accelerating at 9.8m/s/s then 9.9m/s/s then 10/m/s/s until I reach 19.6 m/s of which I hit 2g and then I go to 19.7m/s/s then 19.8m/s/s and so on until I reach 29.4m/s/s to get to 3g and then 29.5 m/s/s and so on until I reach 39.2m/s/s, then 39.3ms/s and so on...accelerating all the time, until I reach an acceleration approaching 4g then 5 g and so on and so on.

Tell me where I'm wrong?

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:21:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2017, 08:35:30 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:22:56 AM

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Ok, not accelerating instantly to that but I'm talking about the G's like we are told.

Let's look at a jet going ballistic.
It starts off going at 9.8m/s which is supposedly 1g, right?
So 19.6m/s is 2g, right?
And 29.4m/s is 3 g.
Am I right from this point?
Is this how it's measured?

Unit of acceleration is m/s^2. Unit of speed is m/s. Velocity means speed with a direction (a vector).
You shouldn't talk about such matters if you don't understand any basics. Educate yourself first.

Let's deal with the acceleration and play an honest game.

Acceleration to 1 g is 9.8m/s/s, right?
To stay at 1 g I must keep accelerating at 9.8m/s/s then 9.9m/s/s then 10/m/s/s until I reach 19.6 m/s of which I hit 2g and then I go to 19.7m/s/s then 19.8m/s/s and so on until I reach 29.4m/s/s to get to 3g and then 29.5 m/s/s and so on until I reach 39.2m/s/s, then 39.3ms/s and so on...accelerating all the time, until I reach an acceleration approaching 4g then 5 g and so on and so on.

Tell me where I'm wrong?

You don't have to keep increasing your acceleration in order to keep increasing your speed.

Let's say you have a constant acceleration of 2g which is 19.6 m/s/s. Then:

After 1 second your speed will be 19.6 m/s.
After 2 seconds your speed will be 39.2 m/s.
After 3 seconds your speed will be 58.8 m/s.
...
After 7 minutes your speed will be 8232 m/s.

So the shuttle could reach its required speed in about 7 minutes without exceeding 2g.

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:21:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2017, 08:35:30 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:22:56 AM

It's the ² part, no disrespect.

8045 metres per second is a measurement of velocity.

Accelerating at 8045m/s² would instantly kill you.

If you wanted to get fancy you could work out how long it would take to get to 8045 metres per second accelerating at say 3gs.

Ok, not accelerating instantly to that but I'm talking about the G's like we are told.

Let's look at a jet going ballistic.
It starts off going at 9.8m/s which is supposedly 1g, right?
So 19.6m/s is 2g, right?
And 29.4m/s is 3 g.
Am I right from this point?
Is this how it's measured?

Unit of acceleration is m/s^2. Unit of speed is m/s. Velocity means speed with a direction (a vector).
You shouldn't talk about such matters if you don't understand any basics. Educate yourself first.

Let's deal with the acceleration and play an honest game.

Acceleration to 1 g is 9.8m/s/s, right?
To stay at 1 g I must keep accelerating at 9.8m/s/s then 9.9m/s/s then 10/m/s/s until I reach 19.6 m/s of which I hit 2g and then I go to 19.7m/s/s then 19.8m/s/s and so on until I reach 29.4m/s/s to get to 3g and then 29.5 m/s/s and so on until I reach 39.2m/s/s, then 39.3ms/s and so on...accelerating all the time, until I reach an acceleration approaching 4g then 5 g and so on and so on.

Tell me where I'm wrong?

You don't have a clue about basic physics, don't you?

Acceleration​ is the rate of speed change.
If a car starts moving and after 1 s it moves at 10 m/s we have an acceleration of 10 m/s/s.  After 2 s it moves at 20 m/s and so on.

Dont be a dick Gumby.

Dont be a dick Gumby.

We all know Gumby is over compensating for something

We're talking about diks now?

Okay

I've got tw-

PS: Gumby that was pretty mean.

Lol...I actually meant he uses anger to compensate for lack of intelligence ha ha ha..

Didn't even mean it like that, funny though

Let's deal with the acceleration and play an honest game.

Why don't we start with you telling us your understanding of speed, velocity and acceleration?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 21, 2017, 10:51:36 PM

Do you really claim that "the centrifuge is using atmosphere to push you away from the centre?", surely not.
Atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the case. It just gets in the way, causing unwanted drag.
Of course, a person in a centrifuge needs air to breathe.
That is quite absurd. Why are vacuum centrifuges common in biological labs?

Go buy yourself one at RVC 2-18 Rotational Vacuum Concentrator System Configuration 1, ready to use package.

It does not use a very low pressure Process Vacuum depending on pump system, maximum <0.1 mbar,
but it still can be used at less than ¹/_10,000 of normal atmospheric pressure.

A near vacuum is used simply to reduce the air resistance on the spinning samples

and has no effect at all on the "push . . . . away from the centre"

That is affected only by the radius and the speed of rotation.

Harp on all you want but you can prove it yourself, but won't.

I've done the tests and centrifugal force almost ceases to exists inside an atmospheric evacuation chamber.
Would you like me to explain what you need to do to prove yourself wrong?

If you're honest, come back to me and I'll tell you how to set up a simple experiment .
As long as you have a chamber for evacuating pressure, you can perform the experiment that shows you that atmosphere is the root cause and effect of everything that happens on Earth, but for this experiment of centrifugal force, you can see it with your own eyes.
Let me know if you would like me to explain how to set up this simple task.

Anyone else want to try it out? Just ask me for details and go and do the test. You'll get a surprise if you're honest and if you aren't honest, you'll simply deny what's happening.

You've done this experiment?  Surely you filmed it and can show us.  It would be great to see some experimental work to support your model.

@OP: no they don't. Rockets are engineered for and work in atmospheric conditions.

Assuming they work using the same mechanism in absence of an atmosphere is like wanting a submarine to behave like an airplane.

No such thing.

@OP: no they don't. Rockets are engineered for and work in atmospheric conditions.

Assuming they work using the same mechanism in absence of an atmosphere is like wanting a submarine to behave like an airplane.

No such thing.

I see that you are still using Poppy Leghorn Fizix,
An aeroplane is designed to fly in the atmosphere and can't get into space - except a hybrid with a rocket engine like the X-15.
A space rocket is designed to fly in space and "flounders" a bit in the atmosphere - at least it does not achieve its best thrust.

Just possibley SpaceX might know these things.

SPACEX, Falcon 9, FIRST STAGE
Falcon 9’s first stage incorporates nine Merlin engines and aluminum-lithium alloy tanks containing liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellant. After ignition, a hold-before-release system ensures that all engines are verified for full-thrust performance before the rocket is released for flight. Then, with thrust greater than five 747s at full power, the Merlin engines launch the rocket to space. Unlike airplanes, a rocket's thrust actually increases with altitude; Falcon 9 generates more than 1.7 million pounds of thrust at sea level but gets up to over 1.8 million pounds of thrust in the vacuum of space. The first stage engines are gradually throttled near the end of first-stage flight to limit launch vehicle acceleration as the rocket’s mass decreases with the burning of fuel.

ENGINES BURN TIME THRUST AT SEA LEVEL THRUST IN VACUUM

9 162 sec 7,607kN 1,710,000 lbf 8,227kN 1,849,500 lbf

Yes rocket engines, as opposed to pistons engines, turbo props or turbe jet engines, work better in a vacuum.

And Gaia_Rotunda doesn't believe it .

What would one expect someone whose expertise  is fumbling in the dirt to know about space?

@OP: no they don't. Rockets are engineered for and work in atmospheric conditions.

Assuming they work using the same mechanism in absence of an atmosphere is like wanting a submarine to behave like an airplane.

No such thing.

Actually, submarines behave like airplanes in more ways that you might think.  For example, both airplanes and submarines are designed to operate in fluid environments and their engines use those fluids as reaction masses to propel themselves.

Rockets, on the other hand, must carry all of their reaction mass with them.  The upshot is that the vast majority of a rocket's mass is propellant while submarines and airplanes can get by with far smaller percentages of their overall mass being fuel.

Submarines were and are designed to function in the physical environment they work well in.

Same for airplanes you wouldn't want to function under water.

Rockets are a military "invention" designed for atmospheric conditions.

They (nor anything else) don't do well without it.

The OP didn't ask anything about the environment that rockets operate in.  He only asked if rockets accelerate or if they travel at a constant speed while going into the sky.

You don't have to keep increasing your acceleration in order to keep increasing your speed.

Let's say you have a constant acceleration of 2g which is 19.6 m/s/s. Then:

After 1 second your speed will be 19.6 m/s.
After 2 seconds your speed will be 39.2 m/s.
After 3 seconds your speed will be 58.8 m/s.
...
After 7 minutes your speed will be 8232 m/s.

So the shuttle could reach its required speed in about 7 minutes without exceeding 2g.

That's what I mentioned.
What I don't get is the no change in g-force.

I don't agree with g-force to start with but for this particular conundrum, I fail to see how g-force stays constant with acceleration.

Maybe it's just me not understanding just how magical this g-force is, eh?

16.76m/s² is deadly?

Not even 2gs.

Yes sorry, you are right, I was confused for a second, thinking of 16,76G instead of 16,76m/s²
Nevermind

You don't have a clue about basic physics, don't you?

Acceleration​ is the rate of speed change.
If a car starts moving and after 1 s it moves at 10 m/s we have an acceleration of 10 m/s/s.  After 2 s it moves at 20 m/s and so on.

That depends on what those basics physics convey and how the story-line goes with how they tend to work.
Yes, it moves faster and faster due to acceleration.
By my reckoning, the more acceleration you build up, the more pressure upon your body. If this isn't correct then fill me in.

Quote from: Gumby on March 28, 2017, 02:52:25 PM

You don't have a clue about basic physics, don't you?

Acceleration​ is the rate of speed change.
If a car starts moving and after 1 s it moves at 10 m/s we have an acceleration of 10 m/s/s.  After 2 s it moves at 20 m/s and so on.

That depends on what those basics physics convey and how the story-line goes with how they tend to work.
Yes, it moves faster and faster due to acceleration.
By my reckoning, the more acceleration you build up, the more pressure upon your body. If this isn't correct then fill me in.

That is correct

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2017, 09:59:00 AM

Let's deal with the acceleration and play an honest game.

Why don't we start with you telling us your understanding of speed, velocity and acceleration?

Ok, speed is the distance covered in a time frame.
Velocity is speed in any given direction.
Acceleration Is a mixture of the two aforementioned.


It's the acceleration that I'm dealing with.
If  car starts off at 10 mph and moves along at a constant 10mph then his speed is going to be 10 miles covered in 1 hours travelling.
This is NOT what I want to know.

If  car starts off at 10mph and builds it's speed every second up to 11 mph then 12 mph and never slowing and never staying at a constant speed, except always accelerating, then I expect a force to build up on a person driving that car and I expect that force to increase as the acceleration increases the mph.

If I had an open top car with no windshield/screen and kept on accelerating, I'd expect to have my face stretched as the wind hits the skin at ever increasing friction as I drive into the atmosphere in front of me.

In time at a certain acceleration, assuming it was possible to happen, I'd expect to have my face peeled of skin and my head ripped off and the car disintegrate.
Put the roof back on and I am in a pressure environment. A g-force environment that you people rely on.
Of course, I'm sure this won't be the case and there will be reasons why g-force doesn't work this way.

Transfer that to a rocket and a person in that rocket and accelerating to get to a supposed end speed of 18,000 miles per hour and you're not just dead, you don't have a rocket to be dead inside of.

That's how nonsensical it all is and people are duped to all hell about this g-force in the way it works.

You've done this experiment?  Surely you filmed it and can show us.  It would be great to see some experimental work to support your model.

Don;t worry about my model. Do the experiment yourself if you want to find the truth and if not, then no problem.
I'm not interested in you to bother showing you anything. Use your own brain and try your own stuff...or you can spend more months telling me I haven't done any experiments and my model is shit. It's entirely up to you.

@OP: no they don't. Rockets are engineered for and work in atmospheric conditions.

Assuming they work using the same mechanism in absence of an atmosphere is like wanting a submarine to behave like an airplane.

No such thing.

I totally agree.
I know they don't exist in how they tell us. I'm 100% sure of that.
However, I'm just trying to see if people can see past the duping of what's given out about them, because tehre are some genuine people among the shills and nasties, who will eventually (after a struggle) release their minds to find a truth or at least look for it.

It's the acceleration that I'm dealing with.
If  car starts off at 10 mph and moves along at a constant 10mph then his speed is going to be 10 miles covered in 1 hours travelling.
This is NOT what I want to know.

correct

If  car starts off at 10mph and builds it's speed every second up to 11 mph then 12 mph and never slowing and never staying at a constant speed, except always accelerating, then I expect a force to build up on a person driving that car and I expect that force to increase as the acceleration increases the mph.

not correct. speed increases. acceleration is constant 1m/s^2 no force will build up on a person, you will feel a force on your body corresponding with the acceleration of 1m/s^2, but this force will not increase.

If I had an open top car with no windshield/screen and kept on accelerating, I'd expect to have my face stretched as the wind hits the skin at ever increasing friction as I drive into the atmosphere in front of me.

this is a quite different phenomena. if the speed doubles, the air resistance will be 4 times as great. this has nothing to do with acceleration. you would feel the same face stretching feeling if you were travelling at constant top speed (without accelerating) and then kicking off your windshield.

In time at a certain acceleration, assuming it was possible to happen, I'd expect to have my face peeled of skin and my head ripped off and the car disintegrate.
Put the roof back on and I am in a pressure environment. A g-force environment that you people rely on.
Of course, I'm sure this won't be the case and there will be reasons why g-force doesn't work this way.

like said, this has nothing to do with g-forces

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2017, 12:11:46 AM

It's the acceleration that I'm dealing with.
If  car starts off at 10 mph and moves along at a constant 10mph then his speed is going to be 10 miles covered in 1 hours travelling.
This is NOT what I want to know.

correct

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2017, 12:11:46 AM

If  car starts off at 10mph and builds it's speed every second up to 11 mph then 12 mph and never slowing and never staying at a constant speed, except always accelerating, then I expect a force to build up on a person driving that car and I expect that force to increase as the acceleration increases the mph.

not correct. speed increases. acceleration is constant 1m/s^2 no force will build up on a person, you will feel a force on your body corresponding with the acceleration of 1m/s^2, but this force will not increase.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2017, 12:11:46 AM

If I had an open top car with no windshield/screen and kept on accelerating, I'd expect to have my face stretched as the wind hits the skin at ever increasing friction as I drive into the atmosphere in front of me.

this is a quite different phenomena. if the speed doubles, the air resistance will be 4 times as great. this has nothing to do with acceleration. you would feel the same face stretching feeling if you were travelling at constant top speed (without accelerating) and then kicking off your windshield.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2017, 12:11:46 AM

In time at a certain acceleration, assuming it was possible to happen, I'd expect to have my face peeled of skin and my head ripped off and the car disintegrate.
Put the roof back on and I am in a pressure environment. A g-force environment that you people rely on.
Of course, I'm sure this won't be the case and there will be reasons why g-force doesn't work this way.

like said, this has nothing to do with g-forces

So what is acceleration?

Just simply tell me what acceleration is.