If you think gravity is a lie, how do you explain this?

I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following link

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0

When you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat? 

Quote from: InFlatEarth on February 01, 2018, 05:32:32 AM

I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following link

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0

When you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?

To have temperature and heat convection you need an atmosphere, are you saying the space is not a vacuum and thus has an atmosphere?

If you are, then I will admit that rockets and satellites can travel in space with rocket power, but then you have to deal if the material will melt in those conditions.

Do you want to go down this road?

I don't think so!

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 01, 2018, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on February 01, 2018, 05:32:32 AM

I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following link

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0

When you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?

To have temperature and heat convection you need an atmosphere, are you saying the space is not a vacuum and thus has an atmosphere?

If you are, then I will admit that rockets and satellites can travel in space with rocket power, but then you have to deal if the material will melt in those conditions.

Do you want to go down this road?

I don't think so!

This is some article that "goes down this road":
(There you can read about the nozzle too.)

For efficiency reasons, and because they physically can, rockets run with combustion temperatures that can reach ~3,500 K (~3,200 °C or ~5,800 °F).

Most other jet engines have gas turbines in the hot exhaust. Due to their larger surface area, they are harder to cool and hence there is a need to run the combustion processes at much lower temperatures, losing efficiency. In addition, duct engines use air as an oxidant, which contains 78% largely unreactive nitrogen, which dilutes the reaction and lowers the temperatures.[6] Rockets have none of these inherent disadvantages.

Therefore, temperatures used in rockets are very often far higher than the melting point of the nozzle and combustion chamber materials (~1,200 K for copper). Two exceptions are graphite and tungsten, although both are subject to oxidation if not protected. Indeed, many construction materials can make perfectly acceptable propellants in their own right. It is important that these materials be prevented from combusting, melting or vaporising to the point of failure. This is sometimes somewhat facetiously termed an "engine-rich exhaust". Materials technology could potentially place an upper limit on the exhaust temperature of chemical rockets.

Alternatively, rockets may use more common construction materials such as aluminium, steel, nickel or copper alloys and employ cooling systems that prevent the construction material itself becoming too hot. Regenerative cooling, where the propellant is passed through tubes around the combustion chamber or nozzle, and other techniques, such as curtain cooling or film cooling, are employed to give longer nozzle and chamber life. These techniques ensure that a gaseous thermal boundary layer touching the material is kept below the temperature which would cause the material to catastrophically fail.

In rockets, the heat fluxes that can pass through the wall are among the highest in engineering; fluxes are generally in the range of 1-200 MW/m2. The strongest heat fluxes are found at the throat, which often sees twice that found in the associated chamber and nozzle. This is due to the combination of high speeds (which gives a very thin boundary layer), and although lower than the chamber, the high temperatures seen there. (See rocket nozzles above for temperatures in nozzle).

In rockets the coolant methods include:

uncooled (used for short runs mainly during testing)
ablative walls (walls are lined with a material that is continuously vaporised and carried away).
radiative cooling (the chamber becomes almost white hot and radiates the heat away)
dump cooling (a propellant, usually hydrogen, is passed around the chamber and dumped)
regenerative cooling (liquid rockets use the fuel, or occasionally the oxidiser, to cool the chamber via a cooling jacket before being injected)
curtain cooling (propellant injection is arranged so the temperature of the gases is cooler at the walls)
film cooling (surfaces are wetted with liquid propellant, which cools as it evaporates)
In all cases the cooling effect that prevents the wall from being destroyed is caused by a thin layer of insulating fluid (a boundary layer) that is in contact with the walls that is far cooler than the combustion temperature. Provided this boundary layer is intact the wall will not be damaged.

Disruption of the boundary layer may occur during cooling failures or combustion instabilities, and wall failure typically occurs soon after.

With regenerative cooling a second boundary layer is found in the coolant channels around the chamber. This boundary layer thickness needs to be as small as possible, since the boundary layer acts as an insulator between the wall and the coolant. This may be achieved by making the coolant velocity in the channels as high as possible.

In practice, regenerative cooling is nearly always used in conjunction with curtain cooling and/or film cooling.

Liquid-fuelled engines are often run fuel-rich, which lowers combustion temperatures. This reduces heat loads on the engine and allows lower cost materials and a simplified cooling system. This can also increase performance by lowering the average molecular weight of the exhaust and increasing the efficiency with which combustion heat is converted to kinetic exhaust energy.

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine)

Quote

What about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)

The ground has matter, atmosphere has matter, vacuum has NO matter, thus nothing can push back. Is their an opposite reaction to the satellite in a vacuum?

Incorrect!
The rocket is pushed by the reaction with the massive amount of burnt fuel forced out at very high velocity.

You claim that you understand science - well clearly you do not, so go study Physics 101.
This might be a start: The Physics Classroom » Physics Tutorial » Momentum and Its Conservation, Momentum and Its Conservation
No mention of friction being needed.
In fact, friction gets in the way, when a rocket is moving in the atmosphere,

• drag reduces the nett forward thrust and
• atmospheric pressure reduces the thrust of the rocket.

Rockets work better in a vacuum.

You might also try: Lumen Boundless Physics, Rocket Propulsion, Changing Mass, and Momentum.

And when you get past Physics 101 you could try: Force and Momentum, Thrust of a Rocket but it does have awful sums and things!

I'll finish with just a little note on just how much mass a rocket engine pushes "against":

A Saturn F-1 rocket engine burns 2,578 kg of fuel + oxidiser PER SECOND. That is emitted from the engine nozzle at about 2,600 m/s.
Do a few sums and you will find that the momentum of ONE SECOND'S exhaust is around 6.83 MN. Since force is the rate of change of momentum, that is equivalent to a force of 6.83 MN or about 696,000 kg. This is about right for the F-1 engine, and does NOT depend on the atmosphere one little bit (only conservation of momentum - pretty basic!)  In fact if you do a more exact analysis the total static thrust is HIGHER for a LOWER ambient pressure!

OK, you say the rocket cannot push on NOTHING, I guess you are right, BUT it is pushing on a MASSIVE amount (2,578 kg/sec) of burnt fuel coming out the back REAL FAST (2,600 m/s). Right at the exit of the rocket there is no longer a vacuum - the gas cannot escape at infinite speed! It is leaving at around 2,600 m/s (randomised by thermal velocities).  So you the rocket temporarily destroys the vacuum immediately behind the rocket nozzle - after that - as a certain rocket scientist said "WHO CARES?" - mind you a lot of people in London and Antwerp cared a lot!

From post: Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards. « Message by rabinoz on December 04, 2015, 09:18:22 AM »

So, get reading that Physics 101, etc, etc.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 01, 2018, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on February 01, 2018, 05:32:32 AM

I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following link

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0

When you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?

To have temperature and heat convection you need an atmosphere, are you saying the space is not a vacuum and thus has an atmosphere?

If you are, then I will admit that rockets and satellites can travel in space with rocket power, but then you have to deal if the material will melt in those conditions.

Do you want to go down this road?

I don't think so!

You were the one who implied the temperature in space was above the melting points of aluminum and titanium.  I'll remind you"

If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?

If you're going to walk that back to an understanding how their near vacuum environment functions with regard to temperature, then we're fine.

It appeared to me that after having your hypothesis that rockets wouldn't function in space easily refuted that you were introducing a new incorrect issue to fix, a misunderstanding of temperature.  It appears now that you understand it correctly and hopefully won't make any more unfounded implications.