You can make the maths up for anything on scale. It doesn't make the scaling feasible, so drop the old maths nonsense.
No. You can't just make up the math to make it work.
For example, you could try calculating the pressure required for the flow, and show this is well beyond the pressure required to rupture the pipe.
You can calculate the pressure required to provide the thrust on the rocket, and show this would be capable of blowing the rocket apart.
But you don't, almost as if you know the calculation will show it is just fine and that there isn't a problem.
You can ridicule literally anything on any scale to pretend it doesn't work. So stop with the pathetic ridicule and start proving your insane claims.
No they actually don't.
How many fans are inside your phone?
What about your watch?
Your calculator?
There are plenty of electronic devices which work just fine without any special heat sink and without a fan. That is because they don't produce much heat as they don't consume a lot of power.
You need a medium of sorts.
Your so called space provides none.
It has the electromagnetic field, a "medium" in which electromagnetic radiation travels.
This allows radioactive heat transfer.
You not liking that doesn't change reality.
This should be enough to tell anyone
All it tells us is that you are completely incapable of rationally defending your claims as you need to resort to distraction after distraction rather than actually backing up your original claims, and that you will reject any part of reality which will help you dismiss a RE.
Radiative transfer of heat is simple. It just isn't simple in your fictional space vacuum.
The environment doesn't change it much except for the absorption of that radiation and the velocity at which it propagates.
Radiative transfer of heat works better in a vacuum as you don't have the air immediately in front absorbing the energy which can then in turn heat up the object.
Standing in the shade under a tree blocks out the suns wavelengths from directly hitting you.
That's right, it blocks the radiative heat transfer, which glass doesn't.
This shows it isn't just agitation of air/matter.
And to think intelligent people buy into this nonsense. It beggars belief.
I am yet to see any intelligent person buy your nonsense.
Yep, just as the pretend satellite would act as a barrier to the dissipation of its heat
Then you are completely ignoring the point.
In the glass greenhouse you are hotter. this is because the glass is only blocking convection and conduction of heat.
The radiative transfer of heat goes through it just fine.
This means if the REAL satellite works with radiative heat transfer, it works fine in a vacuum.
The problems are there for any rational person to think on.
No they aren't.
So far all you have is pathetic ridicule for irrational dismissal.
No need for any distractions. I'll deal with whatever I deal with at any time..as and when I see fit.
i.e. you will resort to distraction after distraction to avoid your failure to justify any of your claims.
You claim it would blow itself up, yet can provide nothing to show that.
You claim the flow rate is impossible, yet can provide nothing to show that.
Of course.
So you admit your claims that it would blow up is just an outright lie based upon absolutely no rational thought?
You admit your claim that the flow rate is impossible is another outright lie based upon absolutely no rational thought?
If they were based upon rational thought you would be able to back them up rather than just asserting it to try and ridicule rockets.
All those engines. It almost appears to be like a production line, doesn't it?
1967 to 1972.
5 years to build 79 engines and whatever engines were in the second and third stages.
5 years to build 13 saturn V rockets.
Custom made?
Those were launch dates, not the dates they were made, and you left out 1973.
And yes, roughly 2 every year. That doesn't sound like a production line.
As a comparison, the original Ford motors production line allowed them to make a car every 30 minutes.
It's no wonder it's hard to accept this stuff, isn't it? For me I mean
No, it isn't any wonder. You don't accept it because it would destroy your entire world view.
It is no wonder sane, rational people accept it, as you are yet to show any problem with it.
It is a wonder why any sane, rational person wouldn't accept it.
You have a laptop in your space.
Laptops cool via forced convection, not radiation.
Try again.
Light is one simple form of this radiation, which can easily be observed to pass through vacuums, with plenty of vacuum chamber tests still allowing you to see what is inside.
If radiation couldn't pass through a vacuum then you wouldn't be able to see those objects.
Can you tell me what a near absolute zero would do to objects. Let's say, something like a sci-fi satellite in sci-fi space in this so called vacuum or near vacuum.
Tell me why metal shatters when exposed to extreme cold and then tell me what extreme cold actually is and why it becomes that to us?
Once you understand this you'll absolutely understand why satellites and space stuff, plus space itself...as we are told...is nothing other than sci-fi.
And yet another pathetic distraction.
No, When we understand this we will understand just why all of your claims regarding heat transfer are pure BS.
Metal doesn't just magically shatter when exposed to extreme cold.
Instead some metals, such as iron, undergo a brittle to ductile phase transition when they cool below a certain point.
Note, it isn't the exposure to cold that does this, it is the temperature of the iron.
This means if it is in a cold environment (such as space in the shade) but isn't quickly dissipating heat, it won't cool and become fragile; while if it is in a cold environment with lots of water right against it, which is also very cold, then it will rapidly dissipate the heat and cool down and become brittle.
This is very simple thermodynamics.
Can you explain how there would be sub zero temperatures in your space?
How is temperature measured?
And another pathetic distraction.
There are several ways to measure temperature. The simplest requires conduction to a measuring device where some property of that device will have a known variation with temperature. But technically you are measuring the temperature of the device, not the environment.
Another option is via measuring its radiation spectrum and fitting that to a block body radiation curve. This even allows measuring the temperature of pure radiation. It is the latter which is used to measure the temperature of space, noting that it is actually the radiation that is being measured.
Can you tell me how anything can move in a nothingness?
That has already been explained to you.
Stop bring up the same garbage questions when you have no intention of accepting the answers.
What is there with nothingness to stop it moving? NOTHING!
Now quit with the pathetic distractions.
Either admit your claims are pure BS, or defend them. Show that the rocket will blow itself up. Show that the flow rate is impossible.