Rockets cannot propel in space. Therefore no globe picture could have been taken

No,mag
Youre definitely not trying to answer or have a discussion.
Funny you join an fe forum to NOT talk about your views or how the earth is flat.
Instead you join this thread and tell tats that rockets do exist and that hes wrong in his beliefs.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

As recently stated, you don’t try to prove a negative.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 04:35:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

The rockets that put satellites into orbit.

Quote from: inquisitive on June 16, 2019, 04:54:52 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 04:35:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

The rockets that put satellites into orbit.

That is about the same proof of Santa Claus as having presents under your tree.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

Quote from: inquisitive on June 16, 2019, 04:54:52 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 04:35:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

The rockets that put satellites into orbit.

That is about the same proof of Santa Claus as having presents under your tree.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 04:35:08 AM

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

To make edited video, you have to have raw video to begin with.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

No, YOU prove that rockets need air pressure to provide thrust when the simple application of conservation of momentum shows that they need none!

Rockets need no air to "push off" because most of their thrust is due to the rate of change of momentum of the exhaust gases.

There are numerous references to the derivation of this but I'm still looking for a simply presented one but they all end up as:

The source of that, at Rocket Thrust Equation, gives more details of the significance of the various terms.
Now that might come from NASA but they did not originate it.
The design of some rockets with their combustion chamber, choked De Laval's Nozzle and divergent bell date back to at least the work of Robert H. Goddard, Robert Goddard and His Rockets and almost the same in Robert Goddard: American Father of Rocketry


There is more discussion of the rocket thrust equation in ROCKET PROPULSION, Supplement #1, Rocket Nozzle Design: Optimizing Expansion for Maximum Thrust.


So, deny what you like but, not only do rockets need no air pressure but they provide more thrust in a vacuum that at sea-level.

... Unless you’d like to propose something else put satellites up there.

Quote from: hoppy on June 16, 2019, 07:34:47 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on June 16, 2019, 04:54:52 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 04:35:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 15, 2019, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 14, 2019, 06:49:17 AM

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Where’s the proof of rockets in space? It’s all hearsay and edited video.

The rockets that put satellites into orbit.

That is about the same proof of Santa Claus as having presents under your tree.

Therefore you cannot explain how satellites get into space.

Rockets push off air

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 16, 2019, 01:16:00 PM

... Unless you’d like to propose something else put satellites up there.

I believe he's saying that there are no satellites up there.

(I agree with you that satellites are up there, and rockets put them there, which is empirical proof that they work. But you are arguing with folks who deny that there are satellites. So asking for suggestions of how they got there is kind of pointless. In fact, I think they are arguing that there could not be satellites because rockets don't work in space. But I'm not sure whether that's a tacit agreement that space itself exists, since some of my fellow FEers deny the existence of space entirely.)

Take, for example, your common satellite TV.
Have you ever tried to move your dish for more than one degree?
Don't do it, or you will lose signal and have to pay technician to aim the dish to the satellite again.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the only remaining possibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Orleans is 30 degrees north.
If people want to receive signal from 91W GALAXY 17, they have to point their dishes 55 degrees up.
They know it because there is online calculator that shows them where they can see it from their location.
One of those calculators is "dishpointer.com".

For signal source to have elevation of 55 degrees from one mile south it has to be 1.43 miles high.
For another home at one mile to the west you would need another source at 1.43 miles up.
Another source, because previous one wouldn't be seen at the same azimuth from new location.

Why we don't see tons of such sources / towers all over the USA?

Now try to tell us that online calculators are "lies", and people "don't use them" to point their dishes.

Bear in mind that this forum is public and everyone, including those people, can read what would your answer be.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)

Quote from: rabinoz on June 16, 2019, 05:59:03 AM

So, deny what you like but, not only do rockets need no air pressure but they provide more thrust in a vacuum that at sea-level.

That equation is thoroughly debunked

Step #1:		Comments on step #1: In the following use Ae for (exhaust area) and Ve = (exhaust velocity) Note that Ae = (Volumetric flow rate)/Ve and that wherever Jerry Sprocket uses (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 we can simply write Ae. I can't understand why Jerry Sprocket wrote (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 instead of simply Ae unless it was to add confusion and cover up the sleight of hand. But had Ae been used it would have greatly simplified the equations and given these instead:       2) Ve = (Volumetric flow rate)Ae and then simply:       3) (Volumetric flow rate) = Ae × Velocity Which is all rather obvious!
Step #2:		Comments on step #2: Using simply Ae instead of the silly (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 vastly simplifies this to: Force = (Mass flow rate) × (Volumetric flow rate)/Ae (Mass flow rate) = density × (Volumetric flow rate) (Volumetric flow rate) = (Mass flow rate) / density
Step #3:		Comments on step #3: Again replacing (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 by Ae * You get: Force = (Mass flow rate)2 / (density × Ae) So it's true that "There is no longer a need to calculate exit velocity" but the Force equation now involves density, which is not known! But Jerry Sprocket is totally incorrect with the claim that "This states that mass flowrate" is essentially a force"! The right hand side if not "mass flowrate" but (mass flowrate)2/(area × density)! Just look at the simplified equation: Force = (Mass flow rate)2 / (density × Ae) But (Mass flow rate)/(density × Ae) is simply Ve So all Jerry Sprocket has proved is that Force = (Mass flow rate) ×  Ve Which,  I do believe, is where we started.

I make no claims. I hold my views. I came here to talk to like-minded folks.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 01:36:43 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 16, 2019, 05:59:03 AM

So, deny what you like but, not only do rockets need no air pressure but they provide more thrust in a vacuum that at sea-level.

That equation is thoroughly debunked

Incorrect! Would YOU care to prove how that video "thoroughly debunks" the "NASA" rocket thrust equation?

Your video is all smoke and mirrors !  Look what your maths and physics dropout, Jerry Sprocket did:

Step #1:		Comments on step #1: In the following use Ae for (exhaust area) and Ve = (exhaust velocity) Note that Ae = (Volumetric flow rate)/Ve and that wherever Jerry Sprocket uses (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 we can simply write Ae. I can't understand why Jerry Sprocket wrote (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 instead of simply Ae unless it was to add confusion and cover up the sleight of hand. But had Ae been used it would have greatly simplified the equations and given these instead:       2) Ve = (Volumetric flow rate)Ae and then simply:       3) (Volumetric flow rate) = Ae × Velocity Which is all rather obvious!
Step #2:		Comments on step #2: Using simply Ae instead of the silly (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 vastly simplifies this to: Force = (Mass flow rate) × (Volumetric flow rate)/Ae (Mass flow rate) = density × (Volumetric flow rate) (Volumetric flow rate) = (Mass flow rate) / density
Step #3:		Comments on step #3: Again replacing (pipe diameter)2 × π/4 by Ae * You get: Force = (Mass flow rate)2 / (density × Ae) So it's true that "There is no longer a need to calculate exit velocity" but the Force equation now involves density, which is not known! But Jerry Sprocket is totally incorrect with the claim that "This states that mass flowrate" is essentially a force"! The right hand side if not "mass flowrate" but (mass flowrate)2/(area × density)! Just look at the simplified equation: Force = (Mass flow rate)2 / (density × Ae) But (Mass flow rate)/(density × Ae) is simply Ve So all Jerry Sprocket has proved is that Force = (Mass flow rate) ×  Ve Which,  I do believe, is where we started.

Jerry Sprocket took a great circuitous route to get right back the the original force equation.

So, Tatumsid your Jerry Sprocket screwed up big-time and the NASA Rocket Thrust Equation is NOT "thoroughly debunked ".
Might I suggest that you get someone with a slight knowledge of Physics next time!

Care to try again?

The source of that, at Rocket Thrust Equation, gives more details of the significance of the various terms.

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 01:38:02 PM

Rockets push off air

How much air does a 100kg rocket need to push off in order to fly?

Mass flow rate moving through an area is still not force .

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2019, 06:15:22 PM

Quote from: Tatumsid on June 16, 2019, 01:38:02 PM

Rockets push off air

How much air does a 100kg rocket need to push off in order to fly?

Do you happen to have some sort of answer to this question?