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

Does a force arise from combustion in a combustion chamber?

Does a force arise from combustion in a combustion chamber?

Simply just build up of pressure. If this buildup causes a pressure gradient. Then pressure gradient force applies

So cars don’t exist?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 03, 2019, 04:01:15 PM

As I have pointed out many times:

The final equation in that video is simply incorrect because you made a simple algebraic error.

Repeating the same error does not magically make you correct.

No. Substituting velocity out proves that it is wrong. Mass flow rate through an area is not a force

I agree, "(mass flow rate) through an area" is not a force but your final force equation is NOT simply "(mass flow rate) through an area".

But I refuse to go further into that until you correct the algebraic mistake in your video.

Get that mistake sorted out first and then we'll look at the real implications of your "proof":

Look again at your work:

Step #2:

Without brackets this is quite ambiguous so I'll simply add them without changing anything else.
Your force equation with brackets: Force = (mass flow rate) *4*(volumetric flow rate)/(pi*(pipe diameter)^2)

Now doing your substitution of (volumetric flow rate)/density for (mass flow rate) in the Force equation.

Step #3:

When I do that substition I get: Force = 4*(mass flow rate)^2/(pi*(pipe diameter)^2 * density)
Bu, you have simply (pipe diameter) and not (pipe diameter)^2 - You have omitted the square, so FIX it!

So fix that up in your video and we'll take it from there!

<< Apologies - I had (volumetric flow rate) instead of (mass flow rate) >>

Does a force arise from combustion in a combustion chamber?

The force comes from the pressure of the gasses.
Gasses expand and one part goes in one direction and the other part in another.
One of those parts carries the rocket with it.

This does all seem a bit pointless.

They aren't disputing rockets work in a vacuum because they don't understand (although that is the subterfuge), they are disputing because to admit they work will break their beliefs.

So cars don’t exist?

Yes they do exist. They also push off something external like the ground

Quote from: sokarul on July 04, 2019, 01:31:14 PM

So cars don’t exist?

Yes they do exist. They also push off something external like the ground

So you disagree with?

Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system.

I think that I'd believe Isaac Newton and every physicist since before I'd believe a person that can't do simple algebra and can't see the error when it's explained.

 

I agree with iliketurtles.
Scepti dragged you guys on for +50 pg last time.

Quote from: sokarul on July 04, 2019, 01:31:14 PM

So cars don’t exist?

Yes they do exist. They also push off something external like the ground

Exactly.
Just like rockets push on something.
On their own exhaust.

Wow. Just wow.
Whoever thinks rockets cannot propel in space needs to do a couple experiments.

1: Stand on a wagon and throw a 60 pound bag of sand out the back as hard as you can, and see how it makes the wagon move.

Do you really think it's the bag of sand pushing against the air that accelerates you? Then try the same thing with a plastic sack full of air the same size as the sand bag.

2: If you think gasses don't have mass? Then get some 0.3 mil painter's drop cloth plastic and tape it up to make a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long plastic sack. Then fill it with air and tape it shut and have your friend "throw" it at  you as hard as he can. You will see that even gasses have masses.

So why wouldn't equal and opposite reaction work in space?

Saying things like the OP did in their title makes out flat earth movement look like it's made entirely of a complete and total lack of knowledge of reality.

Please, do some experiments. Like Dr. Bishop says, we have a higher standard than this sort of sillyness! Be zetetic! Experiment! Learn! Know!

ok bedtime.

Wow. Just wow.
Whoever thinks rockets cannot propel in space needs to do a couple experiments.

1: Stand on a wagon and throw a 60 pound bag of sand out the back as hard as you can, and see how it makes the wagon move.

Do you really think it's the bag of sand pushing against the air that accelerates you? Then try the same thing with a plastic sack full of air the same size as the sand bag.

2: If you think gasses don't have mass? Then get some 0.3 mil painter's drop cloth plastic and tape it up to make a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long plastic sack. Then fill it with air and tape it shut and have your friend "throw" it at  you as hard as he can. You will see that even gasses have masses.

So why wouldn't equal and opposite reaction work in space?

Saying things like the OP did in their title makes out flat earth movement look like it's made entirely of a complete and total lack of knowledge of reality.

Please, do some experiments. Like Dr. Bishop says, we have a higher standard than this sort of sillyness! Be zetetic! Experiment! Learn! Know!

ok bedtime.

Congratulations you didn’t pay attention to the initial post. I didn’t say gas doesn’t have mass. I am simply saying that gas movement due to pressure gradient is not the same as throwing an object. The exhaust leaves the rocket because if pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes the exhaust out.

Congratulations you didn’t pay attention to the initial post. I didn’t say gas doesn’t have mass. I am simply saying that gas movement due to pressure gradient is not the same as throwing an object. The exhaust leaves the rocket because if pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes the exhaust out.

I am waiting for you to correct your video so that I can explain where you really screwed up!

Did you miss this?

Quote from: Tatumsid on July 03, 2019, 06:10:53 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 03, 2019, 04:01:15 PM

As I have pointed out many times:

The final equation in that video is simply incorrect because you made a simple algebraic error.

Repeating the same error does not magically make you correct.

No. Substituting velocity out proves that it is wrong. Mass flow rate through an area is not a force

I agree, "(mass flow rate) through an area" is not a force but your final force equation is NOT simply "(mass flow rate) through an area".

But I refuse to go further into that until you correct the algebraic mistake in your video.

Get that mistake sorted out first and then we'll look at the real implications of your "proof":

Look again at your work:

Step #2:

Without brackets this is quite ambiguous so I'll simply add them without changing anything else.
Your force equation with brackets: Force = (mass flow rate) *4*(volumetric flow rate)/(pi*(pipe diameter)^2)

Now doing your substitution of (volumetric flow rate)/density for (mass flow rate) in the Force equation.

Step #3:

When I do that substition I get: Force = 4*(mass flow rate)^2/(pi*(pipe diameter)^2 * density)
But, you have simply (pipe diameter) and not (pipe diameter)^2 - You have omitted the square, so FIX it!

So fix that up in your video and we'll take it from there!

It is quite important because your own results do not end up as Force = (mass flow rate)/(pipe area) at all.

They end up as Force = 4*(mass flow rate)^2/(pi*(pipe diameter)^2 * density) which is Force = (mass flow rate)^2/((pipe area) * density)

and that is NOT simply Force = (mass flow)/(pipe area)!

Quote from: Tom Foolery on July 05, 2019, 01:48:56 AM

Wow. Just wow.
Whoever thinks rockets cannot propel in space needs to do a couple experiments.

1: Stand on a wagon and throw a 60 pound bag of sand out the back as hard as you can, and see how it makes the wagon move.

Do you really think it's the bag of sand pushing against the air that accelerates you? Then try the same thing with a plastic sack full of air the same size as the sand bag.

2: If you think gasses don't have mass? Then get some 0.3 mil painter's drop cloth plastic and tape it up to make a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long plastic sack. Then fill it with air and tape it shut and have your friend "throw" it at  you as hard as he can. You will see that even gasses have masses.

So why wouldn't equal and opposite reaction work in space?

Saying things like the OP did in their title makes out flat earth movement look like it's made entirely of a complete and total lack of knowledge of reality.

Please, do some experiments. Like Dr. Bishop says, we have a higher standard than this sort of sillyness! Be zetetic! Experiment! Learn! Know!

ok bedtime.

Congratulations you didn’t pay attention to the initial post. I didn’t say gas doesn’t have mass. I am simply saying that gas movement due to pressure gradient is not the same as throwing an object. The exhaust leaves the rocket because if pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes the exhaust out.

Gas burns in combustion chamber, pushing in all directions while expanding.
Some of it gets out through the nozzle, some pushes the rocket in the opposite direction.
Then more fuel burns in the chamber and continues the push.

If bomb explodes it will push the shell everywhere.
If one side was missing the shell will go to the opposite side.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on July 05, 2019, 01:48:56 AM

Wow. Just wow.
Whoever thinks rockets cannot propel in space needs to do a couple experiments.

1: Stand on a wagon and throw a 60 pound bag of sand out the back as hard as you can, and see how it makes the wagon move.

Do you really think it's the bag of sand pushing against the air that accelerates you? Then try the same thing with a plastic sack full of air the same size as the sand bag.

2: If you think gasses don't have mass? Then get some 0.3 mil painter's drop cloth plastic and tape it up to make a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long plastic sack. Then fill it with air and tape it shut and have your friend "throw" it at  you as hard as he can. You will see that even gasses have masses.

So why wouldn't equal and opposite reaction work in space?

Saying things like the OP did in their title makes out flat earth movement look like it's made entirely of a complete and total lack of knowledge of reality.

Please, do some experiments. Like Dr. Bishop says, we have a higher standard than this sort of sillyness! Be zetetic! Experiment! Learn! Know!

ok bedtime.

Congratulations you didn’t pay attention to the initial post. I didn’t say gas doesn’t have mass. I am simply saying that gas movement due to pressure gradient is not the same as throwing an object. The exhaust leaves the rocket because if pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes the exhaust out.

Now tell me what is the difference between throwing 50kg of gas out of the back of the wagon and throwing 50kg of sand out of the back of the wagon.

Dunno if it has been said.

Pressure gradient is tats foundation of argument.

If an explosion was set off in a tube with an open emd and closed top.
There would be a pressure gradient and an exhaust gas exit velocity.

If the repeat was done but the open end had one of those rocket nozzles that dont do anything.
There would be the same (?) pressure gradient but a higher exit velocity.

Which one moves more?

Now that Tatumsid's ideas have been thoroughly thrashed I don't know if anyone is interested but here's a site discussing all of his "Fake Flat Earth Rokkit Science":

abovetopsecret : Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.
Rockets require external resistance, like an atmosphere to push off of. The rocket does not give its exhaust momentum, the momentum is given by pressure gradient force. Just like when you drop an object from a height, your hand doesn't give the object momentum, gravity does. if the object falls fast enough and meets resistance, like the floor, it might bounce back and hit you.

"Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia)."

external force is pressure gradient force, not the rocket

There is no scientific explanation of rocket being able to thrust in a vacuum. Only edited and fake videos. Watch in full before commenting something that is already answered.
<< etc, etc ad nauseum >>

Would some Flat Earth Scientist please explain this, "The rocket does not give its exhaust momentum, the momentum is given by pressure gradient force. Just like when you drop an object from a height, your hand doesn't give the object momentum, gravity does. if the object falls fast enough and meets resistance, like the floor, it might bounce back and hit you."?

But please keep it under your hat because it's all " above top secret  ".

   

This topic is just a serious lack of the understanding of how combustion works.  If you can grasp combustion, and more particularly how a combustion chamber works, then you will understand how a rocket is propelled.

This is a big deal for Jerry Sprocket because admitting the obvious, that rockets do work in a vacuum, kill his flat earth fantasy.
So, I suspect that he'll run away rather than admit his simple mistake that kills his releated claim.
Everything depends on his "pressure gradient force" being the total rocket thrust and, of course, that's far from the truth.

The "pushing against the air" thing obviously makes no sense, but one part of it that isn't talked about much (at least if it is I've missed those bits) is how much air is required to push against.

If you have a 500 ton rocket pulling 3g I presume it means you'd need 1500 tons of air to push against? That's a cube of air 107m on a side. How does the rocket plume affect or touch or push on all of that air? And the volume will only get larger as the rocket goes higher.

Rockets can’t propel through space!
Has anyone told this to the Indians as they are about to launch a spacecraft Chandrayaan2 bound for the moon on July 15th!

The "pushing against the air" thing obviously makes no sense, but one part of it that isn't talked about much (at least if it is I've missed those bits) is how much air is required to push against.

If you have a 500 ton rocket pulling 3g I presume it means you'd need 1500 tons of air to push against? That's a cube of air 107m on a side. How does the rocket plume affect or touch or push on all of that air? And the volume will only get larger as the rocket goes higher.

And that exhaust plume is travelling 2596 m/s (for the later Saturn V F-1 engines) and no influence can propagate back up a gas flow that is super-sonic^[1].
Clearly these "pushing-on-the-air" proponents understand nothing of supersonic and hypersonic flow.

[1] Other than for explosive shock waves.

Rockets can’t propel through space!
Has anyone told this to the Indians as they are about to launch a spacecraft Chandrayaan2 bound for the moon on July 15th!

India is, of course, part of The Conspiracy.  Along with nearly everyone else apart from a  few brave idiots with youtube channels.

Quote from: sokarul on July 04, 2019, 01:31:14 PM

So cars don’t exist?

Yes they do exist. They also push off something external like the ground

I've been dipping in and out of this thread on and off so may have not got the full gist of your argument, but I think it's essentially that rockets have to push of air, and this includes jet engines.

Without even having to go about proving this is wrong by experiments, videos of rockets in space, etc., it's patently wrong.

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.
- Then of course the plane is being pushed against the air in front of it.
- And will therefore never move forward.
- Much as if you were in between two walls say 2ft apart, your back to one and your hands pushing against the other, you won't move.

Simplistic I know, but I think it illustrates why your theory is wrong.

 

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.

They aren't.  Jet engines use the mass of the air passing through the engine as the reaction mass against the engine itself.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on June 08, 2019, 05:27:52 PM

A gas is a lot of molecules which are a gas because they don't stick together to form a solid or a liquid. They are always bouncing around. They bounce off of each other and they bounce off of the inside walls of any container they may happen to be inside of. In a closed container, they are bouncing against all the sides equally, creating an outward pressure but exerting a net zero force on the container as a whole, except outwards. The hotter the gas, the faster the molecules are moving and the harder they are hitting the sides of the container. If the gas is hot enough and the container weak enough, it can burst.

In a rocket engine one wall of the container has a hole in it (the nozzle). Fuel and oxidizer are injected into the chamber where it burns because it's fuel and oxidizer and that's what fuel and oxidizer do when they get hot enough, which is why a candle keeps burning once you light it. (The rocket engine has an igniter to start the burning, just like you light a candle with a match.) So now the gas gets really hot because it's burning and the molecules are moving very fast and hitting the sides of the chamber really hard. Pushing outward on the container really hard.

But there's a hole in one wall that the molecules escape through. So there's less pressure on that wall, which is always facing backwards so the rocket doesn't go the wrong way. Thus there's more molecules hitting the front wall than the back wall and that pushes the rocket forward. Newton's action/reaction is happening on the front side of the combustion chamber where a molecule hits that side of the chamber but then never hits the back side to even the pressure because there's a hole there.

This works in space because it doesn't matter where the molecules go as long as they miss hitting the back of the chamber because they go through the hole instead. It's a little more complicated because the molecules are also hitting each other, but the important part is that because of the hole in the back, more of them are hitting the front. This would work even if the Earth were round.

The gas is accelerated to low pressure by pressure gradient force. Did you not watch the explanation in the video. Simply stating what was taught in school without evidence, like simple experiment, is not sufficient.

PV=nRT. When the chamber is opened to space, you increase the volume thus decreasing pressure and thus decreasing the force applied to the rocket walls.

Why is it when you create airflow from a pipe, that is closed from one end only and has a small opening on the side near the closed end, using a vacuum, there is no opposite force in the pipe.

Why is it when wind blows on the back of your head, the air in front of you doesn’t push off your face as it moves away from you?

The rocket engine produces a constant pressure from the burning of fuel and oxidizer until the fuel-oxidizer is spent, or the flow of same is shut off to the engine.

About your last question, it does push off your face when your head moves forward, but the wind blowing past your head is traveling faster by a huge factor making noticing impossible unless you have some very sensitive equipment. 

Google the video of the model rocket engine in a vacuum chamber. It proves the DO work in a vacuum.

Quote from: Romp on July 11, 2019, 05:00:03 AM

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.

They aren't.  Jet engines use the mass of the air passing through the engine as the reaction mass against the engine itself.

Jet engines create thrust. Just like rockets. Tatumsid's argument is that rockets and therefore jet engine's as well push off against the air.

Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2019, 07:00:57 AM

Quote from: Romp on July 11, 2019, 05:00:03 AM

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.

They aren't.  Jet engines use the mass of the air passing through the engine as the reaction mass against the engine itself.

Jet engines create thrust. Just like rockets. Tatumsid's argument is that rockets and therefore jet engine's as well push off against the air.

In case you haven't been keeping up, Tatumsid's argument about jets and rockets pushing off against air is wrong, and really quite silly if you think it through.

Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2019, 07:00:57 AM

Quote from: Romp on July 11, 2019, 05:00:03 AM

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.

They aren't.  Jet engines use the mass of the air passing through the engine as the reaction mass against the engine itself.

Jet engines create thrust. Just like rockets. Tatumsid's argument is that rockets and therefore jet engine's as well push off against the air.

Jet engines and Rocket engines work differently.
Unlike rocket engine, jet engine has air intake at the front.
Rocket engine only injects fuel and oxidizer from tanks.
(In case of solid fuel the block of mixture is in the combustion chamber already.)

Quote from: Romp on July 11, 2019, 09:46:01 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2019, 07:00:57 AM

Quote from: Romp on July 11, 2019, 05:00:03 AM

Using jet engined planes for the argument, and apologies if this has been used before and missed it, but:
- If the plane's jet engines are pushing against air.

They aren't.  Jet engines use the mass of the air passing through the engine as the reaction mass against the engine itself.

Jet engines create thrust. Just like rockets. Tatumsid's argument is that rockets and therefore jet engine's as well push off against the air.

In case you haven't been keeping up, Tatumsid's argument about jets and rockets pushing off against air is wrong, and really quite silly if you think it through.

Indeed. I just can't get my head around how anyone thinks rockets aren't able to work in space.