HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 11:00:56 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 01, 2019, 10:53:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 01, 2019, 07:56:12 AM

Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.

It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.

How is it pushing equally in all directions?

Basically equal resistance overall.

But in your example, you're saying the sand is pushing down on the cup. How is the sand pushing sideways or up?

If I was to pour sand over you as you were stood up, first it would build up around you, right? Each build up layer around you would be s stack.
As that stack builds, you will feel it pushing against you as your body resists that push all around you whilst it builds by stacking.
Eventually it goes above your head and still stacks all around. Up and up and up it goes and you are now a fair distance under that stacked up sand as well as encased in a mass of it around you.

The sand above your head is applying lots of pressure to it but your feet are resisting that pressure, coupled with your body being squeezed all around. It's a sort of push alla round but equally a resistance to all that pushing by the actual body.
All around is basically equal. Above is unequal because of the amount but is offset by the feet using a more solid base to counteract that push down as you resist that push by pushing into it to stop it crushing you and using your feet as your leverage.

I'm sure you can accept this.


Now this would be normal atmospheric conditions for us if it was atmosphere instead of the sand analogy.
Place a half tennis ball under that condition but ensuring the half ball was filled with sand, you wouldn't crush it in terms of volume but you would clamp the skin of it which would be equally resisted by the sand inside against the inner skin.
An equal resistance.

No outside sand can get in because it's full of sand.
However, if you use force to push away the sand around that  ball by pushing on that ball to push out the sand within it, you now create a excess pressure upon that ball as the sand above fills the delve you made in that ball which clamps it to the ground as the sand you pushed out is also pushing back with equal force around the half ball.

You need to seriously engage your mind to it.
Maybe it's too logical or simple for you.
Maybe you're trying to go down the mainstream scientific route to figure it out and are causing yourself numerous issues.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:13:16 PM

Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.
Pay more attention to the massive explanations I've given.
I'm actually taking time to answer you. Time for you to pout some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.

I have paid attention to the explanations you provide. You repeatedly refuse to address the actual issue at hand.
I have repeatedly explained why, but you just ignore it. Time for you to put some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally ...
The gas inside the rocket expands out, it does not equally kick back into the rocket to push the other way.

This does not answer the question at all.
I have asked what the gas is pushing against to move.
Telling me the gas is expanding is no better than just saying the gas leaves the rocket.
it does not tell me what the gas is pushing against to allow it to move.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

A gauge will clearly explain why this is the case, which I've tried to explain in as much detail as I can.

No, as clearly discussed previously, the gauge still shows a pressure while the gas would leave a container, indicating the gas is still pushing on the container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

The gas molecules follow the molecules at the front as they expand out and all the molecules behind all the way to the back of the container are all expanding slowly and all being a resistance to the molecules in front

Again, if this is the case and these gas molecules can provide the resistance necessary for motion, why can't they do so for the rocket?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

atmosphere

This is not a discussion of the atmosphere. This is a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.
Are you trying to answer my question regarding gas in a tube in a vacuum? If so, what does the atmosphere have to do with it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:32:01 PM

No wonder you are confused and no wonder you can't grasp anything I'm saying.
I'm being serious here, put your mind to it and you might just start to realise what's what.

You are yet to demonstrate in any way that I am confused or not grasping what you say.
Instead I have clearly explained why it is wrong.

If it really was that extra push into the atmosphere then all suction cups should start working together. Instead, one working or not has no bearing on the others.
This shows you are not changing the external atmosphere in any significant way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:35:43 PM

If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?

Nope, it is in the other container you were pouring the sand in from.
It was never put into the system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:39:42 PM

The air pressure is being more compressed by that pair of clamped hemispheres by what was allowed out to be added to the pressure back on them.

If that was the case you would see that change in everything, not just these hemispheres. The atmospheric pressure would increase, and all spheres would work or not work at once.
The fact that this doesn't happen shows that it has nothing to do with the air that was originally inside.
Instead it is just the absence of the air inside, and more importantly, the presence of the air outside.

I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask. I don't mean globalists, I mean logical people, because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.


Anyone willing to help me out here?

I'm looking for flat/alternate thinkers to tell me if you grasp what's been said and whether you think I've explained properly to JackBlack.

Quote from: Stash on December 01, 2019, 11:09:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 11:00:56 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 01, 2019, 10:53:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 01, 2019, 07:56:12 AM

Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.

It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.

How is it pushing equally in all directions?

Basically equal resistance overall.

But in your example, you're saying the sand is pushing down on the cup. How is the sand pushing sideways or up?

If I was to pour sand over you as you were stood up, first it would build up around you, right? Each build up layer around you would be s stack.
As that stack builds, you will feel it pushing against you as your body resists that push all around you whilst it builds by stacking.
Eventually it goes above your head and still stacks all around. Up and up and up it goes and you are now a fair distance under that stacked up sand as well as encased in a mass of it around you.

It would be more of a mound on top of me, like a pyramid, so to speak. With less sand circling my shoulders than the widest amount circling my feet. As well, there's nothing pushing the sand in from the sides, just from the top.

It would be more of a mound on top of me, like a pyramid, so to speak. With less sand circling my shoulders than the widest amount circling my feet. As well, there's nothing pushing the sand in from the sides, just from the top.

I think it's becoming pretty clear that all you're doing is playing games.
Don't bother replying anymore. You're ignored from this point on.

Quote from: Stash on December 01, 2019, 11:41:17 PM

It would be more of a mound on top of me, like a pyramid, so to speak. With less sand circling my shoulders than the widest amount circling my feet. As well, there's nothing pushing the sand in from the sides, just from the top.

I think it's becoming pretty clear that all you're doing is playing games.
Don't bother replying anymore. You're ignored from this point on.

I'm clearly not wrong. Sorry you can't handle that you are.

So there you go. Rockets do not and cannot and will not ever work in a space vacuum because one cannot exist for starters.
Rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure environments because they absolutely do require an external resistive force to act against the gas expansion coming from the rocket in how I explained.

What does this mean?

It means one hell of a lot.
It means we've been duped since fantasy space rocketry was dreamed up and put out as a supposed physical reality for us all to watch on our TV's and radio listening, plus launched missiles to cater for the supposed space rocket launches, as well as gimmicks...most likely models and what not, or helium filled effigies passed off as real space rockets.

It also means the Earth cannot be a spinning ball.
It also means gravity is a lie.
It also means we are encased inside our own little prison of a flattish Earth with a dome covering.
We are basically in a cell.

Everything we see and touch is all part of this very same cell.
All that we can see and can't touch are all part of the holographic show the centre of this cell produces.


However, the crux of this topic is rockets not being able to fly in a vacuum.

The reasons for it are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.

I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask.

I wouldn't call myself extraordinary, but I certainly call myself logical.

because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.

Again, I grasp what you are saying quite clearly.
The issue is if you are grasping what I am saying.

Again, a key part of your objection to the reality of rockets working in space is that you claim that the rocket needs something to push against.
But if this was the case and that acceleration requires something to push against and it isn't there for the rocket, it also isn't there for the gas and thus there is nothing for the gas to push against to leave the rocket.
This means the gas would be trapped in the rocket without any way to leave.

This is why I asked what the gas is pushing against, because you claim that objects needs something to push against/use as leverage to move.

Anything you provide as a solution to the gas works equally well for the rocket (or has an equivalent that does).
Anything you provide falls into one of three categories:
1 - Itself. This rejects the claim that you need something external to push against. This means the rocket can push against itself and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
2 - The rocket. This means that the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will move and thus work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else. This means there is something else which both the rocket and the gas can use as leverage and thus rockets work in a vacuum.

That is the problem you seem to fail to grasp.

Either rockets work in a vacuum or the gas remains trapped in an open container.

In order to explain you need to say just what the gas is pushing against and also explain why that doesn't then mean that rockets work in a vacuum as the above would indicate.

That is why saying "itself" or "the gas" isn't an answer/explanation. Because that would lead to rockets working in a vacuum, thus refuting your claim.
And that is also why saying "it expands" or "it can't stay in" or the like isn't an answer/explanation. Because that isn't telling us what the gas is pushing against.

In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container.

So there you go. Rockets do not and cannot and will not ever work in a space vacuum because one cannot exist for starters.

You wanting a vacuum to be a perfect vacuum doesn't negate the existence of real vacuums.

Rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure environments because they absolutely do require an external resistive force to act against the gas expansion coming from the rocket in how I explained.

Which would also mean that the gas needs an external resistive force to act against.

What does this mean?

What does this mean?
It means as I said above, either rockets work in a vacuum or the gas remains trapped.

Either the rocket and gas need something external to both to resist to act against in order to move, or they don't.

What does this mean?
You are rejecting reality and trying to reject rockets to prop up that rejection of reality, because if you accept that rockets do work in a vacuum, then why think we have been duped? Why not then accept the photos from space as there is nothing stopping them being real.

It also means the Earth cannot be a spinning ball.

There is no logical connection here at all.

That would be like saying because the Simpsons is fake, Trump is fake.

However, the crux of this topic is rockets not being able to fly in a vacuum.
The reasons for it are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.

Yes, that is the crux of this topic.
However the reasons for the refutation of that claim are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.
Again, in order for rockets to not be able to work in a vacuum one would need to claim that gas will remain trapped in an open container exposed to a vacuum.

So there you go. Rockets do not and cannot and will not ever work in a space vacuum because one cannot exist for starters.
Rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure environments because they absolutely do require an external resistive force to act against the gas expansion coming from the rocket in how I explained.

What does this mean?

It means one hell of a lot.
It means we've been duped since fantasy space rocketry was dreamed up and put out as a supposed physical reality for us all to watch on our TV's and radio listening, plus launched missiles to cater for the supposed space rocket launches, as well as gimmicks...most likely models and what not, or helium filled effigies passed off as real space rockets.

It also means the Earth cannot be a spinning ball.
It also means gravity is a lie.
It also means we are encased inside our own little prison of a flattish Earth with a dome covering.
We are basically in a cell.

Everything we see and touch is all part of this very same cell.
All that we can see and can't touch are all part of the holographic show the centre of this cell produces.


However, the crux of this topic is rockets not being able to fly in a vacuum.

The reasons for it are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.

It seems you have lost whatever logical bearing you may have had left. Case in point, the earth as a spinning ball and gravity bits were figured out long before the whole rocketry in a vacuum thing. Considering there's no evidence of a dome and all evidence to the contrary regarding some sort of holographic-ness, what you think it means is just that, what you think. Just your musings. No evidence.

What you've asked is for people to put their logical minds to your musings and all logic and evidence has been shown to defy your musings. I mean seriously, something as simple as a pressure gauge you ask of people the world over to abandon how they are designed, manufactured, and used to satisfy your musings? That's not logic, that's narcissism. Not to mention, as shown over and over again, to be wildly incorrect.

As for rockets in a vacuum, as Jack has laid out 100 times, "In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container."

You have yet to address this.

And thars the point we re trying to make.
You contradict yourself.

In all directions - contradicts yoyr theory that an opening in a tube says the gases cease to push on the inside of the tube.

Suction - exisrs as a negative pressure, using the proper and conventional definition of the word, as in the opposite of positive. 
Your theory is bonkers when you tried to redefine a well understood term and decided you werent going to tell any one else for 10pg.

Not just down - what do you mean not just down!?   Your whole denP is that air pushes people down.  If denP air is suddenly able to push left right up down then how are we able to walk around?   
Eveeytime i move forward I should be pushed backwards.
Aah but then one might say maybe that my leftward denP displacement csncels my rightward?
No sorry, then suction cups cease to work and so does your down.

Backtracking - its not backtracking, as jackB continuds to point out, you havent answered any questions except to continue parrot "gas on gas".

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 01, 2019, 07:56:12 AM

No
It exactly shows conventional physics is correct and that gases apply pressure in ALL DIRECTIONS.

I know they apply pressure in all directions. Have you actually bothered to take any notice of what's been said?

Quote from: Themightykabool

The seal prevents air from pushing up and euqalling or cancelling out the pressure from the other side.

No. The seal prevents air from pushing back into the cup, not up.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Thats why a suction cup can be applied down onto a piece of glass, that glass can be picked up and changed from horizontal to vertical.

There's no such thing as suction. Nothing sucks.
Pressure is applied in all directions depending on where the cup is placed at any point in the stack and onto a solid surface and then having air pushed out of that cup.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.

It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.

Again, a key part of your objection to the reality of rockets working in space is that you claim that the rocket needs something to push against.

Correct, externally.... in direct opposition to the gases coming from the rocket.

But if this was the case and that acceleration requires something to push against and it isn't there for the rocket, it also isn't there for the gas and thus there is nothing for the gas to push against to leave the rocket.
This means the gas would be trapped in the rocket without any way to leave.

It wouldn't if the pressure outside of the rocket was equal to the pressure inside of it.

However (pay attention to this) if gas is super compressed into the rocket,as in what we know of compressed air/gas containers, then....just like compressing a spring....if you release that spring it will decompress on it's own, just like each molecule of gas will decompress on its own.....but seeing as they are tightly packed and there is no free space between them, they decompress by using each other as the resistance to keep pushing out of the container or rocket and it's this gas on accumulation that aids in the push into the atmospheric resistance waiting at the open valve, which gets compressed and then decompresses back, like a spring going backwards and forwards as long as energy is applied.

The only thing your rocket walls are doing, inside, is holding the molecules as they expand out. The molecules are not pushing the rocket from inside, the rocket merely rests on the gases outside and is pushed up by the crash of those gases on gases outside for as long as that gas crash continues to be able to hold that mass, which it does because the rocket loses mass of gas which allows this.

Pretty simple but you're struggling to grasp it....clearly.

This is why I asked what the gas is pushing against, because you claim that objects needs something to push against/use as leverage to move.

And now you know (which you should have earlier by being explained to)...but somehow I doubt you'll bother to grasp it and simply come back with " yes but what's happenings to the gas."

Logical you are not.

It seems you have lost whatever logical bearing you may have had left. Case in point, the earth as a spinning ball and gravity bits were figured out long before the whole rocketry in a vacuum thing. Considering there's no evidence of a dome and all evidence to the contrary regarding some sort of holographic-ness, what you think it means is just that, what you think. Just your musings. No evidence.

What you've asked is for people to put their logical minds to your musings and all logic and evidence has been shown to defy your musings. I mean seriously, something as simple as a pressure gauge you ask of people the world over to abandon how they are designed, manufactured, and used to satisfy your musings? That's not logic, that's narcissism. Not to mention, as shown over and over again, to be wildly incorrect.

As for rockets in a vacuum, as Jack has laid out 100 times, "In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container."

You have yet to address this.

Pay more attention.

Youre 25pg since lackless left you.
I even called him out in another thread and he called me a loser and ran off again.
Time to give up.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 01, 2019, 11:13:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:13:16 PM

Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.
Pay more attention to the massive explanations I've given.
I'm actually taking time to answer you. Time for you to pout some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.

I have paid attention to the explanations you provide. You repeatedly refuse to address the actual issue at hand.
I have repeatedly explained why, but you just ignore it. Time for you to put some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally ...
The gas inside the rocket expands out, it does not equally kick back into the rocket to push the other way.

This does not answer the question at all.
I have asked what the gas is pushing against to move.
Telling me the gas is expanding is no better than just saying the gas leaves the rocket.
it does not tell me what the gas is pushing against to allow it to move.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

A gauge will clearly explain why this is the case, which I've tried to explain in as much detail as I can.

No, as clearly discussed previously, the gauge still shows a pressure while the gas would leave a container, indicating the gas is still pushing on the container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

The gas molecules follow the molecules at the front as they expand out and all the molecules behind all the way to the back of the container are all expanding slowly and all being a resistance to the molecules in front

Again, if this is the case and these gas molecules can provide the resistance necessary for motion, why can't they do so for the rocket?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:25:20 PM

atmosphere

This is not a discussion of the atmosphere. This is a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.
Are you trying to answer my question regarding gas in a tube in a vacuum? If so, what does the atmosphere have to do with it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:32:01 PM

No wonder you are confused and no wonder you can't grasp anything I'm saying.
I'm being serious here, put your mind to it and you might just start to realise what's what.

You are yet to demonstrate in any way that I am confused or not grasping what you say.
Instead I have clearly explained why it is wrong.

If it really was that extra push into the atmosphere then all suction cups should start working together. Instead, one working or not has no bearing on the others.
This shows you are not changing the external atmosphere in any significant way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:35:43 PM

If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?

Nope, it is in the other container you were pouring the sand in from.
It was never put into the system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 01, 2019, 10:39:42 PM

The air pressure is being more compressed by that pair of clamped hemispheres by what was allowed out to be added to the pressure back on them.

If that was the case you would see that change in everything, not just these hemispheres. The atmospheric pressure would increase, and all spheres would work or not work at once.
The fact that this doesn't happen shows that it has nothing to do with the air that was originally inside.
Instead it is just the absence of the air inside, and more importantly, the presence of the air outside.

I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask. I don't mean globalists, I mean logical people, because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.


Anyone willing to help me out here?

I'm looking for flat/alternate thinkers to tell me if you grasp what's been said and whether you think I've explained properly to JackBlack.

And thars the point we re trying to make.
You contradict yourself.

No contradictions on my part but plenty of inability to understand on your part.

In all directions - contradicts yoyr theory that an opening in a tube says the gases cease to push on the inside of the tube.

No it doesn't. It's your inability to understand what's being said and your will to keep on putting things forward that you think is happening but clearly isn't what's been explained.

Suction - exisrs as a negative pressure, using the proper and conventional definition of the word, as in the opposite of positive.

No such thing as suction in arguing my theory, so you need to change it and understand what my theory is, because your use of suction will keep you blind.

It might be best you understand this first before you go on.

Your theory is bonkers when you tried to redefine a well understood term and decided you werent going to tell any one else for 10pg.

My theory is pretty sound. Your grasp of it is bonkers.

Not just down - what do you mean not just down!?   Your whole denP is that air pushes people down.  If denP air is suddenly able to push left right up down then how are we able to walk around?

I can't believe you still haven't grasped all this. It's been explained and better explained. Try harder.

 

Eveeytime i move forward I should be pushed backwards.

Only uphill or in a strong wind.

Aah but then one might say maybe that my leftward denP displacement csncels my rightward?

In normal circumstances it's correct. You just need to understand how and why, properly, which you refuse to do.

No sorry, then suction cups cease to work and so does your down.

Suction cups are impossible. Learn what they do and how. I explained it all and it should be fairly simple.
Call them pressure cups because that's what they are.

Backtracking - its not backtracking, as jackB continuds to point out, you havent answered any questions except to continue parrot "gas on gas".

Because gas on gas is exactly what's happening.

Quote from: Stash on December 02, 2019, 01:43:19 AM

It seems you have lost whatever logical bearing you may have had left. Case in point, the earth as a spinning ball and gravity bits were figured out long before the whole rocketry in a vacuum thing. Considering there's no evidence of a dome and all evidence to the contrary regarding some sort of holographic-ness, what you think it means is just that, what you think. Just your musings. No evidence.

What you've asked is for people to put their logical minds to your musings and all logic and evidence has been shown to defy your musings. I mean seriously, something as simple as a pressure gauge you ask of people the world over to abandon how they are designed, manufactured, and used to satisfy your musings? That's not logic, that's narcissism. Not to mention, as shown over and over again, to be wildly incorrect.

As for rockets in a vacuum, as Jack has laid out 100 times, "In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container."

You have yet to address this.

Pay more attention.

At some point you have to ask yourself if you're the only one who gets your own joke, maybe that's because it's just not funny.

However (pay attention to this) if gas is super compressed into the rocket,as in what we know of compressed air/gas containers, then....just like compressing a spring....if you release that spring it will decompress on it's own

Stop focusing on compression/decompression, it is just avoiding the issue.

A spring will decompress due to the force acting upon it.
Each section of the spring pushes against the connecting parts.
This leads to one of 2 options:
Either the spring has nothing around it and just expands, while the centre remains in the same location; or there is something against it and the spring pushes it. The spring moves one way while the other object moves the other way.

they decompress by using each other as the resistance to keep pushing out of the container

That means the gas can be used as resistance.
That means the rocket can use the gas as resistance and push against it.
That means that rockets work in a vacuum.

atmospheric

Again, stop talking about the atmosphere.
This is meant to be a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.

The only thing your rocket walls are doing, inside, is holding the molecules as they expand out. The molecules are not pushing the rocket from inside

Again, if that was the case, the gas can't leave.

Pretty simple but you're struggling to grasp it....clearly.

While it is extremely simple, you are the one clearly struggling to grasp it or knowingly misrepresenting it.

Quote from: JackBlack

This is why I asked what the gas is pushing against, because you claim that objects needs something to push against/use as leverage to move.

And now you know

No, you are still no closer to an explanation.
You still ignore the motion of the gas and the requirement that that pushes against something and the logical consequences of that being applied to the rocket; and you still try to conflate a vacuum and the atmosphere.

Again, cut out all the garbage and just address the issue:
You have a tube in a vacuum with one end open and the tube full of compressed gas.
What happens?
If the gas moves out of the tube, HOW?
What is it pushing against?
If it is pushing against the gas that means the gas in the tube is capable of acting as resistance for motion/leverage and thus the rocket can use it to move.
If it can't, then the only options you have are for the gas to push against the rockets, and thus rockets work in a vacuum; or to have it push against itself, and thus objects can push themselves to move and thus rockets work in a vacuum; or the gas remains trapped.

If you want to claim there is another option you need to clearly identify what the gas is pushing against and why this can be used as leverage for the gas, but not the rocket.

Just asserting the gas isn't pushing the rocket doesn't address this at all.

Again, all of this is very simple and clearly shows you are wrong.
You just don't want to accept that because accepting rockets work in a vacuum brings down your entire fantasy.

AAAH and we re back to the contradiction that you keep affirming doesnt exist.

The denP force transfer as described by scepti goes as follows (water rocket):

Foundation
Water
Exiting gas
Inside gas
-
-
Rocket.


Theres a gap because you just repeated a claim that the gas inside the tubing isnt pushing the rocket up.
Because you claim gas only pushing in ONE directiom towards the opening.
Pay attention.



Scepti quote:

However (pay attention to this)

The only thing your rocket walls are doing, inside, is holding the molecules as they expand out. The molecules are not pushing the rocket from inside, the rocket merely rests on the gases outside and is pushed up by the crash of those gases on gases outside

Youre 25pg since lackless left you.
I even called him out in another thread and he called me a loser and ran off again.
Time to give up.

Feel free to give up when you want to.

At some point you have to ask yourself if you're the only one who gets your own joke, maybe that's because it's just not funny.

I needed to test you out to see if you'd come up with this stuff when I said I'd ignore you.
It never fails.

I'm happy with my theory and the way it's going. You aren't because it goes against what you believe to be true, not what you know is true.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 01:46:08 AM

However (pay attention to this) if gas is super compressed into the rocket,as in what we know of compressed air/gas containers, then....just like compressing a spring....if you release that spring it will decompress on it's own

Stop focusing on compression/decompression, it is just avoiding the issue.

It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.

A spring will decompress due to the force acting upon it.
Each section of the spring pushes against the connecting parts.
This leads to one of 2 options:
Either the spring has nothing around it and just expands, while the centre remains in the same location; or there is something against it and the spring pushes it. The spring moves one way while the other object moves the other way.

The compressed spring will decompress from the very place it is allowed to and continue to decompress all the way to the other end. It will not push into the other end. It will follow the decompression from the other end and back to that end, meaning the force is one way only.....unless it hits a barrier.
Guess what that barrier is?


So basically your space rocket is nothing more than a fantasy. A good story but a story of fiction.

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.

No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
According to you, the rocket cannot work in a vacuum as there is nothing for it to push off.
But that applies to the gas as well.
Thus the key issue here is what the gas is pushing off to allow it to move and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Talking about compression/decompression is avoiding the issue as it is not telling us what the gas is pushing off.

In order to address the issue you need to tell us what the gas is pushing off to allow it to exit the rocket.

If what you are saying is true, and there is nothing to push off (so the rocket can't move) then the gas can't move and it remains trapped in the tube, exposed to a vacuum.

It will not push into the other end.

Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
This is the exact same issue.
If the spring is not pushing against the other end, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE! That means it remains trapped in the tube.
As you have stated before, in order for an object to move it needs to push against something, using it as leverage.
That means it is going to pushing against the tube.

It is the same issue as before.
Either it pushes against the tube and thus rockets work in a vacuum or it remains trapped.

To say it exists the tube without pushing on it is saying it can move without needing something to push against, directly rejecting your claim for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Your own argument against rockets working in a vacuum demands (for consistency) that the gas can't leave the tube nor could a spring, because neither have something to use as leverage.
The only ways to be consistent and have the gas/spring leave are to either reject that claim and say things can move with nothing to push against, which would mean the rocket can work in a vacuum; admit the gas/spring would push against the tube, meaning rockets work in a vacuum; or claim there is something to push against and allow motion and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
i.e. the only options are to accept rockets work in a vacuum or to have the gas and spring remain magically trapped.

This is the same issue you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.


Again, if you want to actually address the issue then stop with all this expansion/decompression nonsense and tell us what the gas is pushing against and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)?

His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.

Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

Cheers, hoppy.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.
However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.

Quote from: hoppy on December 02, 2019, 10:30:30 AM

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

Cheers, hoppy.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.

We "listen to outside views" and discard those that are obvious crap.

However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.

I understand that it requires a force to accelerate a mass and that force can be the thrust of a rocket.
The huge mass of the propellant is accelerated before it leaves the rocket so no outside barrier or "resistance" is required. It's so simple a child could understand it!

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 09:54:08 AM

It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.

No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
According to you, the rocket cannot work in a vacuum as there is nothing for it to push off.
But that applies to the gas as well.
Thus the key issue here is what the gas is pushing off to allow it to move and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Talking about compression/decompression is avoiding the issue as it is not telling us what the gas is pushing off.

In order to address the issue you need to tell us what the gas is pushing off to allow it to exit the rocket.

If what you are saying is true, and there is nothing to push off (so the rocket can't move) then the gas can't move and it remains trapped in the tube, exposed to a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 09:54:08 AM

It will not push into the other end.

Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
This is the exact same issue.
If the spring is not pushing against the other end, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE! That means it remains trapped in the tube.
As you have stated before, in order for an object to move it needs to push against something, using it as leverage.
That means it is going to pushing against the tube.

It is the same issue as before.
Either it pushes against the tube and thus rockets work in a vacuum or it remains trapped.

To say it exists the tube without pushing on it is saying it can move without needing something to push against, directly rejecting your claim for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Your own argument against rockets working in a vacuum demands (for consistency) that the gas can't leave the tube nor could a spring, because neither have something to use as leverage.
The only ways to be consistent and have the gas/spring leave are to either reject that claim and say things can move with nothing to push against, which would mean the rocket can work in a vacuum; admit the gas/spring would push against the tube, meaning rockets work in a vacuum; or claim there is something to push against and allow motion and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
i.e. the only options are to accept rockets work in a vacuum or to have the gas and spring remain magically trapped.

This is the same issue you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.


Again, if you want to actually address the issue then stop with all this expansion/decompression nonsense and tell us what the gas is pushing against and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Understand why this does what it does and you'll start to understand why your space rocket doesn't work.

Quote from: hoppy on December 02, 2019, 10:30:30 AM

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)?

His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.

Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.

You still don't get it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: hoppy on December 02, 2019, 10:30:30 AM

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

Cheers, hoppy.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.

We "listen to outside views" and discard those that are obvious crap.

Quote from: sceptimatic

However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.

I understand that it requires a force to accelerate a mass and that force can be the thrust of a rocket.
The huge mass of the propellant is accelerated before it leaves the rocket so no outside barrier or "resistance" is required. [b]It's so simple a child could understand it![/b]

Maybe that's your problem.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 02, 2019, 01:40:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 09:54:08 AM

It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.

No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
According to you, the rocket cannot work in a vacuum as there is nothing for it to push off.
But that applies to the gas as well.
Thus the key issue here is what the gas is pushing off to allow it to move and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Talking about compression/decompression is avoiding the issue as it is not telling us what the gas is pushing off.

In order to address the issue you need to tell us what the gas is pushing off to allow it to exit the rocket.

If what you are saying is true, and there is nothing to push off (so the rocket can't move) then the gas can't move and it remains trapped in the tube, exposed to a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2019, 09:54:08 AM

It will not push into the other end.

Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
This is the exact same issue.
If the spring is not pushing against the other end, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE! That means it remains trapped in the tube.
As you have stated before, in order for an object to move it needs to push against something, using it as leverage.
That means it is going to pushing against the tube.

It is the same issue as before.
Either it pushes against the tube and thus rockets work in a vacuum or it remains trapped.

To say it exists the tube without pushing on it is saying it can move without needing something to push against, directly rejecting your claim for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Your own argument against rockets working in a vacuum demands (for consistency) that the gas can't leave the tube nor could a spring, because neither have something to use as leverage.
The only ways to be consistent and have the gas/spring leave are to either reject that claim and say things can move with nothing to push against, which would mean the rocket can work in a vacuum; admit the gas/spring would push against the tube, meaning rockets work in a vacuum; or claim there is something to push against and allow motion and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
i.e. the only options are to accept rockets work in a vacuum or to have the gas and spring remain magically trapped.

This is the same issue you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.


Again, if you want to actually address the issue then stop with all this expansion/decompression nonsense and tell us what the gas is pushing against and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.

Understand why this does what it does and you'll start to understand why your space rocket doesn't work.

at 0.04 the spring is fully compressed storing its potential energy.
at 0.05 the finger is removed releasing the energy stored in the spring,
at 0.06 the spring cannot push down the board, so it pushes the head up, flying off the board.
at 0.12 GRAVITY has brought down the Spring head to create all kinds of mayhem.
Is my interpretation correct?

I do not see how this can be translated to how Rockets work.

You forgot the suction cup is not a perfect seal and slowly lets air under it so that when the suction is less than the spring it pops

Quote from: hoppy on December 02, 2019, 10:30:30 AM

Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
 You are doing a good job explaining.

Cheers, hoppy.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.
However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.

No
We re trying to help you work out your thoughts.
Albiet in a jerk manner.