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

Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.
Over to you.

I already did. You then drew pure nonsense which was refuted straight away.
Here was the basic diagram showing the setup:


And here it is with some arrows of force drawn in:

The gas (in red) is under extreme pressure, and pushes outwards in all directions. This results in a force on the tube (in red, pointing left) with a reactionary force on the gas (in black, pushing right). You can even consider the gas right at the edge separately, where you have the high pressure gas pushing this thin layer (in magenta) to the right as indicated by the red arrow pointing right. This has a reactionary force shown by the purple arrow pointing left, pushing on the remaining gas.

Try actually providing a solution which doesn't have a force on the rocket, but still has the action-reaction pairs.
Remember, the gas needs to be pushing off something to move, or else there is no reason to assume the rocket needs to.

This is the massive problem you have been avoiding right from the start which clearly shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.

Or expelled gas.
Words can have more than one meaning.

But yes, it is fairly spent when it becomes exhaust and leaves the rocket, no longer capable of providing any more thrust to the rocket.

Or are you going to refuse?

So far you have been the one repeatedly refusing to explain quite simple things, at least simple for those who don't reject reality.

That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.

Then why are you completely incapable of pointing out any problem with it?

It seems to make perfect sense. The gas is pushing outwards in all directions. This results in the gas immediately adjacent to the nozzle pushing against the nozzle, providing a force to the rocket and pushing it forwards, while the gas is pushed backwards. Action and reaction. This makes perfect sense.
Importantly it has a force on the rocket to push it forwards.

Meanwhile your diagram makes no sense at all.
You have your action and reaction separated by a vast distance, and instead of being an action-reaction force, it is just 2 forces on the gas.
You haven't even bothered attempting to balance it and have a much greater force pushing the gas left than right, so it most certainly is not an action and reaction. These are 2 completely separate forces with no reactionary force in the diagram at all.

But most importantly, you have no force acting on the rocket itself.

This is why your rejection of reality remains pure fantasy.
You are completely incapable of explaining even extremely simple things.

In order for this to be an explanation of how a rocket works YOU NEED A FORCE ACTING ON THE ROCKET! YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE!
Do you understand that?

But it is contained in the rocket scenario.

No, it isn't.
In the rocket scenario the nozzle of the rocket is open. That means it is not contained.
Do you understand what contained means?

Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.
If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.

Like I said before, which you have repeatedly ignored, if this is actually what was happening then the exhaust would be getting pushed upwards by the atmosphere and be pushed in front of the rocket, or at the very least out to the sides.

So we can easily tell THAT ISN'T WHAT IS HAPPENING!
The atmosphere is not pushing the exhaust up to have it in turn push the rocket up.

Again, for a simple trampoline analogy, it would require your legs to pass through the trampoline while your body (which isn't touching the trampoline) get pushed up. It makes no sense at all.

What actually makes sense is the ejection of the exhaust at a high velocity requires a force which produces a reactionary force pushing the rocket.
Or if you like, the extremely high pressure gas pushes the rocket upwards.

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2020, 06:44:46 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:49:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2020, 01:01:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 11:47:09 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?

Let's give you a though process.

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

Explain what would happen and why.

My guess is that the compressed air, being contained by the elevator shaft, would push on all sides of the chamber (shaft) below the elevator car and push the car upwards. Ironically, this is exactly how submarine missiles are launched out of their tubes. But I digress.

However, this does not equal nor address how a rocket with stronger thrust pushes off of a weaker atmosphere as the atmosphere is not contained within a 'shaft' like the elevator car. So how is your thought process relevant to the rocket scenario and why?

But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 04:44:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.

Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.

Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.



Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.

It is all so very simple.

That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.

Here's a much better diagram of reality.


The arrows to the left are atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere. Not the arrows to the left being compressed.

Nope! There is no "atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere" because it is in a vacuum!

I should add in what happens at the sides, externally but this gives the gist.[/s]

Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket and note that at sea-level it does not expand greatly into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.
Look at this when near sea-level:

Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.

Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure:

Here the rocket is seen edge-on but see how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.

And this is why your space rockets will remain fantasy.

That's funny!

• I do not have any space rockets.
  
  
• But SpaceX's, NASA's, RosCosmos's, Arianespace's, ISRO's, CNSA's and JAXA's "space-rockets" all seem work fine in my reality.
  Maybe you should ditch your failed fantasy world!

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 06:03:40 AM

But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.

If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.


The atmosphere is doing the very same.

But in your theory there is no space.
Its all air jnder a dome.
If you consider in your water-football analogy that the water is air and the air is space.
It doesnet exist.
Your anaolgy would require a football fully submerged in a tank of water.
When the ball is pulled down, there is no "compressing stack" and there is no change in level of water - yet the ball rises all on its own.
Why?
Bounancy.
Then your analogy dsscribes a helium or hotair balloon floating up without use of booster rockets.
And therefore your analogy is non relevant.

Come back when you untwist yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 07:17:42 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:15:26 AM

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.

Then stay out of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 05:53:10 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 04, 2020, 01:32:06 PM

Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted.  From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.

Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Who should I believe?  Hmmmm?

Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.

I see you call yourself a flat earth Scientist. How as a scientist do you explain the existence of so many satellites that are visible on a guaranteed regular basis with either the naked eye or a pair of 10X40 standard binoculars? This is not something open for debate as anyone with half a mind can look up and see them. I find it difficult to understand that you call yourself a scientist and yet refuse to accept the reality of satellites.

Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.
And whatever you do see, take a picture and show me the satellites you clearly believe yu know are up there.

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 06:04:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 07:03:25 PM

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

You really can't think for yourself, can you?

Put your books down and think.

No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.

I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".

On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.

Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.

Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way about 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?

PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.

Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 05:54:16 AM

Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.
Over to you.

I already did. You then drew pure nonsense which was refuted straight away.
Here was the basic diagram showing the setup:


And here it is with some arrows of force drawn in:

The gas (in red) is under extreme pressure, and pushes outwards in all directions. This results in a force on the tube (in red, pointing left) with a reactionary force on the gas (in black, pushing right). You can even consider the gas right at the edge separately, where you have the high pressure gas pushing this thin layer (in magenta) to the right as indicated by the red arrow pointing right. This has a reactionary force shown by the purple arrow pointing left, pushing on the remaining gas.

Try actually providing a solution which doesn't have a force on the rocket, but still has the action-reaction pairs.
Remember, the gas needs to be pushing off something to move, or else there is no reason to assume the rocket needs to.

This is the massive problem you have been avoiding right from the start which clearly shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

Draw a diagram like I asked and explain it.

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.

And how do you know that? You've never been there nor bothered looking with a telescope or good camera.

And whatever you do see, take a picture and show me the satellites you clearly believe yu know are up there.

Why should I?
Hundreds of others take better photos than I could and you wouldn't believe a photo I took anyway.

ISS through my Telescope (Compilation) by J.W.Astronomy

You refuse to believe this for no other reason than that it doesn't fit with your "world-view".
Maybe your whole world-view is wrong - ever considered that?

Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.

Why would I need to?

Surely simply explaining that, if the seal is good enough, the pressure air in the shaft  builds up until the force on the "rocket/projectile" is sufficient to expel it.

But that's totally irrelevant to a rocket tens of kilometres above the Earth. Why would I waste my time on irrelevancies?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2020, 12:38:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 06:04:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 07:03:25 PM

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

You really can't think for yourself, can you?

Put your books down and think.

No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.

I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".

On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.

Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.

Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?

PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.

<< Irrelevant >>

I said: "If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?"

If you've no rational answer I'll assume that you have none.

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 12:50:42 PM

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

Quote from: Macarios on January 05, 2020, 10:58:09 AM

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.

Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:04:48 PM

Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.

And how do you know that? You've never been there nor bothered looking with a telescope or good camera.

Quote from: sceptimatic

And whatever you do see, take a picture and show me the satellites you clearly believe yu know are up there.

Why should I?
Hundreds of others take better photos than I could and you wouldn't believe a photo I took anyway.

ISS through my Telescope (Compilation) by J.W.Astronomy

You refuse to believe this for no other reason than that it doesn't fit with your "world-view".
Maybe your whole world-view is wrong - ever considered that?

Have you ever considered that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:07:43 PM

Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.

Why would I need to?

Surely simply explaining that, if the seal is good enough, the pressure air in the shaft  builds up until the force on the "rocket/projectile" is sufficient to expel it.

But that's totally irrelevant to a rocket tens of kilometres above the Earth. Why would I waste my time on irrelevancies?

Because it's not irrelevant, it's pertinent.
It shows how the elevator is resting on a gas on gas fight, just as the rocket would be, only in a different form, in terms of a burn to create the expansion to compression.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:07:43 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2020, 12:38:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 06:04:46 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 07:03:25 PM

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

You really can't think for yourself, can you?

Put your books down and think.

No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.

I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".

On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.

Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.

Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?

PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.

<< Irrelevant >>

I said: "If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?"

If you've no rational answer I'll assume that you have none.

A rocket will fly as high as its fuel allows, which is not for long.
The reason why the rocket gains the height it does is due to loss of mass (fuel) whilst still thrusting against ever lessending resistance.
It marries up to keep that rocket atop the gas on gas fight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 12:50:42 PM

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.

Surely you are capable of understanding that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:06:24 PM

Quote from: Macarios on January 05, 2020, 10:58:09 AM

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.

Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.

If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:28:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 07:17:42 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:15:26 AM

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.

Then stay out of it.

No
Im keeping you on track.
What froce line pushes on the balloon/ rocket?

Show one
In contact
With the rocket

Thats how force diagrams work.

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 04:47:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 12:50:42 PM

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.

Surely you are capable of understanding that.

How does the atmosphere become pressurized when it is not contained? How does the atmosphere become compressed when it is not contained?

Again, this makes no sense. There is nothing containing a pressurized atmosphere like your analogy of the compressed air under the passenger car in the elevator shaft. Surely you are capable of understanding that.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

Quote from: MouseWalker on January 05, 2020, 07:52:52 PM

Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.

If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.

Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.

In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,

• the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
  
  
• the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
  
  
• and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.

The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.

What's so hard about that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:03:21 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:28:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 07:17:42 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:15:26 AM

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.

Then stay out of it.

No
Im keeping you on track.
What froce line pushes on the balloon/ rocket?

Show one
In contact
With the rocket

Thats how force diagrams work.

The rocket sits on the gas fight. What about that can't you understand?

A hovercraft sits on a gas fight. I'm sure you can understand that.
The problem with you and others is, you can't or will not let go of that fictional space vacuum and to admit what I'm telling you will kill it off, so I well understand why you pretend you have no clue.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 04:47:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 12:50:42 PM

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.

Surely you are capable of understanding that.

How does the atmosphere become pressurized when it is not contained? How does the atmosphere become compressed when it is not contained?

Again, this makes no sense. There is nothing containing a pressurized atmosphere like your analogy of the compressed air under the passenger car in the elevator shaft. Surely you are capable of understanding that.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

Because it's never fully contained. Only massive thrust will create the pressure compression into the stack.
Did you not understand the delve bit?
Pay attention because you're clearly not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 09:35:54 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on January 05, 2020, 07:52:52 PM

Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.

If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.

Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.

In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,

• the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
  
  
• the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
  
  
• and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.

The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.

What's so hard about that?

There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.

You neglect one very important factor. Can you guess what it is?

Quote from: Macarios on January 05, 2020, 10:58:09 AM

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.

Whatever you name it, it burned in the chamber, to exit requires force (action provided by the pressure), and reaction to that force accelerates the rocket.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:06:24 PM

Quote from: Macarios on January 05, 2020, 10:58:09 AM

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.

Whatever you name it, it burned in the chamber, to exit requires force (action provided by the pressure), and reaction to that force accelerates the rocket.

Show me the chamber.

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 09:46:46 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 04:47:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 05, 2020, 12:50:42 PM

This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?

How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?

Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.

But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.

Surely you are capable of understanding that.

How does the atmosphere become pressurized when it is not contained? How does the atmosphere become compressed when it is not contained?

Again, this makes no sense. There is nothing containing a pressurized atmosphere like your analogy of the compressed air under the passenger car in the elevator shaft. Surely you are capable of understanding that.

Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.

Because it's never fully contained. Only massive thrust will create the pressure compression into the stack.
Did you not understand the delve bit?
Pay attention because you're clearly not.

Clearly you are making things up on the fly when stumped and not paying attention to your own words regarding a 'delve'. Try and keep up.

In your analogy the space underneath the passenger car is a closed containment inside the elevator shaft. You claim that the thrust creates a 'delve' (e.g. a shaft) beneath the rocket that contains the thrust and then propels the rocket upward. However, here's where you really need to pay attention, the atmosphere on all sides of the 'delve' is weaker than the thrust. And there is nothing to contain this 'delve' to make it stronger and more resistant than the thrust from the rocket.

Do you not understand your own 'delve' bit?

Again, please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why. You have failed to do so thus far.