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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 113515 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3000 on: January 17, 2020, 03:52:01 PM »

*sigh* 
How many time does it need to be explained before you get it?  Seriously, is there a number?  Are we getting close?  Well, let's increment that counter by one.

Do you know how when you put a book on a table and the book doesn't move if you leave it alone?  That's because inertia says that objects at rest stays at rest unless you do something to move it.
So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?
You know something is always moving any object by expansion and contraction, right?
What forces cause the object to expand and contract?


It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.
If you're talking about the microscopic vibrations of individual atoms and molecules, they don't count because when you look at the object as a whole, those vibrations cancel each other out and there is no overall motion.

So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.
No, it means that you're overthinking your scenario.

An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.
The "unless it's acted upon by an external force" part is exactly why the law does pertain to reality.

Quote from: markjo
Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.
Huh? ???  What do you mean?  What do names have to do with reality?  Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something.  It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
They key word is in bold.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.
*sigh*
innate adjective

in∑​nate | \ i-ˈnāt How to pronounce innate (audio) , ˈi-ˌnāt \
Definition of innate

1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn innate behavior
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3001 on: January 17, 2020, 07:52:04 PM »
That exploding fire doesn't rely on air to push the rocket body.  It relies on the tons of exploding rocket fuel for this force.

In order for combustion to occur, there must be oxygen. A fiery explosion is oxygen burning. The difference in air pressure is what would cause perpendicular momentum in a foreign object. Without air, there cannot be combustion or a difference in air pressure.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sokarul

  • 17785
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3002 on: January 17, 2020, 07:58:37 PM »
Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3003 on: January 17, 2020, 08:37:51 PM »
Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.

An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.

But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 08:45:46 PM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3004 on: January 17, 2020, 08:57:47 PM »
any pressure greater than zero is a difference in air pressure.
therefore there can be thrust.
sorry, maybe catch up from starting at the medicine ball part of this thread

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3005 on: January 17, 2020, 09:19:54 PM »
How does a flat Earth digress into rockets supposedly not being able to work in space, anyway? Rockets clearly do work in space, and that has no bearing whatsoever on the shape of the Earth. It's a completely separate matter.

Because if rockets are not real, there is no proof for a globular earth or even space and therefore gravity, on which all the physical sciences are based upon.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3006 on: January 17, 2020, 09:46:15 PM »
any pressure greater than zero is a difference in air pressure.
therefore there can be thrust.
sorry, maybe catch up from starting at the medicine ball part of this thread

You mean 1 atmosphere which is sea level air pressure. If you are saying there is less air pressure the farther up you travel then air pressure will decrease steadily until you leave the atmosphere in which there is no air pressure so no possibility of thrust.

The guy with the medicine ball is just jerking his body a bit - the ball is not in effect at all.

What you are seeing is the counter motion on an axis (his shoulder) of a dense object moving from being close to his chest to being moved to away from his chest then released. The release does not generate thrust, but the movement of the dense object at speed via his arm muscles, repositioned the center of his body & trolley slightly, causing it to move a few inches backwards.

Edit: I said 'mass' at first, instead of a 'dense object', but I just remembered that 'mass' is a meaningless term that relies on gravity for explanation which is as far as I'm concerned, an unproven quantity. The actual term I should have used is 'weight'.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 10:13:26 PM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3007 on: January 17, 2020, 10:43:11 PM »
Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.

An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.
The oxygen in more than just compressed. It is liquefied into a liquid with a density a little greater than that of water at room temperature.

Quote from: HattyFatner
But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.

I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.

A typical rocket engine like the SpaceX Merlin 1D  burns about 329 kg per sec of propellant and accelerate it to about  2570 m/s.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3008 on: January 17, 2020, 10:54:35 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.

*

rvlvr

  • 1768
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3009 on: January 17, 2020, 10:57:04 PM »
I could kind of tolerate sceptimaticís antics as long as he kept it to rockets. Now it starts to appear all our knowledge of physics is wrong. Let us rewrite the books with sloshing replacing inertia!

I am starting to think this really is a performance as I find it hard to believe someone really could be as delusional. I have kept my belief in man, even with sandokhans running around. Now it is fading.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3010 on: January 17, 2020, 10:57:19 PM »
So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?
No, inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to change an object's velocity.

We call the rate of change of velocity acceleration so inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to accelerate an object.

If the change in an object's velocity is in a straight line we call the acceleration linear.
In this case of linear acceleration the inertia of object is simply it's called it's mass and that is the quantitative definition of mass.
Inertia is how difficult it is to change an objects velocity?

Make up your minds.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3011 on: January 17, 2020, 11:00:28 PM »
Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.

Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
Bullshit
I have more chance of winning heiwas moin challenge.
You did this already in the ballistic thread.
Or is your memory short?

You were given a diagram and asked to mark it up.
And clearly by our 40pg of requests, your marked up diagram was lacking a key feature which youve yet to provide.
Keep dodging.
Keep hiding your superior intelect from the rest of us duped sheeple.
You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.
Put up what I asked for.
It should be easy for you people, it's all on a plate, isn't it?

Just a heads up.
Do not put up a diagram unless you can thoroughly and simply explain what is happening to make your rocket work without using external atmosphere.

I need to know exactly what's happening, because all I've every see is a few arrows and that's it.
I'm waiting and I'll be patient.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3012 on: January 17, 2020, 11:01:45 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.

Seems like you just restated Newton's 1st.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3013 on: January 17, 2020, 11:04:47 PM »
Inertia vs atmosloshing experiment

Skepti go and place bowling ball on the ground (relatively unmoving and still).
Place a volley ball beside it (they are roughly the same volume as defined in the conventional sense).
Give each a kick as hard as you can.
The level if pain you experience will tell you how much inertia and how nonexistent atmosloshing there is.
It'll tell me nothing about inertia.
My own reactionary force against my kick will tell me that one ball is much more dense than the other, meaning one ball's mass resists atmosphere much more than the other which would absorb a lot of it.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3014 on: January 17, 2020, 11:08:40 PM »
Just a new person here and no FE'r.

I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.

Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.

Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
Bullshit
I have more chance of winning heiwas moin challenge.
You did this already in the ballistic thread.
Or is your memory short?

You were given a diagram and asked to mark it up.
And clearly by our 40pg of requests, your marked up diagram was lacking a key feature which youve yet to provide.
Keep dodging.
Keep hiding your superior intelect from the rest of us duped sheeple.
You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.
Put up what I asked for.
It should be easy for you people, it's all on a plate, isn't it?

Just a heads up.
Do not put up a diagram unless you can thoroughly and simply explain what is happening to make your rocket work without using external atmosphere.

I need to know exactly what's happening, because all I've every see is a few arrows and that's it.
I'm waiting and I'll be patient.

For the 15th thousandth time:

- Gas is pushing in directions within the vessel
- Gas is released from one end whilst still pushing in all directions within the vessel (Hence all of the world's pressure gauges still showing a pressure reading at the closed end of the vessel...all of them, the world over...)
- Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite.
- Vessel moves

In your world/diagram, the vessel never moves.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3015 on: January 17, 2020, 11:18:46 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
You use the word "resistance" but that can describe "inertia" or "friction".

But the effects of "inertia" and "friction" are very different.
A force against friction results in the conversion of one form of energy into heat energy and is wasted.
A force against inertial results in the conversion of one form of energy into kinetic energy which can be recovered.
A common example of this is the kinetic energy stored in a rotating flywheel.
See this Swedish paper Flywheel Energy Storage for Automotive Applications by Magnus Hedlund et al.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3016 on: January 17, 2020, 11:22:04 PM »
What forces cause the object to expand and contract?
Atmospheric pressure changes upon the object.

Quote from: markjo

It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.
If you're talking about the microscopic vibrations of individual atoms and molecules, they don't count because when you look at the object as a whole, those vibrations cancel each other out and there is no overall motion.
That's like saying the bugs living on a bed bugs body are not relevant to us but are relevant to the bed bug, most likely, but can be discarded as nothing to us in terms of us not being capable of seeing, so are irrelevant in terms of how they move or operate.
The reality is, big or small, it all matters, because without the small you do not get the big and for this to happen there has to be movement.

Quote from: markjo

So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.
No, it means that you're overthinking your scenario.
Or maybe I'm simply giving you a bit of realism.


Quote from: markjo

An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.
The "unless it's acted upon by an external force" part is exactly why the law does pertain to reality.
Unless means nothing.
I can say to you, do this work unless you want to be sacked. Nothing has happened other than me mentioning a scenario.
Let's call this inertia threat.
If you do the work you won't be sacked, so the threat only exists if you do not do what is asked of you.

If you refuse to do the work then you get sacked. It is no longer a threat, it's a reality that you were sacked. The threat simply existed as nothing more than a verbal.

Inertia is nothing more than a word that does not mean anything as a reality.

Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo
Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.
Huh? ???  What do you mean?  What do names have to do with reality?  Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something.  It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
They key word is in bold.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.
*sigh*
innate adjective

in∑​nate | \ i-ˈnāt How to pronounce innate (audio) , ˈi-ˌnāt \
Definition of innate

1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn innate behavior
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
Innate is a good word to use because it gives the impression that it's a natural occurrence borne out of nothing other than the mind of an individual but not fitting anything of reality to anyone else.

In essence it's imaginary.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 11:27:23 PM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3017 on: January 17, 2020, 11:26:57 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.

Seems like you just restated Newton's 1st.
Then it requires retweaking to what I've just postulated.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3018 on: January 17, 2020, 11:28:52 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.

Seems like you just restated Newton's 1st.
Then it requires retweaking to what I've just postulated.

Retweak away. Just make sure it's the opposite of baseline physics.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3019 on: January 17, 2020, 11:40:55 PM »
For the 15th thousandth time:

- Gas is pushing in directions within the vessel
- Gas is released from one end whilst still pushing in all directions within the vessel (Hence all of the world's pressure gauges still showing a pressure reading at the closed end of the vessel...all of them, the world over...)
- Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite.
- Vessel moves

In your world/diagram, the vessel never moves.
In a closed vessel the gas is pushing on all sides of the container and on the molecules themselves.

Once the container is opened at one end, the gas molecules at the very front of the opening expand out against whatever pressure resistance opposes them, externally and as they expand, every molecule inside that container expands....but not in the same way. It's a gradual expansion all the way to the back of the container.

This is why I advised you to pay attention to the sponge ball in the container analogy I gave. It would've helped you massively in understanding.

The very back of the container is the least speed of expansion because all the way down that container is a resistance to that expansion of each set of molecules of gas.

A gauge at this end can only follow that same principle, meaning the spring will decompress against the back of the gas just as each molecule of gas is doing to each molecule of gas all the way to the opening.

The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring.

If you look at this in terms of how you people say rockets work, you can clearly see there is no positive push upon gas release from the opposite end.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I doubt you want to but I implore anyone to try to understand it and you'll soon see why we're being duped with rocket propulsion.





Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3020 on: January 17, 2020, 11:42:46 PM »
What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.

I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.

A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?

Yes, a difference in air pressure must be present to initiate movement within an object in the context of aeronautical flight.

That is how they are propelled. By generating a cushion of high air pressure that must be replaced by low air pressure which moves into the place of the high pressure area, pushing the body of the aircraft in the opposite direction of space where low pressure air is replacing the high pressure air.

"The thrust of the rocket" also lacks any required qualifier to form a identifiable statement. Perhaps you meant 'the thrust generated by the force of the engine upon the overall body of the rocket.'

But you have failed to separate the force from the vehicle itself. Which is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principles of physics.

Having said all that. It's not like I fully understand it all. I rather get the feeling even my logic has lead me down the garden path a bit.

But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 11:54:30 PM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3021 on: January 17, 2020, 11:53:13 PM »
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass.  And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward.  What's going on there?  What word would you use to describe that observation?


Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
You use the word "resistance" but that can describe "inertia" or "friction".
Ok then, let's call it resistance.
But remember, to do that you cannot have the saying " an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a resistive force" as a reality, because every object will be acted upon with resistance in motion.

It needs to be changed to, " all objects will be acted upon by a resistive force."
As simple as that.

If you want to call that, interia, then carry on.

Quote from: rabinoz
But the effects of "inertia" and "friction" are very different.
A force against friction results in the conversion of one form of energy into heat energy and is wasted.
Resistance is friction. Vibration is friction. If you call resistance inertia then you call friction the same.
Also energy is never wasted. Energy is given and taken in equal measures.

Quote from: rabinoz
A force against inertial results in the conversion of one form of energy into kinetic energy which can be recovered.
Of course it can be recovered but like above, what you put in you get out. It's just how energy is applied.
First of all you have to use energy to store energy to then reap the exact amount of energy back when required.
You do not get out more than you put in.....ever. All you can do is to reap all or close to all of the energy you put in, back.


Quote from: rabinoz
A common example of this is the kinetic energy stored in a rotating flywheel.
See this Swedish paper Flywheel Energy Storage for Automotive Applications by Magnus Hedlund et al.
Same thing applies.
Energy is required to set the flywheel in motion and once in motion you reap the energy back what you put in. It's another way of storing the energy you put in, which is now potential energy build up.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3022 on: January 17, 2020, 11:54:11 PM »
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3023 on: January 17, 2020, 11:55:07 PM »
What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.

I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.

A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?

Yes, a difference in air pressure must be present to initiate movement within a heavy object in the context of aeronautical flight.

That is how they are propelled. By generating a cushion of high air pressure that must be replaced by low air pressure which moves into the place of the high pressure area, pushing the body of the aircraft in the opposite direction of space where low pressure air is replacing the high pressure air.

"The thrust of the rocket" also lacks any required qualifier to form a identifiable statement. Perhaps you meant 'the thrust generated by the force of the engine upon the overall body of the rocket.'

But you have failed to separate the force from the vehicle itself. Which is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principles of physics.

Having said all that. It's not like I fully understand it all. I rather get the feeling even my logic has lead me down the garden path a bit.

But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
And this is the ultimate crux of it all.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3024 on: January 18, 2020, 12:00:43 AM »
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3025 on: January 18, 2020, 12:09:51 AM »
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.

How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3026 on: January 18, 2020, 12:10:59 AM »
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite

You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,  pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.

Because if force was being applied to the nose cone of the interior of the rocket, then the walls would have to withstand increased tension from the forces of the gas as they moved to the exit point which would require a very durable material. Far more durable than the flimsy construction that are supposed to be being used.

But that is not the science as it is currently understood. Because it would require all the gas to be acting upon itself as a collective unit. Current science states that the only force in play in a rocket based scenario is from air friction on the exterior of the cone and thrust, generated by the expulsion of fuel at the point of exit. Not from within the pool of fuel itself.

So the tension is being sent up the sides from the rocket nozzles or specifically the point at which the nozzles connect to the fuel container being the main point of tension.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 12:21:56 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3027 on: January 18, 2020, 12:11:26 AM »
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.

How so? Do explain.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3028 on: January 18, 2020, 12:12:48 AM »
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite

You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,
 pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.

How so? Do explain.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3029 on: January 18, 2020, 12:29:42 AM »
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure.

How so? Do explain.

Thermodynamics is about heat replacing cold things and visa versa. So when something is heated, it will generally expel that heat, or energy, which is then replaced by cold matter.

So thrust is generated as cold air replaces hot air, filling the high pressure generated by the heated air with low pressure air. As the air rushes to replace the high pressure, hot air, it buffets the vessel along.

That's my best attempt at an explanation.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 04:05:02 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.