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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 160495 Views
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3060 on: January 18, 2020, 06:32:10 AM »
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you canít propel and object in space.  Iíve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).

Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?

There are pressure changes going from the combustion chamber to the exhaust plume.  Not to mention in subsystems like the turbo pumps on the fuel and oxidant lines.

My books donít explicitly state that rockets work in a vacuum, possibly because they were written long before flat earthers starting claiming they didnít. 

It just doesnít need saying because the physics of thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with rockets working in space.  Same with all the other engineering subjects.  You can look at the fluid flow, the heat transfers, the basic laws of motion, and itís all just fine.

You might have missed it on the 100+ pages before you joined, but in the simplest terms:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle. 

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3061 on: January 18, 2020, 06:33:13 AM »
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.
An oxidant does not create oxygen.
According to wikipedia "In chemistry, an oxidizing agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has the ability to oxidize other substances."
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sokarul

  • 18454
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3062 on: January 18, 2020, 06:38:14 AM »
Yes. That doesn't mean it creates oxygen. You can pay me $200 an hour to tutor you or you can just keep following the links in wikipedia until you understand.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3063 on: January 18, 2020, 06:39:14 AM »
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you canít propel and object in space.  Iíve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).

Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?

There are pressure changes going from the combustion chamber to the exhaust plume.  Not to mention in subsystems like the turbo pumps on the fuel and oxidant lines.

My books donít explicitly state that rockets work in a vacuum, possibly because they were written long before flat earthers starting claiming they didnít. 

It just doesnít need saying because the physics of thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with rockets working in space.  Same with all the other engineering subjects.  You can look at the fluid flow, the heat transfers, the basic laws of motion, and itís all just fine.

You might have missed it on the 100+ pages before you joined, but in the simplest terms:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle.

The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.

Is it your website? I'm curious why you removed the moon hoax pages.

Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3064 on: January 18, 2020, 06:40:02 AM »
s:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle.
Throws mass out of the back, how?

And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward. It just won't.
Allowing mass to compress the atmosphere will create an equal reaction to that mass. This includes your rocket burn expand out of being compressed inside a rocket to compressing the atmosphere it expands into.

A rocket burn cannot do anything against extreme minimal resistance.

*

sokarul

  • 18454
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3065 on: January 18, 2020, 06:42:19 AM »
Not true.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3066 on: January 18, 2020, 06:44:22 AM »
Yes. That doesn't mean it creates oxygen. You can pay me $200 an hour to tutor you or you can just keep following the links in wikipedia until you understand.
I'll take Wikipedia please. Even though it revised it's flat earth page in the region of 10,000 times. That's a genuine estimate by the way. Check out how many revisions there are. Also, it changed the revision history because the article is completely different to when I read it 5 years ago. And I mean it is utterly different. No-one on the internet was saying global earth theory was accepted even before the 1940's until about 5 years ago when history was revised again.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 06:51:47 AM 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 #3067 on: January 18, 2020, 06:50:26 AM »
Please stop posting the gif of that idiot on a trolley. That is in no way an acceptable scientific experiment. You can clearly see him rocking himself backwards.

Look carefully. At the point the ball is released, no motion is in effect. Then he rocks his body and low and behold he rolls back a bit. I mean. Wow. Just. Wow.

How do you account for the pause in motion before the 2 distinct slight movements that follow shortly afterwards?

You could do that experiment with a spring, a catch and a pool ball. All that will happen is the trolley containing the spring and ball will shift to the amount the center of the combined weight of the ball and aparatus is moved by the spring up until the point the ball is no longer affecting the apparatus by it's contact at which point the apparatus will come to a halt.

Try it and record it because I an't be bothered. I don't think I can do any more here.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 06:58:32 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sokarul

  • 18454
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3068 on: January 18, 2020, 06:53:05 AM »
Feel free to perform it yourself.

I see you suck at chemistry and physics.

My offer is still open $200 an hour. Just let me know.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3069 on: January 18, 2020, 07:08:49 AM »
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you canít propel and object in space.  Iíve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).

Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?

There are pressure changes going from the combustion chamber to the exhaust plume.  Not to mention in subsystems like the turbo pumps on the fuel and oxidant lines.

My books donít explicitly state that rockets work in a vacuum, possibly because they were written long before flat earthers starting claiming they didnít. 

It just doesnít need saying because the physics of thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with rockets working in space.  Same with all the other engineering subjects.  You can look at the fluid flow, the heat transfers, the basic laws of motion, and itís all just fine.

You might have missed it on the 100+ pages before you joined, but in the simplest terms:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle.

The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.

Is it your website? I'm curious why you removed the moon hoax pages.

Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

You mean the ďCheck your UnderstandingĒ question:


2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...

a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.

b. ... gravity is absent in space.

c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.

d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.

If you click on the ďsee answerĒ button, youíll discover the answer is d: nonsense!

Not a great citation for your argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3070 on: January 18, 2020, 07:15:59 AM »
s:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle.
Throws mass out of the back, how?

And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward. It just won't.
Allowing mass to compress the atmosphere will create an equal reaction to that mass. This includes your rocket burn expand out of being compressed inside a rocket to compressing the atmosphere it expands into.

A rocket burn cannot do anything against extreme minimal resistance.

Scepti, that was for the new poster, so he/she doesnít have to read through 100 pages of people trying to explain it to you.

I know you wonít accept it, but Hatty might not reject basically all of physics like you.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3071 on: January 18, 2020, 07:27:03 AM »
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.


So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?

Thanks

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3072 on: January 18, 2020, 07:29:50 AM »
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.


So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?

Thanks
I don't expect to have to defend myself on here. Put this in angry ranting and, if you feel the poster is me and it bothers you, go to the admin who may take the time to put your mind at rest, I would think.

And as an added extra, I'm still waiting for your diagram.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3073 on: January 18, 2020, 07:35:10 AM »
You were given many diagrams.
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket  to lift it..

Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3074 on: January 18, 2020, 07:39:51 AM »
You were given many diagrams.
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket  to lift it..

Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.
Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?

This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3075 on: January 18, 2020, 07:44:04 AM »
FIXED IT FOR YOU





I AM afraid to do a diagram AND I can't you do a diagram because I actually have no clue how in the hell rockets ARE supposed to work

This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.


*

rvlvr

  • 2034
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3076 on: January 18, 2020, 07:45:21 AM »
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you canít propel an object in space.  Iíve never seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
That donít mean jack here. Not with the learned individuals who know better.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 08:03:29 AM by rvlvr »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3077 on: January 18, 2020, 08:01:17 AM »

I AM afraid to do a diagram AND I can't do a diagram because I actually have no clue how in the hell rockets ARE supposed to work.

No problem.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3078 on: January 18, 2020, 08:25:39 AM »
You were given many diagrams.
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket  to lift it..

Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.
Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?

This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.
Plenty of explanations of how rockets work online. Why the obsession with people here explaining?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3079 on: January 18, 2020, 09:54:58 AM »
A gas effectively consists of multitudes of small particles bouncing around.

When those particles are in a sealed container, the action of all these particles bouncing around exerts pressure on the walls of the container.

This pressure is equal on all sides and therefore an equal force acts on walls of the container.

Now make a hole in one wall of the container.

Gas particles pass through the hole without exerting pressure on container and this force on that wall is lower.

Therefore there is a higher force on the wall opposite the hole.

If there is more force one one side of the container than the other then it will accelerate.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41302
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3080 on: January 18, 2020, 11:15:50 AM »
What forces cause the object to expand and contract?
Atmospheric pressure changes upon the object.
What happens if the atmospheric pressure doesn't change?

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.
You can't see the forest for the trees can you?


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.
No, you're just making things more complicated than they need to be.


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.
No, that scenario has nothing to do with what I said.

"Inertia" is a word that we use when we want to discuss a certain property of matter in much the same way that "color" is a word that we use when we want to discuss another certain property of matter.


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.
All words are imaginary.  Get over it.
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 #3081 on: January 18, 2020, 01:14:09 PM »
Again, if all of this is too long because of just how much nonsense you have said sinse I last posted, feel free to focus on the key issue, every rocket denier has been avoiding:

What accelerates the gas out of the rocket? What is it pushing against to accelerate? (Including in a vacuum, unless you want to claim that gas will remain trapped in an open container.)
And then what is in contact with the rocket which accelerates it?


I'm still waiting just for a continuous video of going from launch pad to turn round and look at the whole world without any cuts.
Then go make your own rocket.

Everyone is.
No, only those looking to deny reality.

I would have thought this would be simple given their funding.
How?
That would involve multiple stages which typically include fairings. So either the camera is jettisoned with an earlier stage, or hidden by the fearing for a significant part of the journey.

Please find that video for me.
No. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

There's probably something in here...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine
"An  engine component  model  is  established  by  means  of the  gas flow path of the engine. "
That means you can't fly without gas. In thermodynamics at least.
No, that means a turbofan engine wont work without the atmosphere.
Again, what you are claiming is pure nonsense.

Just because a turbofan engine wont work in a vacuum doesn't mean no engine can.

Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible?
There are plenty of texts regarding rocket flight, including in space.

Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
No, it isn't.
The key to thermodynamics, is the flow of energy, i.e. the dynamics of heat.
In the context of rockets, it is the combination of the fuel and oxidant to produce high pressure gas, which then acts on the rocket, specifically doing work on it.

You don't need 2 opposing pressures for motion, you need a net force.
This can come from a single source of pressure, or from 2 different pressures acting on each side.

According to wikipedia "In chemistry, an oxidizing agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has the ability to oxidize other substances."
Yes, like I said before.
Notice how it is nothing to do with creating oxygen?

The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.
And your understanding has a significant flaw. One of these pressures can be 0. There is no need for both to be a significant pressure.

All you need to do is consider the pressure acting on the rocket.
You have the vacuum of space, providing effectively no pressure in front of it. You then have the engine and nozzle burning fuel to create very high pressure gas, which applies a pressure to the back of the rocket.

So we now have 2 different pressures. One is effectively 0 (the vacuum) and one is very high.
This should make the rocket move.

Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
No, they certainly did. They objected to all the pictures from space clearly showing Earth being round, so to attack it they claimed that rockets can't work in space.
Some other conspiracy people also want to claim they can't so they can deny the moon landings.
But there was no scientific consensus that they can't work in a vacuum.

If anything, the scientific consensus was that they can. What some scientists objected to was going all the way to the moon due to the massive distance involved.

Newton's third law shows that quite easily, and directly relates to the issue you and every other FE or rocket denier in this thread has avoided.
You start with the gas and the rocket together, moving at the same velocity.
Then the gas leaves the rocket. This means it must accelerate and thus must have a force applied to it.
That means that there must be an equal and opposite reaction.
That means that there must be a force on the rocket that accelerates the rocket.

The only other option is for the gas to remain trapped in an open container.

Please tell us what the gas is pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket, unless you want to claim it will remain magically trapped inside an open container?

That is actually crucial to the thread, and is a point that your side has been ignoring or avoiding ever since it was brought up.
It seems that everything else being brought up is just to try and distract from this key issue.

This is because honestly answering it shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

No-one on the internet was saying global earth theory was accepted even before the 1940's until about 5 years ago when history was revised again.
That is pure nonsense, even for FE standards.

If that was the case, why did FEs high prophet Row Boat make a book trying to claim Earth is flat and trying to disprove the real Round Earth much earlier?

At the point the ball is released, no motion is in effect.
Look harder. There clearly is motion then.

Feel free to try the experiment yourself with no ball and see how far you can go.
Or even better, do it in a more controlled way where a rigid mechanism shoots out a ball.

All that will happen is the trolley containing the spring and ball will shift to the amount the center of the combined weight of the ball and aparatus is moved by the spring up until the point the ball is no longer affecting the apparatus by it's contact at which point the apparatus will come to a halt.
No, it will keep moving.
What magic force is there to bring it to a halt?

Try it and record it because I an't be bothered. I don't think I can do any more here.
You are the one that seems to need help. You are rejecting reality based upon nothing more than wild speculation.

Also, are you one of the fake FEers you are complaining about?  Spouting pure nonsense which is easily debunked?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 01:22:52 PM by JackBlack »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3082 on: January 18, 2020, 01:22:18 PM »
Throws mass out of the back, how?
Already explained, the high pressure gas. Remember?

That is what you need to address.
How does this gas accelerate to leave the rocket?
What is it pushing against?

And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward.
The mass of the gas provides the resistance.
The acceleration of that gas is the resistance which demands a force which produces a reactionary force which moves the rocket forwards (technically which accelerates it forwards).

I don't expect to have to defend myself on here.
There is the believers only section for that.

If you don't want to defend yourself, go make your claims there.

And as an added extra, I'm still waiting for your diagram.
They have already been provided to you.
So you aren't waiting for us. You are waiting for yourself to actually bother looking at and understanding the diagrams.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting on your diagrams, which need to clearly show a force acting on the rocket to accelerate it, and need to show action-reaction pairs.
You are yet to produce a diagram that has that.

Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?
And there you go projecting again.

Again, WE HAVE PROVIDED DIAGRAMS!
Diagrams you have been unable to refute.
Diagrams which actually show the action-reaction pairs.
Diagrams which actually show a force acting on the rocket.

You have not provided such a diagram?
Are you afraid to do so because you know such a diagram will show that rockets do work in space?
Or are you just not doing it because you don't know how to make such a diagram which doesn't show rockets will work in space?

Quit stalling and start to actually address the issues plaguing your side.
Provide a diagram clearly showing action-reaction pairs and what is actually acting on the rocket, providing a force to accelerate it.
Clearly explain what is wrong with our diagrams and explanations.
Provide an explanation for how the gas accelerates out of the tube/rocket in a vacuum, clearly identifying what it is pushing off in order to accelerate.

Anything else is just pathetic stalling.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3083 on: January 20, 2020, 12:32:56 AM »
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.

If this is the case then they will not going higher then 1 or 2 inches from the ground. While in practice these rockets are going much higher then the 1 or 2 inches. So again, how can these tiny rockets compress the atmosphere so much that they can go that high in the sky.
How do you manage to work that out?

Quite simple. You say that the exhaust of a rocket 'super compress' the air beneath in such way that at a certain point this air push back and lift the rocket. Am I right about this? So with a firework rocket this 'compression' can not be that high since the exhaust of this rocket is not able to compress this air. So again my question. How can these tiny rockets can go up that far in the air as we see them do?

*

Macarios

  • 2077
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3084 on: January 20, 2020, 01:14:50 AM »
... And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward...

Throwing any mass backward will require force to accelerate that mass, to overcome its inertia.
While doing that you also push yourself off that mass, that's the resistance you failed to see.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3085 on: January 20, 2020, 03:55:41 AM »
s:

Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward.  An equal and opposite reaction.  Thatís really all you need to know to get the principle.
Throws mass out of the back, how?

And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward. It just won't.
Allowing mass to compress the atmosphere will create an equal reaction to that mass. This includes your rocket burn expand out of being compressed inside a rocket to compressing the atmosphere it expands into.

A rocket burn cannot do anything against extreme minimal resistance.

Scepti, that was for the new poster, so he/she doesnít have to read through 100 pages of people trying to explain it to you.

I know you wonít accept it, but Hatty might not reject basically all of physics like you.

I did read all the 100+pages and now that rockets will work in space. However I am wonder how scepti will answer this simple thing, because in essence both type are working with the same principle. So if scepti can explain that this little rocket works the same as a space rocket then there is a major flaw in his theory.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3086 on: January 20, 2020, 04:03:23 AM »
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.


So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?

Thanks

No. I am not scepti since I know that rockets are working in space and satellites are very real. Therefor I don't draw the diagram since the correct one is already drawn. That is the original drawing before scepti draws his green bar where no arrow is pointing towards the rocket and therefor no force is pushing the rocket forward. Hence my question about the firework rocket.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 6407
  • HAL 9000 is my friend.
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3087 on: January 20, 2020, 07:05:12 AM »
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.


So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?

Thanks

Possible.  Might also be a danang alt.  Look at Hatty's hand drawn avatar and danang's hand drawn south pole flat earth.  Suck horribly.
Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

RAB.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3088 on: January 20, 2020, 07:40:19 AM »
Ok hold up.
New guy hatty is now bright and now believes in rockets?

Very confusing because when hatty/ bright first joined, he was promoting denP.


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3089 on: January 20, 2020, 07:42:06 AM »
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.


So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?

Thanks

Possible.  Might also be a danang alt.  Look at Hatty's hand drawn avatar and danang's hand drawn south pole flat earth.  Suck horribly.
Seems to be on reddit saying dumb shit about space.  And Hearthstone.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.