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

Boats with a direct sail floating not on the rivers, and flying by air.

Use the law of physics.

I'm not going to go through 15 pages right now, but since cikljamas used to regularly derail his own derails, has his classic "zigzag" bs come up yet?

If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.

There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.

Hey Silhouette, what's up? Don't be lazy, if you chose to go through 15 pages of this thread you could learn something useful...

Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :

Quote from: cikljamas on August 07, 2019, 02:41:38 AM

Hey Silhouette, what's up? Don't be lazy, if you chose to go through 15 pages of this thread you could learn something useful...

Only that you have no rational response to the very real fact that rockets do work in a vacuum.

Unless you have an actual answer to my question?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

The zig-zag argument, when done honestly and correctly, only indicates that the celestial objects are far away.
It tells you nothing about which is moving as all that matters is the relative motion which is the same regardless of if Earth is stationary with the moon orbiting, the Earth is rotating with the moon stationary, or the Earth is rotating with the moon orbiting.
I showed mathematically that the 2 situations are equivalent and you had no response.

<< I can't be bothered wasting time playing tin-soldiers with one who use fake photos in videos! >>
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations -

imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:

Haven't you noticed this reply : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2192572#msg2192572

my response to you and to Macarios is right before your long nose Pinocchio!!!

Should i point out AGAIN why yours math is wrong (invalid in relation to reality) :

When we change your number

And you have to change that number 681 km with 434 km because using the second number (434 km) is geometrically CORRECT choice, and using the first number (681 km) is geometrically WRONG choice which renders your math INVALID!!!

• the sun is stationary, we take the sun-earth line as our reference direction with the earth rotating anti-clockwise once in 24 hours and the moon  orbiting the earth once in 29.5 days or
  
• the earth stationary and the sun orbiting the earth clockwise once in 24 hours and the moon orbiting the earth clockwise once in about 24 hours and 50 minutes.

Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :

Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???

If you asked yourself why i added (at the end of the first question) words in brackets ("at least IN PRINCIPLE"), then the following passage you can use as an explanation (that is to say : the following words will serve as an explanation as to why GAU-8 Avenger will "fly" better in a vacuum than a rocket ONLY IN PRINCIPLE, NOT IN PRACTICE) :

NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:

On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.

On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.

But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?

So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.

I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.

On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.

Heavenly Breeze, I take it, you're either a brony or a pegasister. That's totally ok if you are. Each to their own!

But, in the cartoon, "My Little Pony", is the world a flat world where helicopters and sailboats are indistinguishable? I don't know, as I don't think I've seen the cartoon.

Recoil force explanation for how rockets fly (in a vacuum) is UTTER NONSENSE AND ANOTHER NASA'S CON OF GIGANTIC PROPORTIONS, and i have proven my point regarding this issue beyond reasonable doubt.

The best indication of validity of my numerous arguments (presented throughout this whole thread) is your inability to respond sanely and DIRECTLY to any of my arguments

1. Free expansion argument + Thermodynamics :

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry.

If the pressure of a system is 0

Escape velocity problem

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

3. DON'T YOU SEE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

4. Since JackBlack was unable to answer this question, maybe you will give it a try :

<< I can't be bothered wasting time playing tin-soldiers with one who use fake photos in videos! >>
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations -

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.

This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:

Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation


where:
is delta-v – the maximum change of velocity of the vehicle (with no external forces acting).
is the initial total mass, including propellant, also known as wet mass.
is the final total mass without propellant, also known as dry mass.
is the effective exhaust velocity, where:
      is the specific impulse in dimension of time.
      is standard gravity.
is the natural logarithm function.

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done..

From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator

The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired."

For this thread you need to answer a very simple question (or 2 if you also want to cling to the nonsense of escape velocity):
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

What do you think would happen to an object at 400 km altitude which was initially travelling at a velocity of 1000 km/s, initially in a direction perpendicular to "down"?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m˛". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water.

And so has vacuum.

So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

<< Irrelevant so deleted! >>
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air.
Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking'  (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth. << Incorrect as noted above. >>

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

@Jack, if you want to answer your "clever" questions, why don't you answer them yourself?

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data.

I would like to see a man made object that flies at that speed...lol

So, Jack what do you think would happen to an object at 400 km altitude which was initially travelling at a velocity of 1000 km/s, initially in a direction perpendicular to "down"?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:40:12 AM

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,

Quote from: cikljamas

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?

First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!

But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 10²⁷ - not in the same "ball-park"!.

That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 10⁶⁰, does it?

But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.

LO AND BEHOLD :

Quote from: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 03:49:20 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:40:12 AM

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,

Quote from: cikljamas

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?

First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!

But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 10²⁷ - not in the same "ball-park"!.

That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 10⁶⁰, does it?

But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.

So, what our great mathematician Rabinoz is actually saying is this :

When you subtract 0,0001 from 1, you get 0,9999...Now, since 0,9999 is practically 1, then the difference between 0,0001 and 1 is 1, not 10000!!!

In an example above, according to our Einstein (Rabinoz) the difference between 10^-3 and 10^-24 is 10^-3 because we have to subtract 10^-24 from 10^-3 in order to get the difference...

The difference (in literal meaning of this word "the difference") is 10^-3, indeed, but the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"

So, the real difference between our two numbers (between density of air and density of vacuum) is 10^21 a.k.a. sextillion a.k.a order of magnitude 21.

NASA is no match to our Einstein (Rabinoz)!!!

.....and NASA would have experts that would know far more than I on any of this.

Quote from: Macarios on August 07, 2019, 05:47:33 AM

On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.

Recoil force explanation for how rockets fly (in a vacuum) is UTTER NONSENSE AND ANOTHER NASA'S CON OF GIGANTIC PROPORTIONS, and i have proven my point regarding this issue beyond reasonable doubt. The best indication of validity of my numerous arguments (presented throughout this whole thread) is your inability to respond sanely and DIRECTLY to any of my arguments...Let's list a few of them here :

1. Free expansion argument + Thermodynamics :

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.

There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.

At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered useless.

As it turns out NASA does not fall into the 3rd Law trap (nor does it go around correcting all the sites who do) instead claiming that thrust of a space rocket is generated using what I call The Wrong Formula, an egregious farce of Newton's 2nd law which I will address in a later next post.

To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context. NASA itself avoids using Newton’s 3rd Law as the reason why their rockets work so well in space choosing to use Newton’s 2nd Law instead. I will show in a later post why NASA’s use the 2nd Law is equally invalid and in fact a hideous misrepresentation of the laws of physics that would give a freshman college student a failing grade yet earns NASA an "A" thanks to its pretty pictures, dramatic story lines, and gutsy champions, the astronauts.[/i]

A COMMON OBJECTION :

Quote

On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.

But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?

So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.

THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :

Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.

Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.

The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.

AN EXCERPT FROM ONE OTHER COMMENT POSTED WITHIN THE SAME THREAD :

Quote

I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.

THE RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOVE :

You are correct, in addition to the gas leaving the ship for "free" (doing no work, exerting no force) the change in the mass of the rocket due to the escaped gas has nothing to do with rocket propulsion. In order for "lost mass" to exert force the ship MUST be accelerating. The formula is:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

If Acceleration is 0 then force is 0 no matter what the mass or how it is changes over time.

Put another way, if the force of the gas (force = 0) exiting the ship didn't cause the ship to move (the ship isn't accelerating) due to free expansion then looking at the problem from the perspective of the mass of the gas leaving the ship won't magically cause the ship to move all of a sudden.

NASA tries to pull this nonsense as well as some other ridiculous fake science stunts to make it seem like their rockets have a chance to function in a vacuum.

2. Escape velocity problem :

So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Tom Bishop says :

It clearly says the following on NASA's website.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s1ch2.htm

"The crew checked out the spacecraft, and, after approximately three hours in Earth orbit, the Saturn IV-B stage was fired for approximately five minutes to accelerate the spacecraft to an Earth-gravity escape velocity of 40 233 km/hr (25 000 mph) to begin its 370 149 km (230 000 mile) coast to the moon. Following the translunar injection maneuver, the Apollo spacecraft was separated from the Saturn IV-B stage."

https://images.nasa.gov/details-0100983.html

"The S-IVB restarted to speed the Apollo spacecraft to escape velocity injecting it and the astronauts into a moon trajectory."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-journey-to-the-moon-begins

"Two hours and 44 minutes after liftoff, the third stage engine ignited for the six-minute TLI burn, increasing the spacecraft’s velocity to more than 24,000 miles per hour, enough to escape Earth’s gravity."

Apollo 15 Flight Journal https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/03tde.html

The stack is 40 metres long and 6.6 metres at its widest, weighing over 65 metric tonnes; not an insubstantial load to have propelled away from Earth at escape velocity.

Popular mechanics:

Instead, the remaining structure continued to orbit Earth until a "go/no-go" decision was made by Mission Control in Houston. At that time, the third-stage rocket, technically known as an S-IVB, reignited and achieved "translunar injection." Once escape velocity, the speed needed to overcome Earth's gravity, or 24,500 mph, was achieved, the S-IVB was discarded as well.

...

They are clearly claiming to reach escape velocity of the Earth's gravity to inject into a trans lunar orbit. In order to reach escape velocity, it must be done in relation to the center of the earth.

Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.

It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html



Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done. A description of Escape Velocity as commonly taught and nothing more. I can change the "straight up" in the sentence to "away from the earth" if it makes it more clear.

3. DON'T YOU SEE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

There is a synergy (combined deadly effects (inconsistencies)) of three HUGE problems here :

1. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)!

2. As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.

3. To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 07, 2019, 06:27:06 AM

[...]

I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...

Quote from: Romp on August 08, 2019, 11:15:29 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 07, 2019, 06:27:06 AM

[...]

I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...

I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

LO AND BEHOLD :

the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"

They really think the VAB is a place full of radiation hazards that could get people killed when crossing twice.....silly youngsters

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
I have already provided the rational answer.

Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth:
[...]

So, what do you have to say on this???