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

Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)

No, there's no evidence for a geocentric view, why would anyone support it?

So, i've got a message for all Flat Earthers, here (and there) :


Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

You've got it! Gas pressure doesn't matter outside the engine. All you're trying to do is throw mass away from the spacecraft as fast as possible. Don't care if the molecules are bouncing off each other or not.

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

So you think the friction of air against the water spout slows the water column down and so the water behind it pushes against the water in front and that in turn pushes on the hose nozzle causing the reaction force? The water from a hose goes a long way, slowing down along its whole trajectory and breaking up into smaller droplets which aren't touching each other and so aren't providing any of this "push back" force. If that's true you should be able to maximise your push back force by finding a way to make all the water slow down while it's still attached to the water column. So for example if you walked towards a wall with the hose, spraying the water onto it your push back force should increase as you get closer to the wall.

This does not happen in real life.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

No. As explained before, the reaction force is not obtained by some kind of back pressure from the propellant. It is obtained simply by throwing a mass away.

NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like the do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?

It wouldn't just be NASA lying, the whole of science would have to be lying to you.

So, once again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

The propellant mass that you're throwing out the back of the rocket.

Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)

Yes, odd that you still need to spout such nonsense rather than admit you were wrong or address the questions.
Why do you need to avoid them so much?

If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one.

No it wont. Do you understand how gasses work at all?
Gasses don't just magically all have the same speed. Instead they have a distribution. They also don't just magically go to the exit.
If you release a gas inside a rocket engine, they will go outwards in all directions, not just towards the nozzle, and have a distribution of speed.
This means some will instead go towards the rocket and collide with it.

In order for what you are saying to be true, you already need to have the gas going out towards the vacuum, which means something needs to have already accelerated it, so you are just back to square one.

Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why?

INERTIA.
The hose is effectively forcing the water out. As such, it will create a reactionary force on the hose.
Nothing to do with air resistance.

NASA is lying at the molecular level

No, that would still be you.
You still want to pretend that the gas just magically goes from no net momentum to magically heading towards the vacuum with no application of force.
Your claims are pure fiction.

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

I have already answered this repeatedly. The exhaust is one body, being forced away from the second body, the rocket.

Now perhaps you can answer 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?


Repeating the same lies will not help you.
You need to explain how the gas goes from a net momentum of 0, to moving away from the rocket.

Now, care to try and address the question, or will you just provide more nonsense?

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

I think you are still struggling to understand what happens in a rocket motor's combustion chamber, even though this thread is full of posts which have explained what happens with total clarity. Are you imagining a little "Pffffft...." noise as fuel is sucked out helplessly into the vacuum of space? Because that is not what happens.

When a rocket motor is operating, insane quantities of fuel and oxidiser are pumped into the engine's combustion chamber and ignited, creating an apocalyptic, roaring, barely controlled explosion of boom.

There is so much boom that even if the engine bell is venting to a vacuum, there is still more than enough boom to continuously fill the combustion chamber. In the case of the Saturn V's first stage engines, there was enough boom to create an operating pressure in the combustion chamber of 1,015 psi. A reminder of what this looks and sounds like might help:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Note at around 2.44 plenty of "molecules in contact with each other".

Now, I know the first stage didn't operate in space - but thirty seconds with Wikipedia will tell you that, say, the J-2 engines in a Saturn V's seond and third stages were equally happy making boom in space.

At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.

Just like the last time you posted this, it was NOT a private converation. Mitchell's son said it right to Sibrel's face to play on his paranoia. It was a joke on a known and convicted stalker.

<< Spam deleted >>

You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"

[urhttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth]How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth.[/url]
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>

The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)

And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!

Quote from: cikljamas on August 14, 2019, 03:10:08 AM

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

I have already answered this repeatedly. The exhaust is one body, being forced away from the second body, the rocket.

Now perhaps you can answer 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?

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in the vacuum of space is 0 everywhere.

1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.



Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/s

Look at the velocity of a real Arianne 5 rocket in this video:
https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=nMFotrkgF-w

So, exhaust velocity is greater than rocket speed, which is in favor of my argument!

Since you need additional 3,5 km/s (on top of orbital speed) to leave low earth orbit (going directly away from the center of the earth), you can't even count on 2749 m/s (exhaust velocity of Ariana 5), all you can count on is about 2,3 km/s at best while there is still enough air density (barometric pressure) in space, once you reach a hard vacuum, the game is over...

Pressure altitude is dependent on the barometric pressure, and the density altitude incorporates an adjustment factor for temperature. In other words, density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for temperature.



Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

So, once again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : 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. 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.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : 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.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. 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)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

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' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

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.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent)

Quote from: cikljamas on August 14, 2019, 03:10:08 AM

Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)

No, there's no evidence for a geocentric view, why would anyone support it?

An author of a text above is mr Wolfgang Smith. Smith graduated in 1948 from Cornell University with a B.A. in Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics. Two years later he obtained his M.S. in Physics from Purdue University and, some time later, a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Columbia University.

He worked as a physicist in Bell Aircraft corporation, researching aerodynamics and the problem of atmospheric reentry.[1] He was a mathematics professor at MIT, UCLA and Oregon State University, doing research in the field of differential geometry and publishing in academic journals such as the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Journal of Mathematics, and others. He retired from academic life in 1992.

In parallel with his academic duties, he developed and still develops philosophical inquiries in the fields of metaphysics and the philosophy of science, publishing in specialized journals such as The Thomist and Sophia: The Journal of Traditional Studies.

You can here mr Smith's elaboration on this extremely interesting topic in this video :

COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :


It is important to note that much of the resistance to what we call the Copernican Revolution derived from the fact that for some time it left many important questions unanswered - in particular, how the planets and stars moved and cohered without the celestial spheres. One central insight was the switch from Aristotles's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving, to the modern concept of INERTIA, in which a moving object keeps moving unless stopped by wind drag or something else.

 A related insight also contrary to Aristotle was Newton's MATHEMATICAL understanding of GRAVITY, which allowed bodies to act on one another from a distance without direct contact. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point. Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.” According to Newton's way of thinking, besides the ordinary actions of physical laws, God acted by sustaining the motion of celestial spheres, and by setting up the initial orbits of the planets and later preventing them from disintegrating. Newton didn't hesitate to appeal to extraordinary acts of God to explain features of the natural world.

 Nevertheless, many of Newton's successors thought Newton was suggesting that God had to "correct" his own regular actions. They preferred instead the notion of God manifesting his powers not with irregular actions in nature but strictly by establishing regular "laws" that governed the entire cosmos.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641


Geocentricity detractors often appeal to the coriolis effect. It is, like the rest of the appeals, vain. The observations would be the same geocentrically or heliocentrically. Dr. Bouw covers it in detail in his books and explains how the coriolis *effect* becomes an actual coriolis *force* under a geocentric setup (and centrifugal force becomes centrifugal effect).

Here are some more quotes on the matter from some esteemed scientists:

The Coriolis effect arises, equally, whether the Earth rotates or the cosmos rotates. - Rick DeLano

"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345

Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”

In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

The circumstances surrounding Hubble’s interpretation of the redshift are intriguing. Hubble worked with Milton Humason, but only Hubble’s name is associated with the redshift/expansion theory. The primary reason is that Humason was very reluctant to provide evidence for an expanding universe. The scientific community, based on Einstein’s reworked mathematical formulas (courtesy of de Sitter and Friedmann), had already decided that the universe was expanding, but they were missing observational evidence. Consequently, the science community was predisposed to interpret redshift as a Doppler phenomenon wherein galaxies are understood to be moving away at great speeds from the observer.2 This is in the face of the fact that there was no proof for a connection between receding galaxies and redshift, or that galaxies are receding at all, or that redshift is to be interpreted as a Doppler shift. In a paper published in 1931 Humason wrote:

It is not at all certain that the large redshifts observed in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect but, for convenience, they are interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities.

Interestingly enough, regardless of what the science establishment now associates exclusively with Edwin Hubble, the fact remains that even Hubble never fully committed himself to the now popular interpretation. Hubble was quite aware of what the science community desired, but maintained his distance. He writes:

This explanation interprets redshifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that redshifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle  in  physics....  Meanwhile,  redshifts  may  be  expressed  on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage.

As we have noted in our earlier discussion of Hubble, he then came to the place where he knew ?considering what he actually saw in his telescope? that there were only two options left to him. He writes:

Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of redshifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts....Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, apparent discrepancies between theory and observation must be recognized. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.[/color]

Quote from: cikljamas on August 14, 2019, 03:17:39 AM

<< Spam deleted >>

You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"

Quote from: Tom Stafford

[urhttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth]How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth.[/url]
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>

The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)

And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!

At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.





All Truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed,
Then it is violently opposed,
Finally it is accepted as self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer-

In an age of universal deceit,
telling the Truth is a revolutionary act.
Whoever controls the past, controls the future.
-George Orwell-

One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough,
we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth.
The bamboozle has captured us.
It’s simply too painful to acknowledge,
even to ourselves,
that we’ve been taken.
Once you give a charlatan power over you,
you almost never get it back.
-Carl Sagan-

It is easier to fool people,
than to convince them that they have been fooled.
-Mark Twain-

BOTH electrodynamics and mechanics are GALILEAN INVARIANT.

Maxwell's original set of equations is Galilean invariant:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

Only the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are Lorentz invariant.

Einstein had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations which renders relativity useless: his "conjecture" (described pompously as a postulate) is not worth the paper it was printed on.

Moreover, THERE IS NO BOUNDED DYNAMICAL SOLUTION IN EINSTEIN'S TGR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

This means that the linearized, weak-field approximation is useless: TGR cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion calculations, or the bending of light or anything else.

Einstein did not provide a proof that his GR equations apply to MANY-BODY problems, a fact which was observed by A. Gullstrand.

In order to obtain a correct bounded dynamic solution, one needs to insert a repulsive gravitation term in the equations, exactly what Reissner, Nordstrom and Weyl did.

Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)

• to the best of my knowledge, there are no rocket scientists or astronomers here. Just a few rank amateurs who seem to know more you.
  And who have a dislike of folk who use know "Photoshopped" images that did not come from NASA in a deceitful attempt to show that NASA uses  "Photoshopped" images.
  
  
• You believe the earth to be a Globe and that puts you off-side with any flat-earthers here and
  push Geocentrism which goes against much physics that I, at least know, so put you off-side with the rest - so tough!.

And not you show that you are unable to understand the basics of rocket propulsion!

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

Sure gas pressure IN "the vacuum of space" is zero but the exit of the nozzle is not IN "the vacuum of space" ans so can have a slight pressure and this leads to the Exhaust Area x (Exhaust Pressure - External Pressure) term in the thrust equation.

But, as you have been told numerous times, most of the thrust from a rocket does not come from the pressure difference term but from the rate of change o momentum term of (Mass Flow Rate) x (Exhaust Velocity).

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

No, the thrust does not come from "one water drop pushing on another" but simply from the rate of change of momentum, as above!
Or from the force required to accelerate the water drop if you like.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion.

No, the thrust does not come from "one molecule pushing on another" but simply from the rate of change of momentum, as above!
Or from the force required to accelerate the molecule if you like.

Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion.

No, the "Joule Expansion" is completely irrelevant and would simply say that no work can be done on the vacuum - which is obvious!

Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

No, it is a complete fallacy that "as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space"!

• The combustion chamber is isolated by the throat and the bell which make a fully-choked converging-diverging nozzle.
  The combustion pressure, in fact, is very high!
  The RD-180 rocket engine had a combustion chamber pressure of 26.7 MPa (3,870 psi) and the SpaceX's new Raptor engine is reported to be 26.89 MPa (3,900 psi).
  
  
• The pressure in the bell part of the nozzle is still not zero and even you showed that the exhaust gasses could not disperse infinitely fast so please be consistent with your own claims.

<< Unsupportable accusation deleted >>
[/color]

Quote from: rabinoz on August 14, 2019, 05:06:50 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 14, 2019, 03:17:39 AM

<< Spam deleted >>

You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"

Quote from: Tom Stafford

How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth.
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>

The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)

And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!

<< Proving my point that you must be Joseph Goebbels re-incarnated. >>

You repeat the same old material and that does not make t more believable!

PS It was probably Vladimir Lenin that first said:
     

Quote

BOTH electrodynamics and mechanics are GALILEAN INVARIANT.

Maxwell's original set of equations is Galilean invariant:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

Only the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are Lorentz invariant.

Einstein had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations which renders relativity useless: his "conjecture" (described pompously as a postulate) is not worth the paper it was printed on.

Moreover, THERE IS NO BOUNDED DYNAMICAL SOLUTION IN EINSTEIN'S TGR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

This means that the linearized, weak-field approximation is useless: TGR cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion calculations, or the bending of light or anything else.

Einstein did not provide a proof that his GR equations apply to MANY-BODY problems, a fact which was observed by A. Gullstrand.

In order to obtain a correct bounded dynamic solution, one needs to insert a repulsive gravitation term in the equations, exactly what Reissner, Nordstrom and Weyl did.

A simple question for you :

Since JackBlack & others rejected validity of the following argument, i would like to here your opinion on the words in blue :

INTRODUCTION :

We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this  is  to  have  a  laboratory  scale model  of  the  tides.  Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water:  'just like' the water in the
ocean basin.  Galileo asks:  “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?”  If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides.  This motion is the
alternate  acceleration  and  deceleration  of  the  water.    But  how  is  this  alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?

In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole. 
We  shall assign  speeds  to  the Earth’s motions:    its orbital  speed around  the Sun, Vo,
and  its  speed  of  axial  daily  rotation Vd.   Now  consider  a point on  the  surface of  the
Earth  at noon  time.   What  is  the  speed of  that point  in  space  at noon?    It  is Vo+Vd. 
What  about  at  midnight  when  the  same  point  has  moved  around  with  the  spinning
Earth?  What is the speed of that point in space?  It is Vo-Vd.  So, your maximum speed
is at noon  time and  the minimum speed  is at midnight.   And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd  to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours  that means  that  every  point  on Earth  is  alternately  accelerated  and  decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on.   And Galileo’s conclusion  is  that  in  the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!


 
This  theory  is wrong  in  terms  of  the  later Newtonian  physics,  and Galileo was  also
wrong  in  the eyes of his friends who would not accept his  theory of  the  tides.  One of
the  reasons Galileo’s  theory was not convincing was  that  there were other  theories of
the tides. For example,  Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”. 
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how  this occurred, by some  'magical' action at a
distance.   Another person  to dispute his  theories was  the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans,  trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.

Now what about  the meaning of  the Galileo affair?   There are certain points  that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions:  Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary  set  of  arguments  against  an  established world  view.   Galileo was  not  a
Natural  Philosopher  in  the  systematic  sense  of  say, Aristotle  or  later  on Newton,  or
Descartes.  Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture.  This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.

Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic  system. Galileo’s trial comes  down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without  a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and  institutional order
on  the Catholic  side.  These were value  judgements. A  frame-ups of Galileo aside,  it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position. 

There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.

AN ARGUMENT :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can.  This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 

RABINOZ LIKES GOEBBELS :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua

This is called the SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL PARADOX.

We have the ROTATIONAL solar gravitational potential equation. That is, as the GPS satellites rotate above the Earth, they record the ether drift effect upon the clocks.

However, we also have the ORBITAL solar gravitational potential. And this one is MISSING.

It is NOT recorded/registered by GPS satellites.

GPS satellites also do not record the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT, not to mention the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled: this is the main reason why relativists are FORCED to accept Lorentz' local-aether model.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

This is called the SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL PARADOX.

We have the ROTATIONAL solar gravitational potential equation. That is, as the GPS satellites rotate above the Earth, they record the ether drift effect upon the clocks.

However, we also have the ORBITAL solar gravitational potential. And this one is MISSING.

It is NOT recorded/registered by GPS satellites.

GPS satellites also do not record the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT, not to mention the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled: this is the main reason why relativists are FORCED to accept Lorentz' local-aether model.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Maybe i should have been more specific : Do you still believe in FE theory?

I mean, if you still believe in FE theory, everything else you may think you know is practically worthless!

You know why? Because if you are unable to give me a correct answer to simple math question (for example : you disagree that 2 +2 equals 4), then no sane person would believe you can correctly derive more complex mathematical equations, let alone very complex one...

On top of that, you haven't answered my question directly, why is that?

You don't have your own opinion?

How about one another interesting question : Do you believe rockets can fly in a vacuum?

Geosynchronous Satellites

         To call…a geosynchronous body a satellite, is simply to use “satellite” to connote dependency, as in “Hungary is a Russian satellite.”  But in this sense a “geosynchronous satellite” is a satellite also of all other bodies in the universe, insofar as they all have a gravitational effect on the body.  The expression, “geosynchronous orbit,” would thus make sense only if it is understood to be a misnomer for gravitational equi­libration.

The difficulty of placing a body in “geosynchronous orbit” is merely that of finding the area of relative gravitational equilibration between earth and the other bodies of the universe.  Since synchronous is a sym­metrical, transitive and reflexive relation, a “geosynchronous” body is synchronous with all and only “geosynchronous” bodies.  [Sic]  And since the other stellar bodies, of which a “geosynchronous” body is also a satel­lite are not themselves “geosynchronous,” the area of relative gravita­tional equilibration wanders away from the position occupied by a “geosynchronous” body.  Being no longer gravitationally equilibrated, the body loses its “geosynchronicity;” and the nongeocentrist says, “Aha!  Orbital decay!”

Geostationary Satellites hover over the same point of the earth because they orbit the earth at the same speed as the earth rotates.

THE QUESTION : A geosynchronous satellites have to travel around the earth at 11 000 km/h in order not to fall back on earth. How do they manage that?

According to HC theory the earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.

To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.

1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)

2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s) 

3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?

THE QUESTION : A geosynchronous satellites have to travel around the earth at 11 000 km/h in order not to fall back on earth. How do they manage that?

According to HC theory the earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.

To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.

1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)

It was launched on many rockets... you do know that? Why is that a problem? Why would it lose its velocity, it's in a vacuum. Ok, it gets a tiny bit of drag from the top of the atmosphere and it tops up it's speed by gently accelerating with a small rocket

2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s) 

Again, with rockets. You've seen the launch videos, some of which track it almost to orbit, what's the problem?

3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?

Somewhere over the Pacific. It launched following the spin off the earth (eastwards) so it has to return following the spin, it's not like it can reverse direction while in orbit, it doesn't carry that much deltaV.

If it was launched to the west then yes,  the atmosphere underneath it (at the equator) is passing by at an extra two thousand miles an hour's faster than if it was going east.

Quote from: sandokhan on August 14, 2019, 05:49:13 AM

Quote

BOTH electrodynamics and mechanics are GALILEAN INVARIANT.

Maxwell's original set of equations is Galilean invariant:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

Only the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are Lorentz invariant.

Einstein had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations which renders relativity useless: his "conjecture" (described pompously as a postulate) is not worth the paper it was printed on.

Moreover, THERE IS NO BOUNDED DYNAMICAL SOLUTION IN EINSTEIN'S TGR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

This means that the linearized, weak-field approximation is useless: TGR cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion calculations, or the bending of light or anything else.

Einstein did not provide a proof that his GR equations apply to MANY-BODY problems, a fact which was observed by A. Gullstrand.

In order to obtain a correct bounded dynamic solution, one needs to insert a repulsive gravitation term in the equations, exactly what Reissner, Nordstrom and Weyl did.

A simple question for you :

Since JackBlack & others rejected validity of the following argument, i would like to here your opinion on the words in blue :

INTRODUCTION :

We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this  is  to  have  a  laboratory  scale model  of  the  tides.  Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water:  'just like' the water in the
ocean basin.  Galileo asks:  “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?”  If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides.  This motion is the
alternate  acceleration  and  deceleration  of  the  water.    But  how  is  this  alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?

In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole. 
We  shall assign  speeds  to  the Earth’s motions:    its orbital  speed around  the Sun, Vo,
and  its  speed  of  axial  daily  rotation Vd.   Now  consider  a point on  the  surface of  the
Earth  at noon  time.   What  is  the  speed of  that point  in  space  at noon?    It  is Vo+Vd. 
What  about  at  midnight  when  the  same  point  has  moved  around  with  the  spinning
Earth?  What is the speed of that point in space?  It is Vo-Vd.  So, your maximum speed
is at noon  time and  the minimum speed  is at midnight.   And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd  to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours  that means  that  every  point  on Earth  is  alternately  accelerated  and  decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on.   And Galileo’s conclusion  is  that  in  the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!


 
This  theory  is wrong  in  terms  of  the  later Newtonian  physics,  and Galileo was  also
wrong  in  the eyes of his friends who would not accept his  theory of  the  tides.  One of
the  reasons Galileo’s  theory was not convincing was  that  there were other  theories of
the tides. For example,  Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”. 
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how  this occurred, by some  'magical' action at a
distance.   Another person  to dispute his  theories was  the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans,  trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.

Now what about  the meaning of  the Galileo affair?   There are certain points  that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions:  Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary  set  of  arguments  against  an  established world  view.   Galileo was  not  a
Natural  Philosopher  in  the  systematic  sense  of  say, Aristotle  or  later  on Newton,  or
Descartes.  Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture.  This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.

Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic  system. Galileo’s trial comes  down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without  a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and  institutional order
on  the Catholic  side.  These were value  judgements. A  frame-ups of Galileo aside,  it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position. 

There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.

AN ARGUMENT :

If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward.  And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun.  This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph.  Very small amount.  A human cannot feel this.  But an accelerometer TOTALLY can.  This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading. 

RABINOZ LIKES GOEBBELS :

Theres a whole lotta words here
No numbers.
You work out the supposed v0 and v1?

Gas pressure

Repeatedly ignoring the question and repeating the same refuted lie wont help your case.

I have already refuted all the garbage you have spouted.
You are yet to even address the question.

You need to explain how the gas accelerates.
That requires a force.
That requires interacting with another body to produce a reactionary force.

And running off on more tangents which are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed wont help you either.

Until you manage to address the question and the issues it raises, you have nothing.
So 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?

Geosynchronous Satellites
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geostationary Satellites hover over the same point of the earth because they orbit the earth at the same speed as the earth rotates.

THE QUESTION : A geosynchronous satellites have to travel around the earth at 11 000 km/h in order not to fall back on earth.

Agreed, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites must orbit the earth once per sidereal day or in close to 23.93 hours.
This makes the orbital altitude approximately 35,786 km, the orbital radius approximately 42,164 km and the orbital velocity 3074.66 m/s (11069 km/hr).

How do they manage that?

What do you mean by How do they manage that?
It is usually done roughly as:

• Launched on rockets like the SpaceX's Falcon 9 first into a Low Earth at 200 km.
  
  
• Then they are given a "boost" (a Delta V) of an extra 2454.58 m/s.
  This puts them into an elliptical orbit with its apogee (farthest point from earth) at 35,786 km from earth.
  
  
• And finally an "Injection burn" with a Delta V of 1477.27 m/s to make the orbit circular at 35,786 km from earth.

Details may vary with individual launches.

According to HC theory the earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.

To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.

So? Why is that a problem? It is quite within the capability of modern rockets!

1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)

Why "incredible"? But it's been answered numerous times!

2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s) 

Same as the previous question!

3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?

Answered before in, HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #534 on: August 14, 2019, 08:49:30 AM »
And by others.

Why do you keep spamming your own thread with the same old questions over and over again?

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectile weight : 0.7 kg

The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg) with a maximum ammunition load.

980 N force is needed for lifting 100 kg.
980 * 18,28 = 17,91 kN

------------------------------

Space Shuttle Endeavour :

Weight : 100 000 kg
Main engines : Three Rocketdyne Block IIA SSME, each 1752 MN
Payload : 25 060 kg
Alleged Speed : 7743 m/s (27 875 km/h, 17 321 mi/h)

Weight : 120 000 kg
1200 * 980 = 1,176 000 N = 1,2 MN

Each shuttle main engine has about 418,000 pounds of thrust, and there are three on the vehicle, so that's about 1.2 million.

1 200 000 pounds of force = 545 454 kg = 5 280 000 N

545 454 kg / 120 000 kg = 4,5 (ratio)

In orbit Space Shuttle has to achieve certain speed (7743 m/s) to stay in orbit using recoil power of it's engines.

----------------------------------------------

GAU-8 Avanger

65 (rounds per second) * 0,7 kg (weight of projectiles) = 45,5 kg

45,5 kg * 1010 m/s (muzzle velocity) = 45 955 N = 45,9 kN

45 955 N = 10 482 pounds of force = 4764 kg of force

4764 kg / 1828 kg (GAU-8 total weight) = 2,6 (ratio)

------------------------------------------------------

So, GAU-8 Avanger (weight = 1,8 tons) ejects 45,5 kg at 1010 m/s! (1010 m/s = 3636 km/h)

How fast GAU-8 is going to go using it's own recoil power?

Let's suppose that Space Shuttle's exhaust velocity is 2000 m/s

It means that main engines of Space Shuttle would have to eject 2640 kg at 2000 m/s!

------------------------------------

However, if you want to propel (with recoiling mechanism) Space Shuttle 2000 m/s in a vacuum of space, you have to eject 120 000 kg (not 2640 kg) at 2000 m/s which is the first impossibility right there.

Second impossibility : Even if you could get around first impossibility, it wouldn't work since the speed of expansion of gasses in a vacuum would be much greater than exhaust velocity of Space Shuttle main engines, which would prevent any work to be done.

Third impossibility : Even if there was a way around first and second impossibility you would still be at loss for 4743 m/s, or to be honest (given the theoretical facts asserted in the following passage), you would be at loss for 3443 m/s :

After the solid rockets are jettisoned, the main engines provide thrust which accelerates the Shuttle from 4,828 kilometers per hour (3,000 mph) to over 27,358 kilometers per hour (17,000 mph) in just six minutes to reach orbit. They create a combined maximum thrust of more than 1.2 million pounds.

I am so proud that a thread like this is still going after mine got locked years ago.

Just to be fair the geocentric model works fine without Newtonian physics.

Also, as much as I hate to say it, because it's cikl vs the world in this thread, and he has handled himself amazingly, especially with Jack black and rab after him. Rockets do work in a vacuum, though I still heavily doubt the moon landings

GAU-8 Avenger

And more dodging of very simple questions I see.

Again, please answer the following:
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?

Just to be fair the geocentric model works fine without Newtonian physics.

Yes, if you discard physics you can make any model work.

he has handled himself amazingly

So you consider him repeatedly avoiding very simple questions which show his claims to be pure garbage, as well as bringing up the same refuted lies again and again to be handling himself amazingly?

Quote from: Bom Tishop on August 15, 2019, 01:59:52 PM

Just to be fair the geocentric model works fine without Newtonian physics.

Yes, if you discard physics you can make any model work.

Quote from: Bom Tishop on August 15, 2019, 01:59:52 PM

he has handled himself amazingly

So you consider him repeatedly avoiding very simple questions which show his claims to be pure garbage, as well as bringing up the same refuted lies again and again to be handling himself amazingly?

It's not quite that easy to dismiss the geocentric model.

As for cik, he at least presents evidence and makes a case unlike legba that just screams and yells at everyone (though at times amusing). Even with everyone chomping at his ankles.

I guess I will still do some fun experiments in the vacuum chamber since there is a thread like this even though I was years late on the project.

You have to admit though, rockets working in a vacuum or not, the moon landing sure has alot of holes in it. Very questionable, especially considering there was so much motivation to fake it.

GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectile weight : 0.7 kg

The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg) with a maximum ammunition load.

980 N force is needed for lifting 100 kg.
980 * 18,28 = 17,91 kN
------------------------------

Space Shuttle Endeavour :

Weight : 100 000 kg
Main engines : Three Rocketdyne Block IIA SSME, each 1752 MN
Payload : 25 060 kg
Alleged Speed : 7743 m/s (27 875 km/h, 17 321 mi/h)

Weight : 120 000 kg
1200 * 980 = 1,176 000 N = 1,2 MN

Each shuttle main engine has about 418,000 pounds of thrust, and there are three on the vehicle, so that's about 1.2 million.
1 200 000 pounds of force = 545 454 kg = 5 280 000 N
545 454 kg / 120 000 kg = 4,5 (ratio)

In orbit Space Shuttle has to achieve certain speed (7743 m/s) to stay in orbit using recoil power of it's engines.

How much did the Space Shuttle weigh?
The Space Shuttle weighed 74,800 kg empty. Its external tank weighed 35,400 kg empty and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 83,900 kg empty each. Each solid rocket booster held 500,000 kg of fuel. The external tank held 616,432 kg of liquid oxygen  and 102,500 kg of liquid hydrogen . The fuel weighed almost 20 times more than the Shuttle. At launch, the Shuttle, external tank, solid rocket boosters and all the fuel combined had a total weight of 2.0 million kg.

Boosters (2 used): Exhaust velocity = 2.37 km/s; Burn time = 127 seconds.
Main Engine (3 installed): Sea-level exhaust velocity = 3.59 km/s;  Vacuum exhaust velocity = 4.436 km/s km/s; Burn time = 8.5 minutes.

Remember that the mass falls off rapidly as the fuel is burned, still further as the SRBs and finally, the external fuel tank are discarded.

Do the Delta V sums yourself!

----------------------------------------------

GAU-8 Avanger
65 (rounds per second) * 0,7 kg (weight of projectiles) = 45,5 kg
45,5 kg * 1010 m/s (muzzle velocity) = 45 955 N = 45,9 kN
45 955 N = 10 482 pounds of force = 4764 kg of force
4764 kg / 1828 kg (GAU-8 total weight) = 2,6 (ratio)

GAU-8 Avenger "propellant load" = 1174 rounds.

Hence the effective "burn time" is a total of ¹¹⁷⁴/₆₅ = 18 seconds.

End of STORY - now run away and stop wasting everybody's time!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, GAU-8 Avanger (weight = 1,8 tons) ejects 45,5 kg at 1010 m/s! (1010 m/s = 3636 km/h)
How fast GAU-8 is going to go using it's own recoil power?

And runs out of propellant after 18 seconds! Wipe the GAU-8 Avenger!

------------------------------------

Let's suppose that Space Shuttle's exhaust velocity is 2000 m/s

It isn't!
The SRBs have an exhaust velocity of about 2.37 km/s and
the main engines have effective sea-level exhaust velocity = 3.59 km/s and vacuum exhaust velocity = 4.436 km/s;

It means that main engines of Space Shuttle would have to eject 2640 kg at 2000 m/s!

Where did you drag that from?
The three main engines each eject about 515 kg/sec at 4.436 km/sec in vacuum for a vacuum thrust of about 2279 kN.

------------------------------------

However, if you want to propel (with recoiling mechanism) Space Shuttle 2000 m/s in a vacuum of space, you have to eject 120 000 kg (not 2640 kg) at 2000 m/s which is the first impossibility right there.

How do you work that out?
The launch mass, depending on the configuration, was about 2,000,000 kg.
The Space Shuttle weighed 74,800 kg empty and could carry a 24,310 kg payload into LEO totally around 100,000 kg into orbit.

If you want to work out the end velocity you must account for the reduction in mass as fuel is burnt and the SRBs and external fuel tank are discarded.

Second impossibility : Even if you could get around first impossibility, it wouldn't work since the speed of expansion of gasses in a vacuum would be much greater than exhaust velocity of Space Shuttle main engines, which would prevent any work to be done.

That is totally irrelevant because the burnt propellant is a very high velocity (4.436 km/sec for the main engines) in the vacuum and then gradually disperses.

The exhaust gasses are far behind the rocket at that stage.

Third impossibility : Even if there was a way around first and second impossibility you would still be at loss for 4743 m/s, or to be honest (given the theoretical facts asserted in the following passage), you would be at loss for 3443 m/s :

After the solid rockets are jettisoned, the main engines provide thrust which accelerates the Shuttle from 4,828 kilometers per hour (3,000 mph) to over 27,358 kilometers per hour (17,000 mph) in just six minutes to reach orbit. They create a combined maximum thrust of more than 1.2 million pounds.

Where is there any "impossibility"?

You give me the values for:
The total mass after the SRBs have been jettisoned, the total mass after the external fuel tank has been jettisoned and the total mass into orbit and we'll take it from there.

This might help:

When the Solid Rocket Boosters separate at an altitude of approximately 45 kilometers (28 miles),
the orbiter, with the main engines still burning, carries the external tank piggyback to near orbital velocity, approximately 113 kilometers (70 miles) above the Earth.
The now nearly empty tank separates and falls in a preplanned trajectory with the majority of it disintegrating in the atmosphere and the rest falling into the ocean.

Here is the data on the ascent of STS-121 to a bit over 100 km. It shows altitude , velocity and acceleration at 20 sec intervals. See if that helps:

I've wasted enough time in your "impossibilities".

WIKI QUOTE :

The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]

During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972

READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - REALLY NOW? :

BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
ISS HOAX - 1 :

ISS HOAX - 2 :

LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX :


HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0

For reuploading this video youtube fascists shut down my channel :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua

Can you believe this???

Can you???

Shutting down someone's channel for video like this???

Don't compare Youtube with Adolf Hitler it belittles Hitler!!! 

At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.





All Truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed,
Then it is violently opposed,
Finally it is accepted as self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer-

In an age of universal deceit,
telling the Truth is a revolutionary act.
Whoever controls the past, controls the future.
-George Orwell-

One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough,
we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth.
The bamboozle has captured us.
It’s simply too painful to acknowledge,
even to ourselves,
that we’ve been taken.
Once you give a charlatan power over you,
you almost never get it back.
-Carl Sagan-

It is easier to fool people,
than to convince them that they have been fooled.
-Mark Twain-

WIKI QUOTE :

I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
But still no answer to the very simple question.

Why is that?

You sure do seem to need to run away from it.

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?

WIKI QUOTE :

The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]

During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972

READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - REALLY NOW? :

BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0

Yes, when they are sent to that altitude and given orbital velocity with a rocket! Then that "balloon" becomes a bug reflective sphere!

Why is that a problem?

Quote from: Plat Terra

and set satellites with balloons near 1000 miles up. They inflated the balloon in the vacuum of space, OPPS, no vacuum. 

Why is that any evidence of "no vacuum"? It was one of the Echo satellites and not held aloft by buoyancy but by orbiting.
Read up on it in: 1st Communication Satellite: A Giant Space Balloon 50 Years Ago.

Quote from: Plat Terra

Here is a 1960s broadcast about this amazing technology. 

And you believe the rubbish in that "Nasa No vacuum in space, balloons can go up to 1000 miles , Project Echo" video?
Why couldn’t a very strong balloon be inflated in a vacuum?

Open minded people who can't understand something research it and learn what they can.
Whereas closed-minded ignoramuses simply ridicule what their small minds can't understand - seems to fit QNFee to a T!

I fail to see why the Echo satellites could not be genuine.
They did, I believe, have initial problems with overinflation due to traces of moisture inside before launch.

You really have little understanding this sort of thing do you?

More on Project Echo in:The Earth is flat... now what? « Reply #268 on: July 01, 2017, 09:07:23 AM »

Quote from: cikljamas on August 16, 2019, 05:00:23 AM

WIKI QUOTE :

I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.

Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?

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?

Again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2

No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : 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. 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.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : 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.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. 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)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

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' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

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.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 05:15:08 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 16, 2019, 05:00:23 AM

WIKI QUOTE :

I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.

Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 05:15:08 AM

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?

Again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : 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. 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.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : 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.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. 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)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

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' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

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.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

This had gone on too long and he still apparently doesn't understand.

I'm calling "Poe" on this.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 16, 2019, 06:26:47 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 05:15:08 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 16, 2019, 05:00:23 AM

WIKI QUOTE :

I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.

Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 05:15:08 AM

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?

Again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

You still haven't watched this video :

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2

No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.

THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.

THE PROBLEM No 3 : 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. 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.

THE PROBLEM No 4 : 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.

Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. 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)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

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' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

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.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

I'm calling "Poe" on this.

What Edgar Allan Poe has to do with it?

Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???

ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???

In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totally spectacular video which proves my point :

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon?  You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason.  People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. Just my thoughts on the whole "moon" mission.
 
The question is this : *What heck are they doing up there?* Or to put it another way : Even if you knew nothing about Apollo Space Program Hoax, wouldn't you expect different kinds of alarm turning on in the head of any intelligent person when pondering on the possible purpose of silly apollo-moon games : playing golf on the moon, driving buggy like children in the playground, running (jumping) around like drunk lunatics, drilling holes, performing fraudulent scientific experiments (simultaneously dropping the hammer and feather (made out of metal) etc..)

1:28 I looked into why they haven't gone back. Excuses such as "we don't have the technology anymore and safety reasons" but they biggest excuse ... "It's really expensive and NASA doesn't have enough funding". Sooo, I researched how much money has been budgeted for NASA.. from 1958-2018 round $601 billion! In 2017,the budget given is $19.653 billion which $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration. I have also read their expenditures were only 1/5 or around $101 billion. So why again is money an issue?
 And who in the f loses or "erases" one of the biggest advances in history due to a shortage of film. I have read it was like 700 boxes of the original moon landing . Really??

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

Once again :

WIKI QUOTE :

The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]

During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972

READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0


LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX :


At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.





For reuploading this video youtube fascists shut down my channel (instead of nominating me for Nobel peace prize):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua

It speaks volumes!!!!

Can you believe this???

Can you???

Shutting down someone's channel for video like this???

Don't compare Youtube with Adolf Hitler it belittles Hitler!!!