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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 407955 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #690 on: August 23, 2019, 03:10:09 PM »
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.
Would you count thermite as combustion?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #691 on: August 23, 2019, 05:17:15 PM »
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.
Would you count thermite as combustion?
I suppose that depends on how strictly you want to define combustion.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #692 on: August 24, 2019, 02:12:53 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.
The combustion chamber pressure in the SpaceX Merlin 1D was 9.7 MPa (1,410 psi) and that's very far from being a vacuum!
But igniting a large rocket, even on the ground is not that easy, especially the RP-1 (kerosene) fuelled ones.

The the SpaceX Merlin 1D  was ignited, at sea-level and in a vacuum by injecting a TEA-TEB mixture with the oxygen before the RP-1 flow was started.
Quote from: Space Exploration Stack Exchange
Why is TEA-TEB chemical ignition used instead of spark ignition?Why is TEA-TEB chemical ignition used instead of spark ignition?
Both the Saturn V and the Falcon 9 use TEA-TEB to ignite their kerosene-fueled engines. TEA-TEB is pyrophoric, igniting spontaneously on contact with air. This poses handling issues; it must be stored in nitrogen.

Oxygen-hydrogen fuelled rockets use electrical spark ignition.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #693 on: August 24, 2019, 06:28:48 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)). So, if you define space as vacuum, then we can comfortably say (until Bom Tishop provides experimental evidence to the contrary) that rockets can't fly in a vacuum (of space), however, if you define space as let's say earth's envelop which is higher than 100 km and lower than 500 km, then we can presume that rockets maybe can fly even that high if there is enough air density at these altitudes. It is hardly to believe that at 37 000 km height (alleged orbit of geostationary satellites) there would still be enough air density to support rocket-flying.

2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????

3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.

3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth. However, aether's rotation is subtle, that is to say, we can detect it with interferometers (MMX, SAGNAC, MGP, ring-laser gyros, etc...), but aether's rotation doesn't produce an effect which could be detected with directional gyros (heading indicators). However, if earth rotated heading indicators would indicate (detect) that motion by constantly pointing towards let's say North Star (or The Sun) while our orientation points at the horizon turns around our spatially fixed heading indicator's needle. So, if earth really rotated then mechanical heading indicators would detect earth's motion while we firmly stand on the rigid rotating earth or/and fly within earth's rotating atmosphere (going straight up - strictly away from earth's center, or using different kind of gyro (artificial horizon) while flying along/above the equator), but that ability (of mechanical heading indicators) of detection of the motion of the earth (and earth's atmosphere) would come to a stop at certain altitude (somewhere beyond earth's atmosphere) because once we exit rotational environment of the highest earth's envelope, that is to say : once we reach stationary environment of a stationary space then our mechanical heading indicator will cease to drift (to indicate change in directional position) because now the needle of our mechanical heading indicator will be constantly aligned with one of it's dashes on the cursor. THE QUESTION IS : Where is (at what altitude) that boundary? Have you ever asked yourself that question???

3b. Even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering MECHANICALLY (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!! However, if we assume that space (a region beyond the final frontier of earth's stationary (this time stationary because now we talk about GC scenario) envelops) is of an unknown nature (electrical nature for example), and that stars and planets are also of some totally different (from what official science teaches) nature, then in all possibility we will never discover true nature of space, stars and planets, because we will never be able to exit/escape earth's final boundary (biblical firmament) so to directly research it's true nature!!!

3c. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?



Quote
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1



4. Hubble writes :

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]

5. 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!



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.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:52:42 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #694 on: August 24, 2019, 08:47:08 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????
Probably not.  SpaceX does have cameras on their rockets that show the earth as the rocket heads towards its geostationary transfer orbit.  However the cameras get cutoff after the payload is deployed (usually within about an hour or so after liftoff).  From the time of liftoff to final geostationary orbit is probably on the order of a few days.

3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.
There is no cutoff for the atmosphere.  It just gradually keeps getting thinner and thinner until around 100km or so where there isn't enough air to generate any significant lift.  However, even the ISS at 400km or so still experiences a small bit of atmospheric drag.

3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.
Does it really?  Are you saying that a stationary earth and a rotating universe makes more sense than a stationary universe and a rotating earth?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #695 on: August 24, 2019, 09:28:01 AM »
1. Don't need air for rockets to work, some actually work better in a vacuum, usually a longer nozzle. After a launch and out of sight, we can see them in orbit within 98 minutes.
2. It usually takes 2 weeks to get a payload into a GEO orbit.
I actually observed GOES 16 get to it's parking spot.
3. Sagnac test did not come to your FE conclusion, you cannot use their testing, without using their conclusions. Most avionic mechanical gyros have a weight that keeps the it level, to the current earth location, but slowly, so the aircraft's variable Gs, don't affect it.
3C. Tell us if he requested that on his tombstone.
4. I don't think Hubble understood Einstein's theories.
5. The gravity of each large object, is the other force, so the change of vectors is not felt.

Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #696 on: August 24, 2019, 09:54:04 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :

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?
Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

You both (markjo and JackBlack) want us to believe that your level of stupidity is so high???
So, if you are not that stupid, why do you want us to believe that you are???
Is it because you can't handle the truth?
Is it because you can't handle any truth whatsoever?
Is it because you are so rotten people that you have to twist and turn upside-down every single truth, no matter how obvious it is???

So, let me ask you this question : Who are the rotten people in our societies and what are their acts???

  Of  course,  Tomb  and  Cheney’s  admission  also  means  the  US  has   no   hard   evidence   that   “nineteen   Muslims”   piloted   and   crashed  four  US  planes;  except,  perhaps  for  the  passport  of  Mohammed  Atta  that  just  happen  to  survive  the  crash  into  the  Twin  Towers  and  flutter  unmolested  onto  the  street  below.  But  in that case Mr. Bollyn would be glad to offer you his options in Florida  swamp  land.  Later  the  report  on  Atta’s  passport  was  revised  to  say  that  it  actually  belonged  to  another  hijacker  of  Flight  11,  Satan  al  Suqami.  Incidentally,  the  Atta  passport  was  first  presented  as  evidence  to  Mayor  Giuliani  by  his  police  commissioner, Bernard Kerik, who has a notorious past and who is  presently  in  jail  for  various  crimes.  Moreover,  when  Giuliani  was  presented  with  the  questions  at  a  press  conference  of  explosions  at  WTC,  he  turned  to  Kerik  who  simply  shook  his  head  and  said  “no.”  This  was  the  first  “official”  answer  to  the  question  that  would  never  go  away.  Additionally,  the  US  presented  videos  of  bin  Laden  supposedly  taking  responsibility  and/or   being   delighted   for   the   911   attacks.   It   was   later   discovered   that   the   videos,   which   were   obviously   fakes,   originated  from  ex-Israeli  Occupation  Forces  (IOF)  soldier  Rita  Katz through her SITE Institute.

Only Aired Once About PENTAGON :

This  video  was  only  aired  once  on  television  and  never  seen  again.  Whatever debris there was, the FBI and many unidentified people were out on  the  Pentagon  lawn  combing  the  ground  for  something,  walking  back  and forth. But this was a crime scene.

Have you ever heard about  the  four-part  FOX  news  story  by  Carl  Cameron,  accompanied  by  Brit  Hume  and  Tony Snow, on its details to know that Bollyn is following the leads where they go. The FBI and other US government agencies told Cameron that Israelis were  involved  in  911,  but  that  the  information  was  “classified.”  One  can  view  these  videos  at  several  places  on  the  Internet. The  intrigue  is  only  heightened by the fact that FOX pulled the series shortly after unidentified Zionist groups asked for its removal in 2001. Not only did FOX obey, as if following some Orwellian prophecy, it also removed the written transcripts and in its place put “This story no longer exists.” Here are some gripping excerpts from the series :

Federal  officials  this  year  have  arrested  or  detained  nearly   200   Israeli   citizens   suspected   of   belonging   to   an   “organized     intelligence-gathering     operation.”     The     Bush     administration  has  deported  most  of  those  arrested  after  Sept.  11...The  suspects:  Israeli  organized  crime  with  operations  in  New  York,  Miami,  Las  Vegas,  Canada,  Israel  and  Egypt...The  problem:  according  to  classified  law  enforcement  documents  obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops’ beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught  admitted  to  having  hundreds  of  numbers  and  using  them  to   avoid   arrest...Asked   this   week   about   another   sprawling   investigation  and  the  detention  of  60  Israelis  since  Sept.  11,  the  Bush     administration     treated     the     questions     like     hot     potatoes...Beyond  the  60  apprehended  or  detained,  and  many  deported since Sept. 11, another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents   describe   as   “an   organized   intelligence   gathering   operation,”  designed  to  “penetrate  government  facilities.”  Most  of   those   individuals   said   they   had   served   in   the   Israeli   military...But   they   also   had,   most   of   them,   intelligence   expertise,  and  either  worked  for  Amdocs  or  other  companies  in  Israel    that    specialize    in    wiretapping....Well,    there’s    real    pandemonium described at the FBI, the DEA and the INS. A lot of  these  problems  have  been  well  known  to  some  investigators,  many   of   who   have   contributed   to   the   reporting   on   this   story...They  want  to  find  out  how  it  is  all  this  has  come  out,  as  well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political  ramifications  of  the  story  itself  –  Tony.  SNOW:    All  right, Carl, thanks.

A third van was found on King St. between 6th and 7th which the Israelis  fled  after  they  blew  it  up.  It  was  later  found  that  the  moving  company, Urban Moving Systems (UMS), was a Mossad front and that the Kurzburg  brothers,  Paul  and  Sivan,  were  the  two  Mossad  agents.  The  entire police communication was recorded and is available on the Internet. One  of  the  police  officers  describes  one  of  the  vans  having  a  mural  of  a  plane  hitting  the  Twin  Towers.  Dominic  Suter,  another  Mossad  agent  and the registered owner of UMS, was allowed to flee to Israel by the FBI on Sept. 14, 2001, just three days after the attacks.

Dr.  Alan  Sabrosky,  Director  of  Strategic  Studies  at  the  US  Army  War  College says: “It is 100 percent certain that 9-11 was a Mossad operation. Period.”  General  Hamid  Gul,  former  Pakistan  intelligence  chief,  agrees:  “It was a Zionist/Neo Con conspiracy. It was an inside job. They wanted to go  on  world  conquest,  looking  at  it  as  an  opportunity  window  when  the  Muslim  world  was  lying  prostrate;  Russia  was  nowhere  in  sight;  China  was  still  not  an  economic  giant  that  it  has  turned  out  to  be.  And  they  thought  this  was  a  good  time  to  fill  those  strategic  areas  which  are  still  lying without any American presence; and of course to control the energy tap of the world. Presently it is the Middle East and in the future it is going to be central Asia.” Francesco Cossiga, former Italian president, is of the same opinion, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad:  “all  the  [intelligence  services]  of  America  and  Europe  ...  now  know  well  that  the  disastrous  attack  has  been  planned  and  realized  from  the  CIA  American  and  the  Mossad  with  the  aid  of  the  Zionist  world  in  order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the  western  powers  to  take  part  ...  in  Iraq  [and]  Afghanistan.”

As  for  the  odd  Israeli  reaction  to  9/11,  Benjamin  Netanyahu  himself  admitted in an off guard moment: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that  is  the  attack  on  the  Twin  Towers  and  Pentagon,  and  the  American  struggle  in  Iraq...these  events  swung  American  public  opinion  in  our  favor.” The day after, Netanyahu uttered an even more audacious remark on the 9/11 attacks, saying: “It’s very good.” Realizing the implications, he caught   himself   and   said,   “Well,   it’s   not   good,   but   it   will   generate   immediate sympathy.” Similar to Netanyahu’s capitalizing on 9/11, Ehud Barak,   which   Bollyn   says   “is   suspected   of   being   one   of   the   real   masterminds  of  9/11,”  did  much  the  same  since  “within  minutes  of  the  explosive  demolitions  of  the  Twin  Towers  on  9/11,  the  Israeli  politician  and  military  leader  Ehud  Barak  was  in  the  London  studio  of  the  BBC”  and  “before  any  evidence  of  culpability  was  found,  Barak  called  for  a  ‘War on Terror’ and US military intervention in Afghanistan,” which is a “textbook  example  of  how  false-flag  terrorism  is  supposed  to  work.  The  perpetrator  is  the  first  one  to  assign  blame...which  is  the  real  purpose  of  such atrocities.”



« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 09:58:37 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #697 on: August 24, 2019, 10:40:42 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question.  How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up?  Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 10:43:19 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #698 on: August 24, 2019, 11:42:37 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question.  How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up?  Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #699 on: August 24, 2019, 11:53:06 AM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question.  How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up?  Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #700 on: August 24, 2019, 12:15:15 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #701 on: August 24, 2019, 01:00:16 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?
I don't believe that the 9/11 official story has anything to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #702 on: August 24, 2019, 01:25:22 PM »
"No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph."

Then why can I turn on a switch on my star app, so if attached to a telescope, it can point 20 arc seconds better? From the sky shifting sideways from the 66,000 mph around the sun.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #703 on: August 24, 2019, 01:29:39 PM »
Michelson-Morley interferometry

Did you know that Mr. Michelson also created more precise way to measure Doppler shifts? To the point that the telescope's altitude on this spinning ball has to be accounted for.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #704 on: August 24, 2019, 01:31:52 PM »
Airy's Failure is based of the "aberration of light", which does show the motion, of the 66,000 mph around the sun.
Remember the scope in the test is still tipped.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #705 on: August 24, 2019, 01:39:22 PM »
The Gyroscope shown in your video, will not show the 15 degrees per hr.
Because it has pedulus vanes, which keep it level to the local earth, but are damped a lot, so the planes motions do not affect it.
Also mechanical gyroscopes are not accurate, so they can drift more than the earth's rotation. That is why they have those vanes.

If you just have plane gyroscope on a bench, may not show the rotation too.
But I suspect it's from internal friction of the gimbals.
If you dither the assembly then it may show the motion.
Dithering (rotating back and forth) is a way to get more sensitivity on things with friction.
I had told them this, but again they won't try anything that disproves them.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #706 on: August 24, 2019, 01:41:29 PM »
"One chance in 10^200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible"

What is the tolerance of those stats, how many other solar systems did he visit to get a more accurate tolerance?
One sample is not enough.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #707 on: August 24, 2019, 01:43:28 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?

What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #708 on: August 24, 2019, 03:09:23 PM »
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
They only need the pressure to support gaseous combustion in the main chamber, where the combustion is occurring.
And as your repeated avoidance of a very simple question shows, the only resistance they need is that of the exhaust gasses. They don't need any extra air to push off.

So we can safely conclude that rockets can and do work in a vacuum.

If you wish to object you need justify your baseless claims that all the gas/liquid would instantly get sucked out to prevent combustion, and explain what magical force accelerates the gas without involving any interaction with another body.
Until you do, there is literally no reason to think that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary
Stop lying. The Sagnac effect proves Earth rotates and you know that.

And of course that is completely unrelated to the topic and now you are just running down your typical rabbit hole of spam and insults.

How about you stick to the topic, and actually the issues that have been raised rather than repeating the same baseless lies?

You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:
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?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #709 on: August 24, 2019, 03:21:22 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?
What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?
I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust, bullshit is all around you, and you choose rather to believe in bullshit than to allow yourself to be convinced that you have been fooled...Watch this :

Have a good time...And bear in mind, although it's funny, it's true, also!!! What is more, it's much more true than funny...
“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. …  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” – Autobiographical dictation, 2 December 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2 (University of California Press, 2013)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #710 on: August 24, 2019, 03:35:37 PM »
You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:
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?
Don't you have any scruples?
You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very page (reply #696) Here we go : reply #696 once again, just for you : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197581#msg2197581

Just in case you still want to continue to play dumb, we shall point out this portion of my reply #696 :

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity a.k.a. Jack is playing dumber than he really is :

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?
Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

Does this answer you question???

If you had no scruples at all, you'd just kill, steal, cheat, and do God knows what else.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #711 on: August 24, 2019, 05:23:21 PM »
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
Since the exhaust velocity is faster than the speed of sound it is quite impossible for a rocket, far from any solid object to push off the atmosphere.
In addition, the atmosphere is an impediment to the rocket's motion because of aerodynamic drag and the pressure term in the thrust equation:
Note also that in my previous post I wrote: "The combustion chamber pressure in the SpaceX Merlin 1D was 9.7 MPa (1,410 psi) and that's very far from being a vacuum!"

Quote from: cikljamas
So, if you define space as vacuum,
Sure, it's closer to a vacuum than can be achieved on earth.

Quote from: cikljamas
then we can comfortably say (until Bom Tishop provides experimental evidence to the contrary) that rockets can't fly in a vacuum (of space),
No, we can assume no such thing because an optimally designed rocket engine has considerably more thrust than one designed for sea-level.

Quote from: cikljamas
however, if you define space as let's say earth's envelop which is higher than 100 km and lower than 500 km, then we can presume that rockets maybe can fly even that high if there is enough air density at these altitudes. It is hardly to believe that at 37 000 km height (alleged orbit of geostationary satellites) there would still be enough air density to support rocket-flying.
There is insufficient air above 100 km to significantly affect a rocket's performance, though enough to prevent satellites orbiting as low as that.

Quote from: cikljamas
2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????
I don't know, you can search for that yourself as well as anyone but I've seen none all the way to geostationary orbit.

Quote from: cikljamas
3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.
This might tell you: The Rotational Speed of the Upper Atmosphere by King-Hele, D. G. & Allan, R. R..
Once the mean free path of the molecules exceeds a few kilometres they close to being "disconnected from the earth" apart from gravitational effects.

This starts at a few hundred kilometres altitude, see: Standard and Reference Atmospheres, Chapter 14 by K.S.W. Champion, A.E. Cole, and A.J. Kantor.

Quote from: cikljamas
3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth. However, aether's rotation is subtle, that is to say, we can detect it with interferometers (MMX, SAGNAC, MGP, ring-laser gyros, etc...),
The "Sagnac effect proves" no such thing. Please show evidence for this claim.

Quote from: cikljamas
but aether's rotation doesn't produce an effect which could be detected with directional gyros (heading indicators).
The earth's rotation can and is detected by sufficiently stable gyroscopes and similar instruments (eg the Foucault pendulum).
Earlier aircraft directional gyros, however, are not sufficiently free of drift to measure the earth's rotation and must be reset regularly to the magnetic compass.

Quote from: cikljamas
However, if earth rotated heading indicators would indicate (detect) that motion by constantly pointing towards let's say North Star (or The Sun) while our orientation points at the horizon turns around our spatially fixed heading indicator's needle.
I'll ignore that because earlier directional gyros were not sufficiently drift free to do this and modern ones can detect both the earth's rotation and the plane's movement over the earth's surface and most be reset from the magnetic compass.

Quote from: cikljamas
3b. Even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering MECHANICALLY (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!!
Who claims that space is motionless? Linear motion is purely relative so what is the frame of reference that makes space "stationary"?

Quote from: cikljamas
3c. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?

Quote
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
                                                                                                                 Psalm 19:1
FLAT EARTH - PSALM 19,1 by odiupicku
Sure, you might read:
       God Touches the Heart of a Scientist through Gideons’ Bible Ministry by Eunice K. Y. Or
       Nazi Rocket Scientist Wernher von Braun Converted to Christ, Interviewed by C. M. Ward
       NASA scientist comes face to face with Creation though this mentions Wernher Von Braun peropherally.
Why would a heliocentric solar system "declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" any less than a geocentric one?

Quote from: cikljamas
4. Hubble writes :
Your topic is "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)" and I fail to see the relevance.

Quote from: cikljamas
5. 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.
Galileo's thoughts on tides before even Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation has no relevance here.

Quote from: cikljamas


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?
We do, but it is constant, very slight, always directed "down" and simply part of the effective g near the equator.

Quote from: cikljamas
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.[/color]

Let's use some sensible SI units!
At midnight the surface velocity at the equator is about 460 m/s in the same direction as the orbital velocity and
at midday the surface velocity at the equator is about 460 m/s in the opposite direction to the orbital velocity.

The average acceleration is 2 x 460/(12 x 3600) = 0.02 m/s2.
This acceleration is simply the effect of the centripetal acceleration at the equator, which is 0.033 m/s2 always direct down relative to YOU!

So this acceleration is simply part of the effective g at the equator and the is nothing for your cellphone to measure.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #712 on: August 24, 2019, 05:58:59 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?
What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?
I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust, bullshit is all around you, and you choose rather to believe in bullshit than to allow yourself to be convinced that you have been fooled...Watch this :

Have a good time...And bear in mind, although it's funny, it's true, also!!! What is more, it's much more true than funny...
“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. …  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” – Autobiographical dictation, 2 December 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2 (University of California Press, 2013)

Always been a big fan of Carlin. Here's a less than 2 minute treatise that sums up the biggest bullshit of all:


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #713 on: August 24, 2019, 06:43:19 PM »
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?
What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?
I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust...
Simple, verifiable physics is not bullshit.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #714 on: August 25, 2019, 02:47:32 AM »
You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:
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?
You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very page (reply #696)
Here we go : reply #696 once again, just for you : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197581#msg2197581

If you had any scruples you'd admit that HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #696 on: Today at 02:54:04 AM » is totally irrelevant to JackBlack's question and even totally to your topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)".

So either answer JackBlack's question or admit that you have no answer.

Surely by now you must admit that you have no basis for claiming that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"!

And now maybe you could read this, Creation Ministries International, Refuting absolute geocentrism.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #715 on: August 25, 2019, 03:08:29 AM »
In bullshit you trust
No, we don't trust in you.
We trust in reality, what can be shown to be true with evidence and rational arguments; rather than baselessly and repeatedly asserted lies by people that need to run away from very simple questions.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to answer my very simple question.

You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very page
No, I dare ask this very serious question you refuse to answer.
Yes, I have read what you have posted, and you read what I did. You even quoted it:
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Does this answer you question???
Now, considering I clearly stated that it does not answer my question and explained that it didn't because you failed to identify the second body involved which would also be force, it is quite clear that it doesn't answer my question.
So why be so dishonest to pretend that you have answered my question and ask such a stupid question which was answered directly by the very words you quoted?

So I'll ask again, this time adding some more emphasis:
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?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #716 on: August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM »
In bullshit you trust
No, we don't trust in you.
Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?
And the post goes like this :



To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.

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




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.

Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?

Seriously? lol

Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :

If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off??? 

Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :



Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see 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?

The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!

What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?

Free expansion!

What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?

Density of air/vacuum!

Why?

Resistance!

What it means?

It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

Was this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :


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
THRUST 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 11km/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 11km/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).

SIMPLE QUESTION FOR JackBlack and Rabinoz : If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 05:15:04 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #717 on: August 25, 2019, 05:28:13 AM »
So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #718 on: August 25, 2019, 05:45:13 AM »
So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?
As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Translation (for those who don't speak croatian) : One another "clever" guy spoke up so to join this stupidity contest.
Macarios, you landed your jump near the far end of the stupidity scale, so that you reminded me to Bob Bemon whose world record stood for almost 23 years until it was broken in 1991 by Mike Powell.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #719 on: August 25, 2019, 05:54:05 AM »
In bullshit you trust
No, we don't trust in you.
Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?
And the post goes like this :



To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.
Incorrect and it's been explained numerous times but YOU refuse to listen!

Quote from: cikljamas
If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one.
No one, other than YOU, is saying that "rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance" so stop you usual straw-manning tactics!

The "rocket's exhaust plume does . . . encounter . . . air resistance".
That "air resistance" cannot, however, transmit any thrust to the rocket because that exhaust plume is moving away from the rocket at a hypersonic velocity and that has been explained many times but YOU refuse to listen!

Quote from: cikljamas
Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks.
Most of the thrust does come from the momentum of the huge mass of exhaust gas expelled at an extremely high velocity.
If you cannot understand such a simple concept as Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, which is force = time rate of change of momentum that's YOUR problem, not ours or NASA's!

Some thrust also comes from the pressure difference term, exhaust area x (exhaust pressure - outside pressure), and this increases as the external pressure falls.
This is why the thrust of a given rocket engine is higher in the vacuum of space than at sea level.

Quote from: cikljamas
If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.
The amount of male bovine excreta YOU expel per second could possibly do that!

And I chose to delete your excess male bovine excreta to save time and let me get to bed!

Quote from: cikljamas
In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
What on earth are you talking about "free expansion" here for? It's totally irrelevant to the thrust of a rocket.

Quote from: cikljamas
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).
There's no "exchange of energy" but there is an extremely massive second body and that is the tonnes of burnt fuel expels at extremely high velocity!
For example the Saturn V burnt 12.89 tonnes of fuel and oxidizer per second. There's you second object!

Quote from: cikljamas
SIMPLE QUESTION FOR JackBlack and Rabinoz : If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
How could there be a 2.7 km exhaust trail right after lift off? The rocket is travelling very slowly for a while after lift-off, though the Ariane 5 does accelerate comparatively fast from the outset.

Why is there a connection between length of exhaust trail in kilometres and the exhaust velocity in km/s of an Ariane 5 rocket?

It all depends on how fast the exhaust gases remain visible.