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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 407952 Views
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #720 on: August 25, 2019, 06:13:49 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.”






You're demonstrating your conspiracy theorist mind again by the repeat cut and pasting of the same CTer theories with you thinking this somehow is going to make it fact or in some way be persuasive. I guess you won't be surprised to know that to most with a rational non CT mindset think this is all drivel which has been debunked.

An example being the Pentagon no plane theory you linked to. This has been done to death so often by debunkers. But in typical CTer fashion, quotes and statements are cherry picked as some form of slam dunk evidence. The reporter in the news clip couldn't see a plane because most of the wreckage was in the building itself.

Fill your boots with these debunks, of course you either won't read them or if you do/have sone previously, won't believe them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18

If you do actually believe rockets can't work in space, it's obvious why this is the case.

Maybe you need to reflect on your belief system.



*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #721 on: August 25, 2019, 08:50:37 AM »
This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 09:00:29 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #722 on: August 25, 2019, 09:29:37 AM »
This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

There you go again, true to form.

The well worn tropes of 'fake', 'deception', 'question everything', and the drift into using YouTube gurus and experts who think they know what they're talking about to bolster your claim.

I've seen the video you've posted before. The guy is an idiot.

As I said, you need to question your own outlook and why you believe these conspiracies instead of the generally held scientific consensus and evidence.

But you won't. I would guess that, even if space flight became as cheap as getting on a plane you would question the first hand witness accounts of those who been on one, or if you took one yourself you'd be thinking you've actually somehow been put on a simulator by TPTB just to fool you.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #723 on: August 25, 2019, 09:58:37 AM »
This video sums it up :


Not this idiot again. Seen it before. Why do you people have the lamest "spokes people" for your cause? This is some mechanical engineer guy, hold up in a tiny conference room with maybe two other people. At one point he wishes he had a balloon to show an example. Someone off cam hands him a blown up balloon. I too often carry around inflated balloons when attending a lecture.

Then his entire TED talk culminates in him flying a mini quad copter around saying, "See, it has to push off of something..."

This is beyond pathetic.

Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

Who is J Roger Trudel and why would I give a shit what he has to say about anything?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #724 on: August 25, 2019, 11:13:18 AM »
This video sums it up :


Not this idiot again. Seen it before.
No, you haven't seen it before, this is totally different video...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #725 on: August 25, 2019, 11:41:47 AM »
This video sums it up :


Not this idiot again. Seen it before.
No, you haven't seen it before, this is totally different video...

Like I said, this is some mechanical engineer guy, hold up in a tiny conference room with maybe two other people. At one point he wishes he had a balloon to show an example. Someone off cam hands him a blown up balloon. I too often carry around inflated balloons when attending a lecture. Then his entire TED talk culminates in him flying a mini quad copter around saying, "See, it has to push off of something..."

With the Globeusters camping on adding no knowledge or insight to the one video this idiot has produced on the subject. With Bob spouting most of idiocy.

Yeah, this Bob:


*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #726 on: August 25, 2019, 12:40:23 PM »
I am transferring the following passage from one other discussion on the same subject :

Real life analogies work great to explain scientific phenomena. In fact, I prefer them because we may not all agree on the definition of terms that Nasa and other space scientists use.

You used this analogy:

“Place a firecracker under an empty inverted can and light it. When it explodes the can flies upward because the forces from the expanding gas of the explosion are not countered in the upward direction so that is the direction it moves. And, it doesn’t move merely because the gasses “push against the ground” under the can. It would work as well if the can were suspended by a string and away from the ground.”

Your assumption that a can suspended upside down by a string would also fly up in the air.

I have tried this experiment and the can DOES NOT fly up in the air. The can moves slightly upward, but does not “fly up”.

We taped a Black Cat firecracker to the inside of a green bean can with no lid, set it on the ground upside down with the wick sticking outside the can. With the same set up, we place another green bean can on the barbecue grill.

For the can on the ground, when the firecracker blew, the can soared into the air about 20 feet. For the can on the grill, when the firecracker blew, the can only jumped up about 4 inches.

Ya, we blow a lot of stuff up when its firecracker season using all manner of objects and environments. I have had a pretty active childhood and have experimented quite a bit with scientific principles.

When it is said that a can on the ground behaves the same way as a can suspended in air when firecrackers are exploding inside them I have to disagree based on my own experience.

Clearly, the ground is aiding the can somehow in gaining all that extra height. It could also be said that the grill and its lack of ground is prohibiting the can from flying up.

Without using the idea of “pushing against the ground”, how would you explain the difference in heights of the two green bean cans?

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #727 on: August 25, 2019, 12:46:12 PM »
I am transferring the following passage from one other discussion on the same subject :

Real life analogies work great to explain scientific phenomena. In fact, I prefer them because we may not all agree on the definition of terms that Nasa and other space scientists use.

You used this analogy:

“Place a firecracker under an empty inverted can and light it. When it explodes the can flies upward because the forces from the expanding gas of the explosion are not countered in the upward direction so that is the direction it moves. And, it doesn’t move merely because the gasses “push against the ground” under the can. It would work as well if the can were suspended by a string and away from the ground.”

Your assumption that a can suspended upside down by a string would also fly up in the air.

I have tried this experiment and the can DOES NOT fly up in the air. The can moves slightly upward, but does not “fly up”.

We taped a Black Cat firecracker to the inside of a green bean can with no lid, set it on the ground upside down with the wick sticking outside the can. With the same set up, we place another green bean can on the barbecue grill.

For the can on the ground, when the firecracker blew, the can soared into the air about 20 feet. For the can on the grill, when the firecracker blew, the can only jumped up about 4 inches.

Ya, we blow a lot of stuff up when its firecracker season using all manner of objects and environments. I have had a pretty active childhood and have experimented quite a bit with scientific principles.

When it is said that a can on the ground behaves the same way as a can suspended in air when firecrackers are exploding inside them I have to disagree based on my own experience.

Clearly, the ground is aiding the can somehow in gaining all that extra height. It could also be said that the grill and its lack of ground is prohibiting the can from flying up.

Without using the idea of “pushing against the ground”, how would you explain the difference in heights of the two green bean cans?


Better question: How would you explain the can on the grill jumping up at all?

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #728 on: August 25, 2019, 02:10:13 PM »
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
Stop lying.
You are yet to answer this.
This is almost certainly because you know answering it will show you have been lying the entire time and know that rockets do work in a vacuum and that they don't need to push off anything other than their own exhaust.

Spamming the same refuted nonsense again and again will not help you.
It will not magically answer the question.

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!
And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.
If the expansion produces thrust force, why isn't this force accelerating the rocket?

Free expansion!
Does not apply in this case.
With free expansion, there is no net change in the velocity of the gas.
With a rocket there is.
Also note that free expansion does not care what the actual pressures are, just that there is a difference.
If free expansion would magically prevent rockets from working in a vacuum it would also prevent them working in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
That the gas MUST REMAIN INSIDE THE ROCKET!
By claiming there is no second body you are claiming that gas will magically be held inside the rocket rather than escaping out the opening to a vacuum.

Is that really the path of stupidity you want to go down?

Again, we know the gas will leave the rocket. To claim otherwise is claiming pure magic, that you can hold gas inside an open container surrounded by vacuum.
We also know that as there is only one opening in one direction, it will leave in a particular direction.
We know that that means it will have a velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that it started without a net velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that that means it needs to be accelerated.
We know that it has mass.
We know that that means it needed a force applied to accelerate it.
We know that that involves interaction with a second body.
We know that that will also accelerate the second body.

Claiming there is no second body means there cannot be any iteraction and thus no force and thus no acceleration and thus the gas remained trapped inside the rocket.

If that is what you want to claim, then state it directly. Go against all known physics and claim that in a vacuum, because there is no second body, gas will remain inside an open vessel with absolutely nothing to keep it in.

If you don't want to claim that and instead want to accept that the gas will escape, you need to identify the second body. Claiming there is none will not help.

As a reminder, the only thing there to act as the second body is the rocket.
That makes it clear why you are avoiding answering it. Because you know that answering it will show that you know rockets will work in a vacuum.

Was this helpful
No, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.

So going to answer the question yet, by either identifying the second body or by claiming the gas will magically stay trapped inside an open container?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #729 on: August 25, 2019, 03:09:27 PM »
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
Stop lying.
You are yet to answer this.
This is almost certainly because you know answering it will show you have been lying the entire time and know that rockets do work in a vacuum and that they don't need to push off anything other than their own exhaust.

Spamming the same refuted nonsense again and again will not help you.
It will not magically answer the question.

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!
And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.
If the expansion produces thrust force, why isn't this force accelerating the rocket?

Free expansion!
Does not apply in this case.
With free expansion, there is no net change in the velocity of the gas.
With a rocket there is.
Also note that free expansion does not care what the actual pressures are, just that there is a difference.
If free expansion would magically prevent rockets from working in a vacuum it would also prevent them working in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
That the gas MUST REMAIN INSIDE THE ROCKET!
By claiming there is no second body you are claiming that gas will magically be held inside the rocket rather than escaping out the opening to a vacuum.

Is that really the path of stupidity you want to go down?

Again, we know the gas will leave the rocket. To claim otherwise is claiming pure magic, that you can hold gas inside an open container surrounded by vacuum.
We also know that as there is only one opening in one direction, it will leave in a particular direction.
We know that that means it will have a velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that it started without a net velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that that means it needs to be accelerated.
We know that it has mass.
We know that that means it needed a force applied to accelerate it.
We know that that involves interaction with a second body.
We know that that will also accelerate the second body.

Claiming there is no second body means there cannot be any iteraction and thus no force and thus no acceleration and thus the gas remained trapped inside the rocket.

If that is what you want to claim, then state it directly. Go against all known physics and claim that in a vacuum, because there is no second body, gas will remain inside an open vessel with absolutely nothing to keep it in.

If you don't want to claim that and instead want to accept that the gas will escape, you need to identify the second body. Claiming there is none will not help.

As a reminder, the only thing there to act as the second body is the rocket.
That makes it clear why you are avoiding answering it. Because you know that answering it will show that you know rockets will work in a vacuum.

Was this helpful
No, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.

So going to answer the question yet, by either identifying the second body or by claiming the gas will magically stay trapped inside an open container?

If the gases are pushed in to the container faster than they can exit, the pressure builds up and can combust.

Also think inside the rocket engine. The fuel and oxidizer burns rapidly and expands, pushing against all the walls of the chamber, except where the hole is at the bottom, to the nozzle. So the gasses push in all directions but less down, so the results it pushes the rocket up. So it pushes against itself, simple.
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 #730 on: August 25, 2019, 03:12:55 PM »
BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.

Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.

Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle. There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.

That is how rocket thrust works. The continued expansion of gasses caused by burning high energy fuel builds up pressure but the pressure is always lower at the rear of the rocket motor due to the open nozzle. The higher pressure in the forward part of the motor maintains an imbalance of forces so the rocket continues to move as long as fuel is burned.

In addition to the above force there is also some thrust caused by rearward ejection of mass (the exhaust) in accordance with Newton’s 3rd Law.


COMMON SENSE :

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.

To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero.
Sigma F = 0

Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it.
F = ma

Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction.
F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0

Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.

This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #731 on: August 25, 2019, 03:15:52 PM »
In bullshit you trust
No, we don't trust in you.
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 :


And here from your favourite source in information and for your delectation and enjoyment:



Enjoy!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #732 on: August 25, 2019, 03:21:44 PM »
Exhaust gases go one way, rocket goes the other.  Equal and opposite reactions.

Stripped down to the most terms, that’s all you really need to get.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #733 on: August 25, 2019, 03:26:16 PM »

So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
[/quote]


ENJOY
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #734 on: August 25, 2019, 04:11:36 PM »
BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.

Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.
not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.[/color]
Incorrect!
In the rocket engine, including in the nozzle bell, the rocket exhaust is connected to the rocket in the combustion chamber and the nozzle.
The acceleration of the propellant is caused by its combustion and the shape of the converging-diverging (de Laval) nozzle.

Quote from: cikljamas
Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle.
You can look on the thrust of a rocket being generated this way using Newton's second law of motion and the answer is the same as using conservation of momentum.

Relative to the rocket the mass of the propellant is accelerated from zero in the tanks to the exhaust velocity within the combustion chamber and nozzle.

Quote from: cikljamas
There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.
This is not a secondary force but is simply another way of looking at the same force.

Quote from: cikljamas
<< simply a repetition of the above! >>

COMMON SENSE:

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.
Well why argue semantics instead of physics?
Is it because you do not understand physics or do you see the need to reinterpret Newton's Laws to fit your narrative?

Quote from: cikljamas
To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero: Sigma F = 0

Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it: F = ma
Ok, but remember that Newton's original second law in effect was force = time rate of change of momentum.

Quote from: cikljamas
Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction: F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0

Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.

This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.




The propellant must be accelerated from zero velocity (relative to the rocket) to the exhaust velocity within the rocket engine (combustion chamber and nozzle).

This acceleration requires a rearward force to be applied to that propellant and that rearward force is applied by the forces on the throat and expanding nozzle as in the diagram on the right.
If this rearward force is your F1 then that burnt propellant must apply an equal and opposite force, F2.

So F2 is the negative force.

I simply cannot understand why there is any problem with this approach.

The tonnes of exhaust gas ejected every second at Ve must require a force to accelerate it.

That force is the (predominant part of) the rocket's thrust.


Note that the atmospheric pressure does not enter into that part of the thrust (a force)
       

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #735 on: August 25, 2019, 05:48:43 PM »


The answer has not changed!
NASA and anybody that understands rocket thrust say that:
the efficiency falls of when the outside pressure falls below the exhaust pressure but for a given rocket engine the thrust keeps increasing!

Now read this over and over until you understand it!
Quote from: cikljamas
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.
Please note exactly what NASA said:
Quote
and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air
The rocket engine starts "losing efficiency" NOT losing thrust. In other words, a little more thrust could be obtained by using a larger nozzle.
But please note that NASA does not say rocket engines lose power or lose thrust "as they ascend into ever thinner air".

And then read exactly what I wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no "BIG question"! A rocket loses no thrust as it enters into a near-vacuum and in fact gradually gains thrust all the way!

Look again at "Goddard's" rocket thrust equation:
The lower the outside pressure, Po, the higher the thrust, F.
I was comparing the rocket's thrust not the "efficiency" and as I've said before a little more thrust (and hence efficiency) could in principle be achieved by using a larger nozzle.
It is soon found that there is a practical limit on the nozzle size and this is commonly the diameter of the rocket body.

Look at this:
Quote from: StackExchange: Space Exploration Beta
What are the differences between a standard Merlin engine and the Merlin Vacuum engine?
This pic is said to be, left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 1C (different mounting), and Falcon 9 2nd stage 1C vacuum -- without the extension nozzle, so it's a shorter, fatter nozzle than the others.


And here's what the extension nozzle looks like by itself:
That's what a nozzle for a vacuum engine looks like. I tried to scale the two photos correctly.

The limit on that nozzle, in this case, is the diameter of stage 2 of the Falcon 9.

Do you understand these issues yet?
The above photos are of the SpaceX Merlin 1C engines.

The "sea-level" version of the SpaceX Merlin 1D delivers a thrust of 845 kN (190,000 lbf) at sea-level and 914 kN (205,000 lbf) in a vacuum.
While the "vacuum" version of the Merlin 1D (using a larger bell) delivers a thrust of 934 kN (210,000 lbf) in a vacuum.

If you do not have the capability of comprehending this you have no right to call NASA or anybody else liars because YOU disagree with them!

YOU are the ignorant one here!

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #736 on: August 25, 2019, 07:36:22 PM »
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.


So, is there any force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Will you answer, or hide behind things like that?



Quote
The smarther you are, the dumber you look to fools."
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.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #737 on: August 26, 2019, 02:02:46 AM »
If the gases are pushed in to the container faster than they can exit, the pressure builds up and can combust.

Also think inside the rocket engine. The fuel and oxidizer burns rapidly and expands, pushing against all the walls of the chamber, except where the hole is at the bottom, to the nozzle. So the gasses push in all directions but less down, so the results it pushes the rocket up. So it pushes against itself, simple.
And I mostly agree.
The one point of contention is that even if it was released much slower it would still generate a force, but much less.

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE
BULLSHIT :
There is no second body in space so the air will magically stay inside the rocket, or magically accelerate without any force, either way in direct violation of all known physics.
COMMON SENSE :
There is an interaction between the gas and the rocket causing each to push each other away.

To save time
If you really wanted to save time you would have answered my question by now.
Especially as I have already summed up the 3 laws.
As a reminder:
The velocity of the fuel and oxidiser in the rocket changes as it burns in the combustion chamber and exits the rocket.
By Newtons 1st and 2nd laws, this requires a force to act on the gas to accelerate it.
By Newtons 3rd law, this requires a reactionary force acting on another body in an opposite direction.
In space, the only other body available is the rocket.

Thus by Newton's laws of motion rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph
So you don't see it at all.
Forces have units of Newtons, not velocity. Try again.

but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.
The force of the gas on the rocket is the same magnitude as the force of the rocket on the gas.
They are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
This gas doesn't just magically flow out the back. It needs a force to force it out. This force comes from the interaction with the rocket.

Now, care to quit all the BS and actually answer my question, or do you know that doing so will expose you as a liar and a troll?
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?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #738 on: August 26, 2019, 04:45:15 AM »
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then
"If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then" it would burn up from atmospheric drag in a few tens of seconds!

Msybe like this:

Russian Meteor 15-02-2013 (Best Shots) [HD] by Artur Alves


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #740 on: August 26, 2019, 04:54:25 PM »
This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

I repeat, why can we see them in orbit after a launch?
If they are seen moving at such a clip, it has to be the rockets work.
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 #741 on: August 27, 2019, 03:34:12 AM »
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #742 on: August 27, 2019, 08:18:52 AM »
I know I'm late to the party, as I've been away for a few days, but hopefully I'm not necro'ing this quote too badly.
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

cikljamas, you've made this same mistake a few times before, and in fact was one of the motivations of me signing up for these forums.  I think if you step back and think about the following, you'll (hopefully) start understanding where we are coming from.
Speed is not force.
Furthermore, acceleration is not speed.

In order for a rocket to move 17,000 mph, no counteracting object need be moving 17,000 mph in the opposite direction.  Rather, an equal force needs to be applied in the opposite direction.  F = m a, which means the only time you'll get an equal acceleration (speed over time) is if the mass is equal.  And even with equal mass, you won't get equal speeds if one object is constantly chucking mass out the back, and the other object only got chucked out once and then left alone.

I don't care to look up the mass and acceleration of a rocket and its exhaust, so let's make up some numbers.  Let's say the rocket is 1000 kg and moving at 20 m/s/s.  I don't know, I'm just making up numbers.  That makes a force of 20,000 N.  So we should expect to see a reaction force of 20 kN in the opposite direction.  We are not expecting to see 1000 kg of mass flying out the other end though.  How mass is the exhaust?  I don't know, let's say it's 10 kg for some moment in time.  If that's the case, then we would expect that exhaust to be accelerated at 2000 m/s/s.  Unlike the rocket, that exhaust doesn't get accelerated for very long though, just a fraction of a second.  Maybe a hundredth of a second?  Maybe I really should be looking up numbers for this exercise.  Let's say it takes a hundredth of a second to be pushed out the nozzle. If so, then we should expect to see that exhaust moving at about 20 m/s.  With our totally made-up numbers.

Are you following me?

Speed is not force.  Acceleration is not force.  The application of equal and opposite forces do not result in equal acceleration unless the mass is the same.  Big mass for a rocket, small mass for exhaust.  The application of acceleration depends on how long it's being applied.  Long time for a rocket, small time for exhaust.


Bonus: the "force of gravity" is also not F in that equation.  It's the acceleration.  So that's why there's no reason to expect feathers to float during high tide.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #743 on: August 30, 2019, 02:46:32 AM »
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?
Bom Tishop gave it up...Did he really mean what he claimed (about being genuinely interested to try to carry out such an experiment), or he just can't solve his "rocket" problem, that is the question...Since all we can hear from him is a total silence then i believe he wasn't even serious about his proposal to perform such an experiment in the first place...

Is this foreplay : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2196260#msg2196260

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #744 on: August 30, 2019, 02:58:04 AM »
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?
Bom Tishop gave it up...
Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #745 on: August 30, 2019, 03:47:18 AM »
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?
Bom Tishop gave it up...
Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?
I do realise that, but why total silence?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #746 on: August 30, 2019, 04:53:34 AM »
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?
Bom Tishop gave it up...
Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?
I do realise that, but why total silence?
Ask him. Send him a polite PM.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #747 on: August 30, 2019, 05:10:48 AM »
Bom Tishop gave it up.
It takes time to do experiments like this. He even indicated he would need to work with others.
But even if he did, could you really blame him where you have already indicated you will be dismissing any results he produces?


Meanwhile, it seems you have given up as you have still been unable to answer a very simple question and instead just repeat the same refuted nonsense again and again.

Once more:
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, you have very limited options.
You can decide that contrary to all known physics, the gas will magically remain trapped inside the rocket, even with an opening to the vacuum, but then you would need to explain this magic; or you can be rational and accept that the gas will leave the rocket, going in the direction of the opening.
But that then means the gas is being accelerated as it is changing velocity. Again you have a choice.
You can decide that contrary to all known physics, the gas will magically accelerate without any application of force, but that causes 2 issues, the explanation for why it accelerates without a force, and addressing why the rocket can't do the same; alternatively you can again be rational and accept that the gas needs a force to be applied to it to accelerate it.
But then what is the other body? Again you have a choice.
You can decide that contrary to all known physics, no second body is needed, that instead the gas will be accelerated by a magical force with no reactionary force, but then need to explain why that happens, and why the rocket can't do the same; alternatively you can be rational and accept that it does need a second body and a second force, and as you have already stated that the only body there is the rocket, that means that the rocket would have a force applied to it by the gas, and thus work in a vacuum.

So your choices pretty much boil down to reject firmly established physics of motion, or accept that rockets work in a vacuum.
What is it going to be?
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 #748 on: August 30, 2019, 08:34:47 AM »
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :

Do you ever just annoy yourself?

I’m not talking about when you don’t like something about yourself like your big mouth or small brain, or whatever, I’m talking about when you are just annoyed at the uncomparable size of your mouth vs the size of your brain.


Secondly, have you ever been annoyed by going from failure to failure (without loss of enthusiasm) in your futile attempts to deny these irrefutable facts (knowing very well that there is no way you can deny obvious things) :

“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be   made   perceptible   in   terrestrial   experiments.   We   have   already   remarked...that  all  attempts  of  this  nature  led  to  a  negative  result.  Before  the  theory  of  relativity  was  put  forward,  it  was  difficult  to  become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by  any  optical  experiment,  though  the  Earth  is  revolving  around  the  Sun.” Physicist, Albert Einstein

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest...” Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré

“This    conclusion    directly    contradicts    the    explanation...which    presupposes that the Earth moves.” Physicist, Albert Michelson

“The  data  [of  Michelson-Morley]  were  almost  unbelievable...  There  was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

“We   can’t   feel   our   motion   through   space,   nor   has   any   physical   experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.” Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

“....The  easiest  explanation  was  that  the  earth  was  fixed  in  the  ether  and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and  the  ether....Such  an  idea  was  not  considered  seriously,  since  it  would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the  universe,  with  all  the  other  heavenly  bodies  paying  homage  by  moving around it.” Physicist, James Coleman

“The   Michelson-Morley   experiment   confronted   scientists   with   an   embarrassing  alternative.  On  the  one  hand  they  could  scrap  the  ether  theory   which   had   explained   so   many   things   about   electricity,   magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in  motion.  To  many  physicists  it  seemed  almost  easier  to  believe  that the  earth  stood  still  than  that  waves  –  light  waves,  electromagnetic  waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma  and  one  that  split  scientific  thought  for  a  quarter  century.  Many  new  hypotheses  were  advanced  and  rejected.  The  experiment  was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not  uncommon  for  people  to  say  that  Copernicus  proved  Ptolemy  wrong,  that  is  not  true....one  can  use  either  picture  as  a  model  of  the  universe,  for  our  observations  of  the  heavens  can  be  explained  by  assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“...Thus  we  may  return  to  Ptolemy’s  point  of  view  of  a  ‘motionless  Earth.’ This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to  the  Earth  in  which  all  stars  are  performing  a  rotational  motion  with  the  same  angular  velocity  around  the  Earth’s  axis...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  Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency.” Physicist, Max Born

“The  ancient  argument  over  whether  the  Earth  rotates  or  the  heavens  revolve  around  it  (as  Aristotle  taught)  is  seen  to  be  no  more  than  an  argument  over  the  simplest  choice  of  a  frame  of  reference.  Obviously,  the   most   convenient   choice   is   the   universe....   Nothing   except   inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference...If   we   choose   to   make   the   Earth   our   fixed   frame   of   reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the  sun  rises  in  the  morning,  sets  in  the  evening;  the  Big  Dipper  revolves  around  the  North  Star.” Science historian, Martin Gardner

“What  happened  when  the  experiment  was  done  in  1887?  There  was  never,  never,  in  any  orientation  at  any  time  of  year,  any  shift  in  the  interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication?  Here  was  an  experiment  that  was  done  to  measure  the  speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that  was  ten  times  more  sensitive  than  it  needed  to  be.  It  could  have  detected  speeds  as  low  as  two  miles  a  second  instead  of  the  known  20mps  that  the  earth  as  in  its  orbital  motion  around  the  sun.  It  didn’t  detect    it.    What’s    the    conclusion    from    the    Michelson-Morley    experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving...”  Physicist, Richard Wolfson

“If [earth] it isn’t moving relative to the ether, then earth alone among the  cosmos  is  at  rest  relative  to  the  ether.  Now  that  may  be  an  absurd  possibility but maybe it’s true. I think you can see that this is not going to  be  very  philosophically  satisfying,  and  it  isn’t  satisfying  physically  either,  but  it  violates  the  Copernican  Principle  that  the  earth  isn’t  special. So if Earth is at rest relative to the ether, then it alone is at rest. That makes us  pretty  special...Physicist, Richard Wolfson

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the  nineteenth  century.  One  possibility  was  that...v  would  be  zero  and  no  fringe  shift  would  be  expected.  But  this  implies  that  the  earth  is  somehow  a  preferred  object;  only  with  respect  to  the  earth  would  the  speed  of  light  be  c  as  predicted  by  Maxwell’s  equations.  This  is  tantamount  to  assuming  that  the  earth  is  the  central  body  of  the  universe.” Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli

“Michelson  and  Morley  found  shifts  in  the  interference  fringes,  but  they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth” Physicist, John D. Norton

“...it  is  very  important  to  acknowledge  that  the  Copernican  theory  offers  a  very  exact  calculation  of  the  apparent  movements  of  the planets...even  though  it  must  be  conceded  that,  from  the  modern  standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat  revised  Ptolemaic  system....It  makes  no  sense,  accordingly,  to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions   are   equally   permissible   descriptions.   What   has   been   considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach

“...I   tell   my   classes   that   had   Galileo   confronted   the   Church   in   Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.”  Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

“The  Copernican  revolution  outshines  everything  since  the  rise  of  Christianity  and  reduces  the  Renaissance  and  Reformation  to  the  rank  of  mere  episodes,  mere  internal  displacements,  within  the  system  of medieval   Christendom.   Since   it   changed   the   character   of   men’s   habitual  mental  operations  even  in  the  conduct  of  the  non-material  sciences,  while   transforming   the   whole   diagram   of   the   physical   universe  and  the  very  texture  of  human  life  itself,  it  looms  so  large  as  the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that  our  customary  periodisation  of  European  history  has  become  an  anachronism and an encumbrance.” Historian, Herbert Butterfield
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #749 on: August 30, 2019, 08:49:06 AM »
and here I thought we were talking about rockets in a vacuum...
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.