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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 407963 Views
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #750 on: August 30, 2019, 08:59:24 AM »

“...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

News flash!

We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward.  Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.

Why do you seem wedded to the  Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.

Things have moved on.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #751 on: August 30, 2019, 12:40:56 PM »

“...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

News flash!

We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward.  Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.

Why do you seem wedded to the  Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.

Things have moved on.

1. Things have moved on, but in an opposite direction :






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

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

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

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

COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :


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.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Yes

  • 604
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #753 on: August 30, 2019, 01:36:14 PM »
I think we broke clickpajamas...
Today: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2199366#msg2199366
Previously in the thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197529#msg2197529
Older: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2162735#msg2162735

I think you're right. I made this handy little cheat sheet so cikljamas can easily re-post it at will as he just simply posts the same thing over, and over, again anyway. This will hopefully save him some time.


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #754 on: August 30, 2019, 01:48:34 PM »

“...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

News flash!

We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward.  Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.

Why do you seem wedded to the  Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.

Things have moved on.

1. Things have moved on, but in an opposite direction :


No!  Pretty much all physicists are on board with Einstein and the theory of relativity.  It’s literally text book stuff.

Try to show he was wrong if you like, but please stop quote mining physicists to claim that it’s not generally accepted.

BTW, do geocentrists accept the normally quoted distances to things like other planets, stars, galaxies, etc?



*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #755 on: August 30, 2019, 02:45:26 PM »
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :
Really?
What you mean sure seems to be "I know I can't honestly answer that without admitting rockets work in vacuums, so I will go off on yet another tangent."

You are just spamming the same refuted off topic nonsense.

Your quote-mining of people in regards to Earth's motion has nothing at all to do with if rockets can or cannot work in a vacuum.
If you want to discuss that, go back to the threads where you have already had your quote mining exposed and where it is actually on topic.

Now again, how about you try to answer my very simple question?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What will it be? You can magically contain gasses even with a container that is exposed to a vacuum with a hole in it?
You can magically accelerate things without any application of force and thus rockets can at least hypothetically work in a vacuum?
You can magically apply a force to an object without a second body being involved and thus rockets can at least hypothetically work in a vacuum?
Or the only rational option of rockets will work in a vacuum as the rocket and gas interact with the rocket applying a force to move the gas backwards and the gas applying a force to move the rocket forwards?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #756 on: August 30, 2019, 02:50:54 PM »
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :
Really?
What you mean sure seems to be "I know I can't honestly answer that without admitting rockets work in vacuums, so I will go off on yet another tangent."

You are just spamming the same refuted off topic nonsense.

You realise that you are talking to someone who cites random people’s comments on YouTube videos to build his case?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #757 on: August 30, 2019, 06:34:15 PM »
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)????
Who cares? Go look for one yourself!

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.
Already answered!

Quote from: cikljamas
3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.
It does no such thing! It proves that the earth rotates once in very close to 23.934 hours!

Any thoughts of a luminiferous aether were debunked because no aether theory could explanation the findings of many observations dating back to Bradley's stellar aberration
And, whatever Robert Sungenis says, stellar aberration still kills any thought of a Geocentric Universe.

You might read: Refuting absolute geocentrism.

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!!!
Totally meaningless! We have no such "problem with that boundary".

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
Sure, that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
Why is that relevant to the Heliocentric vs Geocentric question?

Quote from: cikljamas
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. . . . . . . . .
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]
And why is all that significant?

Hubble's "strangely small, finite universe" was the Universe seen before Amdromeda was recognised as another galaxy comparable with our own Milky Way.
His "sensibly infinite universe" is the Universe of modern cosmology where there an uncountable number of galaxies like Amdromeda and the Milky Way.

The "choice" Hubble referred to was not between the  Heliocentric Solar system and the Geocentric Universe.
He just likened the choice between the "small" (by modern standards) Universe of the Kepler/Newton era and the "sensibly infinite universe" of modern Cosmology!

Quote from: cikljamas
5.
Already answered and proven quite false!


*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #758 on: August 31, 2019, 03:37:04 AM »
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :
Really?
What you mean sure seems to be "I know I can't honestly answer that without admitting rockets work in vacuums, so I will go off on yet another tangent."

You are just spamming the same refuted off topic nonsense.

You realise that you are talking to someone who cites random people’s comments on YouTube videos to build his case?

You realise you are talking to someone who offered his own geocentric proofs (no, zigzag argument is not one of them), but whenever i present my own argument you respond with objections like these "Who are you?" "What are your credentials?" "Find me one reputable scientist who agrees with your standpoint!" etc... Then i quote a whole bunch of the most honored scientists who admit (some of them openly, some of them between the lines) that the earth is at rest, and when you have nothing sanely to respond with then you resort to a well known technique of pulling out of your asses typical stupid excuses like these : You don't understand what they are talking about (They didn't mean that way) or It's meaningless cherry-picking (without offering any proof for your such accusation), etc...

But i am not the only one who is constantly under that kind of barrage fire :

 Geocentrists Are “Cherry-Pickers”

Keating:  page  281:  “While  much  of  the  reportage  is  accurate,  often  the  interpretation  is  not.  In  many  places  evidenced  has  been cherry-picked.”

R.  Sungenis:  You  would  think  that  if  Keating  is  seeking  to  convince  his  audience  that  his  accusations  are  correct,  he  would  cite  at  least  one  example  of  so-called  “cherry-picked  evidence”  in  Galileo  Was  Wrong. That he doesn’t do so, only speaks of Keating’s methodology – shoot first, ask questions later.

Stupid Geocentrists Ignore Four Centuries of Science!

Keating:  page  280:  “Is  is  prudent  for  him  to  ignore  four  centuries  of  scientific  investigation  (much  of  it  by  Christians  who were as sincere in their faith as are today’s geocentrists) and to  adopt  the  ideas  of  a  writer  who  has  no  formal  training  in  science   beyond   a   few   lower-division   college   courses.   Is   it   prudent  for  the  reader  to  take  as  his  own  the  historical  and  theological judgment of someone who is neither a historian nor a theologian?  The  new  geocentrists  say  ‘yes’  to  all  of  these  questions.”

R.  Sungenis:  I  find  it  interesting  that  Keating,  who  has  been  teaching  Catholic  theology,  history  and  science  for  the  last  35  years  at  Catholic Answers, yet is not a scientist, a theologian or a historian, has the audacity to  question  me  on  the  very  things  he  is  lacking.  Keating  pontificates  on  evolution  and  the  Big  Bang  as  if  he  were  an  expert.  He  hires  and  fires  people  based  on  his  own  understanding  of  Catholic  theology.  He  has  written numerous books portraying himself as one of the authorities on all things  theological.  So  is  it  prudent  to  listen  to  someone  who  isn’t  even  aware of the glass house he lives in? As  for  myself,  the  best  thing  about  my  work  in  geocentrism  is  that  its  viability   comes   from   those   I   admit   are   much   more   skilled   and   knowledgeable than me. Using their expertise is the hallmark of my work, both  in  science  and  history.  In  science  there  are  such  experts  as  Einstein,  Hawking,  Mach,  Hoyle  and  Ellis,  whom  I  use  consistently  to  support  geocentrism  scientifically.  In  history  there  are  people  like  the  Church  Fathers,  the  medievals,  the  saints,  doctors,  theologians  and  popes  of  the  Catholic  Church  who  have  all  gone  before  me  and  have  all  given  their  testimony that geocentrism is true. Then there are personal friends of mine who  are  Ph.D.  scientists  (Bouw,  Bennett,  Popov,  Bernadic)  that  I  have  relied upon to deal with the subject. The only thing I have done is gathered all  their  work  and  put  it  into  a  book,  and  used  my  teaching  and  writing  abilities to communicate all that they have taught before me.

IN ADDITION :


As for JackBlack (STILL NOT) being annoyed by himself (his putting forward persistently already answered question(s)) i can only remind you all to this post :

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.
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).

« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 03:41:00 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #759 on: August 31, 2019, 03:51:52 AM »
You realise you are talking to someone who offered his own geocentric proofs
I wouldn't call them proofs, as they have all been refuted.

Then i quote a whole bunch of the most honored scientists who admit that the earth is at rest
No you don't.
You blatantly lie about them taking their statements out of context and chopping it up to pretend it says something it doesn't.

But enough about your false claims regarding the refuted position of geocentrism. This thread is about rockets in a vacuum.

his putting forward persistently already answered question(s)
So far the only answer to it is that rockets do work in a vacuum, which I provided myself.
You are yet to provide any honest answer to this question.

Spamming the same refuted lies repeatedly to try and avoid the question will not help.

It is a very simple question which demands a fairly direct answer and only has a few options available.
So which option will you pick?
Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

Or will you continue with the same childish tactics of avoiding it?

If you want to claim something else you need to actually address what has been said rather than just repeating the same refuted lies.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #760 on: August 31, 2019, 04:19:18 AM »

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



Are you suggesting he carved his own stone?
Folks who purchase the slab get to carve into it their own words.

Often the marker buyers are motivated by personal religious beliefs
that do not reflect the ideology of the deceased.
 

In other words, BS.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #761 on: August 31, 2019, 04:31:20 AM »


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.

How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?



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.
Why?
Of course rocket experiences "air drag in front of the rocket" but that is against the direction of motion.

But your "existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it" is totally meaningless!

And object travelling through a fluid will experience an increased pressure in front, impeding its progress and a reduced pressure pressure behind, again impeding its progress.

Learn some fluid mechanics and aerodynamics!



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.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #762 on: August 31, 2019, 04:32:44 AM »
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

“....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

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck 2011

"Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...” Physicist, Julian Barbour

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

"Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology "

All this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We reject it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time

"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature

"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss 2006

"Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss 2009

"When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun—the plane of the earth around the sun—the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." - Lawrence Krauss

"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe

"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe

"To date, there has been no general way of determining that we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008

“...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

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #763 on: August 31, 2019, 05:12:57 AM »
As for JackBlack (STILL NOT) being annoyed by himself (his putting forward persistently already answered question(s)) i can only remind you all to this post :

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
I've ignored the stupidity of your above diagram up till now but I guess it proves that you have no idea what a real rocket does!

A rocket does not expel "more than half of any rocket's fuel mass" is one explosive burst like that at any time!

A real rocket expels far more than half its LAUNCH MASS, not just "more than half of any rocket's fuel mass" to get its payload into orbit.

But it does this gradually during the whole period of the flight.

For example, the SpaceX Falcon 9 has a launch mass of almost 550,000 kg and can launch 22,800 kg into Low Earth Orbit. Most of the difference is burnt propellant!
The first stage's 9 Merlin 1D engines burn for 162 sec and can produce up to 7,607 kN (over 775,000 kg.force).
The first stage fuel load is about 380,000 kg so it burns an average of about 2350 kg/sec.

Just the first stage fuel burnt is almost 70% of the whole launch mass and the second stage fuel is still to be burnt.

You can chase up the details of the second stage.

So your claims of "more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed" are far from the mark.

But an important point is that as the fuel is burnt the mass is the rocket falls off and so the acceleration increase with altitude.



*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #764 on: August 31, 2019, 05:27:35 AM »

How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?

First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?

Seriously lots of people ask vaguely similar questions.
You are the one who barfs out the same copy/paste answer.

May be time for some  /ˌintrəˈspekSH(ə)n/

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #765 on: August 31, 2019, 05:34:25 AM »
There is no way you can deny obvious things :
I see no problem with these issues! Who is denying the ones that are reliably based?

Quote from: cikljamas
“...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.[/b][/color][/size]” Physicist, Albert Einstein
Since the Heliocentric Solar System was considered well proven beyond any reasonable stage by the time of Henri Poincaré, Henrick Lorentz, Michelson or Einstein that result was part of what led to the development of Special Relativity.
None of those people doubted the Heliocentric Solar System in the slightest.

Quote from: cikljamas
“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
And what does that prove? Nothing because absolute linear velocities cannot be detected and while an acceleration can, in principle be measured the centripetal acceleration of the earth's orbiting the sun is not only extremely small but inseparable from the centripetal acceleration of the earth's rotation.

But the rotation of the earth can now be easily measured.

Quote from: cikljamas
“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
Please quote the sources of your quotes because context matters!

Quote from: cikljamas
“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
But it is now known that "There was" more than "one other possible conclusion to draw"!

Quote from: cikljamas
“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
So you can't feel it! So what? But now "nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion" is no longer true as far as the ear's rotation is concerned - get used to it!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #766 on: August 31, 2019, 05:37:34 AM »

How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?

You are not obligated to read the answers or even this thread.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #767 on: August 31, 2019, 06:17:39 AM »

How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?

You are not obligated to read the answers or even this thread.

I actually am obligated.   8)

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #768 on: August 31, 2019, 08:20:17 AM »

“...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

News flash!

We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward.  Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.

Why do you seem wedded to the  Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.

Things have moved on.

And a year after Einstein said that, Mr. Michelson invented a more precise spectroscope that could measure it.
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.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #769 on: August 31, 2019, 11:35:39 AM »
I have never said I was not doing the rocket project. I have also not "disappeared" if you look at my post history. I just haven't been in this thread as it is continued arguing and I don't have anything to add.

Building the rocket apparatus, controls for said apparatus, scale, holder, go pro holder etc etc is time consuming if all the issues with other tests should be avoided.

It is something I am tinkering with in my spare time (which is usually quite limited). I have already drawn up a few possible ideas in solid works. I will probably create a separate thread when I get closer. I will then be at Boydsters Mercy for editing and actually posting it on YouTube.



Also, if someone is very serious about it and can do the rocket etc and just needs a large vacuum chamber to do the test. I am 100 percent willing to give them free access to the chamber (Dallas,tx) and all my resources at their disposal to complete the test.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #770 on: August 31, 2019, 02:30:29 PM »
There is no way you can deny obvious things :
You sure seem to be good at doing so.
The obvious thing is that rockets can work in a vacuum, yet you repeatedly deny it and just spout garbage.

Why are you so unwilling to answer such a simple question? Is it because you know the only answer will show that you have been lying for this entire thread?

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?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

If you want to claim something else you need to actually address what has been said rather than just repeating the same refuted lies.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #771 on: August 31, 2019, 03:35:28 PM »

How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?

You are not obligated to read the answers or even this thread.
I actually am obligated.   8)
My commiserations then :'(. I do hope that you are adequately recompensed for such an onerous task ;D.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 06:48:07 PM by rabinoz »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #772 on: August 31, 2019, 03:58:28 PM »
There is no way you can deny obvious things :

Since you re-post this one over and over again too, I made another cheat sheet image for your convenience. Just post the image and that will save you some copy and pasting of the same exact material repeatedly. Thank me later.


*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #773 on: August 31, 2019, 09:24:14 PM »
I can't find the answer to the question:

Is there a force between a rocket and its exhaust?

If there is such force, then what stops rocket from pushing off its own exhaust?

If no such force, then what gives the acceleration to the exhaust out of the chamber and the nozzle?
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 #774 on: September 01, 2019, 03:12:00 AM »
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...

NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...

ISS orbital period : 91 min
GoPro - Video duration : 1h 55min (295min)
295min/91min = 3,24 orbits

IN ADDITION :

Javier lopez alegria
2 days ago
I have seen more than 50 hours of space walks,,and NEVER , NEVER ,NEVER  I have seen the pass through the depresurization module, at least is suspicious. The gopro is connected before going out because the astronaut can not connect it outside so....why they cut the more interesting part of the spacewalk?? Is it a secret? Sex photos there?? Please. at least once.

Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours :


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

PROJECT LIBERTY - IT'S ALL BULLSHIT, I TELL YA :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik

Enjoy NASA - "SPACE" stupidity!
It's beyond idiocy...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

kopfverderber

  • 441
  • Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #775 on: September 01, 2019, 04:32:10 AM »
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...

NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...

ISS orbital period : 91 min
GoPro - Video duration : 1h 55min (295min)
295min/91min = 3,24 orbits

IN ADDITION :

Javier lopez alegria
2 days ago
I have seen more than 50 hours of space walks,,and NEVER , NEVER ,NEVER  I have seen the pass through the depresurization module, at least is suspicious. The gopro is connected before going out because the astronaut can not connect it outside so....why they cut the more interesting part of the spacewalk?? Is it a secret? Sex photos there?? Please. at least once.

Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours :


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

PROJECT LIBERTY - IT'S ALL BULLSHIT, I TELL YA :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik

Enjoy NASA - "SPACE" stupidity!
It's beyond idiocy...

I went diving once. I didnt see a single blue whale. They say there are 25.000 blue whales in the ocean, bullshit.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #776 on: September 01, 2019, 04:52:41 AM »
not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera
And again you jump to yet another topic.
Who cares if no satellite was observed by the go-pro, you have done absolutely nothing to establish that they should have been.

Why you are so afraid of staying on topic and answering such a very simple 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?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

If you want to claim something else you need to actually address what has been said rather than just repeating the same refuted lies.

I will keep bringing this up until you actually address it.
If you want me to stop answer it by actually dealing with the question and the issues associated with it.
Or run away like you normally do after being refuted too many times.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #777 on: September 01, 2019, 05:36:35 AM »
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...

NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
Why should "single satellite" be "caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera"? Space is big!
The volume of space in the LEO altitudes is about 3,77,211,000,000 cubic kilometres and about 800 satellites big enough to hope to see.
You precious GoPro might see a satellite 3 km away (as a one pixel dot) if said satellite happened to pass through the field of view.
Try to work out the odds of seeing one satellite! Winning Lotto might offer better odds!

Little people, like you, can't seem to understand big things - they scare you or something!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #778 on: September 01, 2019, 05:38:46 AM »
I went diving once. I didnt see a single blue whale. They say there are 25.000 blue whales in the ocean, bullshit.
And the volume of LEO space is far far bigger than the volume of all the water on earth!

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #779 on: September 01, 2019, 07:18:49 AM »
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...

NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
Why should "single satellite" be "caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera"? Space is big!
The volume of space in the LEO altitudes is about 3,77,211,000,000 cubic kilometres and about 800 satellites big enough to hope to see.
You precious GoPro might see a satellite 3 km away (as a one pixel dot) if said satellite happened to pass through the field of view.
Try to work out the odds of seeing one satellite! Winning Lotto might offer better odds!

Little people, like you, can't seem to understand big things - they scare you or something!

Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 1 :

Second,  Keating  extracts  my  quote  from  Volume  3  of  the  Galileo  Was  Wrong  series,  which  deals  with  the  history  between  Galileo  and  the  Church, not the science. But in Volumes 1 and 2, in which I deal with the science,  I  not  only  quote  and  present  the  whole  passage,  I  thoroughly  present to the reader the other two explanations for the Michelson-Morley experiment  that  Mr.  Keating  claims  I  purposely  left  out  of  the  quote  in  Volume 3. In fact, in the beginning of Volume 3, I tell the reader that since he has now finished Volumes 1 and 2, he is now ready to read Volume 3. Third,  the  reader  knows  why  I  truncated  the  quote,  since  I  want  to  emphasize to him something that I know he has never heard in his lifetime, namely,  that  instead  of  Einstein’s  Special  Relativity  theory,  an  equally  plausible solution to the Michelson-Morley experiment is that the Earth is not  moving  in  space,  but  that  this  solution  was  dismissed  out  of  hand  because  it  was  “unthinkable”  for  modern  man.  In  other  words,  it  wasn’t  science that led Einstein to Special Relativity, it was his philosophy!  Hence,  what  Mr.  Keating  regards  as  “the  correct  interpretation”  was  arrived  at  by  eliminating  the  other  equally  plausible  alternative  –  a  non-moving  Earth  –  from  the  scientific  possibilities  before  the  examination  ever got started! Some science. The simple fact is, Keating didn’t like the fact that a biography of Einstein told the reader, not once, but twice, that a motionless Earth was a legitimate answer to Michelson-Morley, so instead of  admitting  that  to  his  reader,  he  tries  to  make  me  look  devious  in  presenting  it  to  the  world.  I’m  beginning  to  think  that  Keating  has,  shall  we say, reached the end of his rope.

The  only  one  “misleading  the  reader”  here  is  Karl  Keating. In  reality,  the  only  reason  the  two  quotes  were  put  together  was  to  show  the  reader  the  two  instances  in  Clark’s  book  where  even  hean  obvious  admirer  of  Einsteinadmits  that  one  of  Einstein’s  choices  in  explaining  the  Michelson-Morley  experiment  was  to  posit  that  the  Earth  wasn’t  moving  in  space  but  that  Einstein  refused  to  consider  it.  Whereas  Keating  tries  to  eliminate  a  motionless  Earth  as  a  possibility,  Clark mentions it at least twice, and possibly a third time when he says on page 267: “As Einstein wrestled with the cosmological implications of the General Theory, the first of these alternatives, the earth-centered universe of the Middle Ages, was effectively ruled out.”

Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 2 :

ISS camera "caught" satellite in space (for the first time in history) :


Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 3 :
Little man Rabinoz never even tried to explain this obvious NASA FAKERY (blatant inconsistency) :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0

Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 4 :

PROJECT LIBERTY - IT'S ALL BULLSHIT, I TELL YA :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik

« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 07:22:36 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP