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

Water vapor is gas.

Yes, but you said:

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space

Ice is not gas.

Same principle applies as for rockets in a vacuum, yet no modification of the orbit is being observed.

Only if you have a massive rocket with basically no exhaust.
Just how much force would you expect from these jets?
Just how much acceleration would that cause the moon?

You have a massive object, ejecting a comparably tiny amount of matter at a quite slow speed.
As such you would not expect any significant effect.

Meanwhile, with a rocket you have a large object, ejecting a very significant amount of matter at a very high speed.

Again, if you want to use these jets to dismiss rockets working in a vacuum, go do the math, with valid references.
Until you do, these jets have no bearing on if rockets can work in space.

Water ice becomes water vapor, a gas (read the references).

You have a massive object, ejecting a comparably tiny amount of matter at a quite slow speed.
As such you would not expect any significant effect.

Meanwhile, with a rocket you have a large object, ejecting a very significant amount of matter at a very high speed.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.

It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuously, distributed over a distance (and area) which encompasses at least half of the circumference of Enceladus.

Same proportions, and of course same principle.

Yet, nothing happens at all, the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.

Water vapor is gas.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/

The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour. Such high speeds imply that the jets are fed by pressurised water vapour that shoots through narrow openings – which act like rocket nozzles – in the moon’s icy surface.


Same principle applies as for rockets in a vacuum, yet no modification of the orbit is being observed.

Let us remember that there is a very delicate balance between the tidal forces attributed to Saturn and its moons (official astronomical data):

http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos.





Since the water vapor geysers of Enceladus have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the orbit of the satellite (ejected on such a huge scale of hundreds of kilometers), we can safely infer that rockets do not and cannot function in vacuum, same principle applies (not the speed of the gas itself).

"At these warm temperatures, liquid water, ice and water vapor mingle. The vapor escapes to the vacuum of space through cracks in Enceladus' ice crust. When the gas expands, it cools and the ice grains that make up the visible part of the plumes condense from the vapor. Vapor in the plumes is clocked at roughly the same speed as a supersonic jet, about 300 to 500 meters per second, or about 650 to 1,100 miles per hour. However, most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second (536 miles per hour).

Pinball-like physics account for the slow speed of the particles. Shooting up through crooked cracks in the ice, the particles ricochet off the walls, losing speed, while the water vapor moves unimpeded up the crevasse. The vapor reboosts the frozen particles as they pinball off the walls, carrying them upward. Reaching nozzle-like openings at the surface, the faster-moving water vapor shoots high above Enceladus, becoming entrapped in Saturn's magnetosphere. Most of the particles, which have lost energy through collisions in transit, fail to achieve escape velocity and fall back to Enceladus' surface. Only about 10 percent escape Enceladus and form Saturn's E-ring. "

Now, i dare you to provide some math to prove your point.

ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos

That's not a proof.

As we can see, Newton’s laws work.

The man imparts a force on the ball and thus, the ball imparts a force on him.

Same with rockets.

Trivial really.

"At these warm temperatures, liquid water, ice and water vapor mingle. The vapor escapes to the vacuum of space through cracks in Enceladus' ice crust. When the gas expands, it cools and the ice grains that make up the visible part of the plumes condense from the vapor. Vapor in the plumes is clocked at roughly the same speed as a supersonic jet, about 300 to 500 meters per second, or about 650 to 1,100 miles per hour. However, most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second (536 miles per hour).

Pinball-like physics account for the slow speed of the particles. Shooting up through crooked cracks in the ice, the particles ricochet off the walls, losing speed, while the water vapor moves unimpeded up the crevasse. The vapor reboosts the frozen particles as they pinball off the walls, carrying them upward. Reaching nozzle-like openings at the surface, the faster-moving water vapor shoots high above Enceladus, becoming entrapped in Saturn's magnetosphere. Most of the particles, which have lost energy through collisions in transit, fail to achieve escape velocity and fall back to Enceladus' surface. Only about 10 percent escape Enceladus and form Saturn's E-ring. "

Now, i dare you to provide some math to prove your point.

Quote

ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos

That's not a proof.

The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour. Such high speeds imply that the jets are fed by pressurised water vapour that shoots through narrow openings – which act like rocket nozzles – in the moon’s icy surface.

SOURCE : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/

So, if Enceladus' escape velocity is 240 meters per second, and 2100 km/h = 583 meters per second, then how come that most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second???

Let's compare it with CMEs velocities :

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s....

Now, i dare you to provide some math to prove your point.

Sure, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Your reference is a simple OPINION, not a scientific peer-reviewed statement.

Here is a PEER-REVIEWED paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006JA012086

The velocity required to eject a water molecule upward from the surface of Enceladus to a distance of 1000 km is ≳ 225 m/s, slightly less than the escape velocity of 250 m/s. It seems probable, therefore, that a significant fraction of water in the plume escapes entirely from Enceladus.

SOURCE : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/

So, if Enceladus' escape velocity is 240 meters per second, and 2100 km/h = 583 meters per second, then how come that most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second???

Let's compare it with CMEs velocities :

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s....

Exactly.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 03, 2019, 03:14:53 AM

SOURCE : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/

So, if Enceladus' escape velocity is 240 meters per second, and 2100 km/h = 583 meters per second, then how come that most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second???

Let's compare it with CMEs velocities :

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s....

Exactly.

What is more, the devil is in careful reading :

The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour.

So, the question is : How much faster???

The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.

Water ice becomes water vapor, a gas (read the references).

And what the relevance of that? The water vapour has the same mass as the water.

You have a massive object, ejecting a comparably tiny amount of matter at a quite slow speed.
As such you would not expect any significant effect.
Meanwhile, with a rocket you have a large object, ejecting a very significant amount of matter at a very high speed.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Not in the slightest! The effect on the main object, Encaladus or a rocket, is the momentum of the mass ejected, its mass x its velocity.

Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.

It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuously, distributed over a distance (and area) which encompasses at least half of the circumference of Enceladus.

Same proportions, and of course same principle.

Maybe the same principle but where are your values for the mass of ejecta, velocity of ejects and the mass of Enceladus?

Look at the exhaust mass flow from a typical modern rocket:
The SpaceX Falcon 9 has a launch mass of almost 550,000 kg.
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 which is ejected at about 3 km/sec!
So just the first stage fuel burnt is almost 70% of the whole launch mass and the second stage fuel is still to be burnt.

So that SpaceX Falcon 9 ejects almost 70% of the whole launch mass at about 3 km/sec
while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.

Yet, nothing happens at all, the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.

You have no way to demonstrate that at all!

Is this supposed to be a joke?

No, now how about you address the issues raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense?

Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.

Notice how that is nothing that I asked for? (and it is just another baseless claim from you, especially as earlier in this thread an exhaust trail many times the size of the rocket emitting it was shown, showing it isn't the same area).

It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuously

So nothing like a rocket which goes through its entire fuel supply in a matter of minutes, with that entire fuel supply being the majority of the mass.
So thanks for once again showing it is nothing like a rocket.

Again, if you want to claim it should produce a similar effect tell us the mass of the planet, the mass flow rate of the ejected matter, the velocity of the ejected matter, and from that the expected force, and from that the expected acceleration.
Until you do so, you are just spouting garbage as you have done absolutely nothing to show that we are not observing what we would expect.

the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.

Prove it. You just asserting something doesn't make it true.

The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour.

Yes, as already pointed out, much slower than rocket exhaust, as such the comparison is useless.

Now how about you try answering the question that you have been avoiding for so long?
Until you answer it, the only rational conclusion is that rockets do work in a vacuum.

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?

All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1561289#msg1561289


Now, here is another reference on the speed of the water vapor molecules:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

The CO2 E3 and E5 data show an approximate inverse square decay of the plume density with distance from the south polar terrain, which is consistent with collisionless vapor expansion from Enceladus well in excess of the 240 m/s escape speed.

The expression assumes radial expansion of the gas from the surface sources at constant speed, neglecting gravity since the mean molecular speed in the jets significantly exceeds (by at least a factor two) the 240 m/s Enceladus escape speed.

All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1561289#msg1561289


Now, here is another reference on the speed of the water vapor molecules:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

The CO2 E3 and E5 data show an approximate inverse square decay of the plume density with distance from the south polar terrain, which is consistent with collisionless vapor expansion from Enceladus well in excess of the 240 m/s escape speed.

The expression assumes radial expansion of the gas from the surface sources at constant speed, neglecting gravity since the mean molecular speed in the jets significantly exceeds (by at least a factor two) the 240 m/s Enceladus escape speed.

Just a second - you claim that Cassini was faked, but you use Cassini's data to proove your point? So, if your point is valid, then Cassini could not be faked

The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.

Was just going to say that 

also total mass of the Apollo 11 Spacecraft was just under 29k kg

How many KN of thrust is required to move a small moon with a mass of 1.08 ×10²⁰ kg  which is also graivitationally locked with the 3rd largest mass in the solar system

All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:

And just more lies from you.
How about you try and defend your prior claims rather than running away from them and spouting more lies?

Again, if you want your claims to be taken seriously, you need to show it is a valid comparison.
That means the thrust to mass ratio needs to be comparable.
Like I said before, tell us the mass of the planet, the mass flow rate of the ejected matter, the velocity of the ejected matter, and from that the expected force, and from that the expected acceleration.

Or how about I try doing it for you?

Lets just take a simple route and assume the moon is made entirely of water, at a constant density of 1000 kg/m^3 (it isn't, it is more dense than that).
This along with the diameter of ~ 500 km, gives a radius of 250 000 m, and thus a volume of ~6.5e+16 m^3, gives a mass of 6.5e+19 kg.

Now, for a simple direct comparison to a rocket like the Falcon 9 Rab has provided, that would mean you need to have a mass flow rate of the exhaust of roughly 2.8e+17 kg/s, which travels at roughly 3 km/s, and doesn't have significant gravitational interaction.
But you don't.
Instead, according to your paper, you get a mass flow rate of less than 1000 kg/s, and instead it is a much lower velocity of 2100 km/hr or ~583 m/s.
That gives a PATHETIC force of 583 kN.
That is less than the Falcon 9.

So all these jets show is that you can't use a rocket that is weaker than the Falcon 9 to move an ENTIRE MASSIVE MOON!

But lets continue shall we?
Well, we have a force of 583 kN, acting on a body with a mass of 6.5 Zg.
That gives an acceleration of ~9 fm/s.
So basically nothing.

So just why would any sane person expect any significant change in the trajectory of the moon from this jet?

while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.

It cannot fall back, read the references.

The orbital stability of Enceladus is a hotly debated topic, now scientists realize that the original equations and results of the orbital eccentricity stability are wrong:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/80f7/db79f1418a405c5a417ff1ab5427653be7dd.pdf

It is very difficult to obtain estimates such as mass-flow rates given the currently available data:

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/goldsteinetal2018.pdf

What we have is a similar mechanism to that of a rocket nozzle: gas being ejected at a certain speed into the vacuum of space, and yet nothing happens to the orbital stability of Enceladus.


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 ?!

Please explain how the subsurface global ocean of Enceladus stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.


Instead, according to your paper, you get a mass flow rate of less than 1000 kg/s

Where did you get this figure from?

while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.

It cannot fall back, read the references.

The orbital stability of Enceladus is a hotly debated topic, now scientists realize that the original equations and results of the orbital eccentricity stability are wrong:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/80f7/db79f1418a405c5a417ff1ab5427653be7dd.pdf

Thanks for providing a study into stable orbits around 200km of Enceladus , good read but nothing to do with your argument.

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 ?!

That is the word i am looking for all along...lol

Instead, according to your paper, you get a mass flow rate of less than 1000 kg/s

Where did you get this figure from?

I was going to ask precisely the same question...

JackBlack's idiocy vs Sandokhan's brilliancy :

JackBlack's idiocy :

Water ice becomes water vapor, a gas (read the references).

You have a massive object, ejecting a comparably tiny amount of matter at a quite slow speed.
As such you would not expect any significant effect.

Meanwhile, with a rocket you have a large object, ejecting a very significant amount of matter at a very high speed.

Sandokhan's brilliancy :

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.

It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuously, distributed over a distance (and area) which encompasses at least half of the circumference of Enceladus.

Same proportions, and of course same principle.

Yet, nothing happens at all, the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.

The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.

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 :


Little man Rabinoz and JackBlack 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

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

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


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

What we have is a similar mechanism to that of a rocket nozzle

Yes, just like you blowing air out of your mouth is a similar mechanism.
The problem is one of scale.
The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.

What ?!

The question has been explained repeatedly.
I understand that you reject Newton's laws of motion and believe in pure magic instead, so the question is not to you.
You would probably pick one of the other options, like the gas just magically moving with no force.

Please explain how the subsurface global ocean of Enceladus stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

How about you deal with the fact that your comparison is complete garbage?
This thread is for discussing rockets.

Where did you get this figure from?

The paper you linked.
You should try reading it.
I even made it clear that that was where it came from.
If you don't like that number, feel free to provide a better one, which is properly referenced.

But that isn't going to save you.
Like I already pointed out, rockets go through their fuel in a matter of minutes, and that fuel makes up the majority of the mass.
So unless you have the moon ditch the majority of its mass in a few minutes, it isn't going to help.

That is the word i am looking for all along...lol

Really?
Because it still doesn't answer the question.
It seems you are still trying to do whatever you can to avoid this very simple question because you know it exposes your claims to be pathetic lies.
You are the one who is desperate here, trying to avoid simple questions at all costs.

If you want me to deal with your other garbage, deal with the question first. Either admit that rockets do work in a vacuum, or provide another answer to 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?

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?

The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.

But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.

Imagine this: a 500 km rocket (in length) with full-blown exhaust in the form of water vapor.

And nothing happens?

Who are you kidding?

How about you deal with the fact that your comparison is complete garbage?

So you cannot explain the presence of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus using your precious concept of gravity.

This says everything about your failed beliefs in heliocentrism.

The paper you linked.

I posted three papers on the subject.

Which one has that specific reference?

Link and page number please.

The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.

But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.

Imagine this: a 500 km rocket (in length) with full-blown exhaust in the form of water vapor.

And nothing happens?

Who are you kidding?

How about you deal with the fact that your comparison is complete garbage?

So you cannot explain the presence of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus using your precious concept of gravity.

This says everything about your failed beliefs in heliocentrism.

The paper you linked.

I posted three papers on the subject.

Which one has that specific reference?

Link and page number please.

Yeah but the papers had very little to do with your subject and many of your links actually disprove flat earth... well played.

Still to move an object you need to talk about force not speed. Nobody is disputing that water vapour is being jettisoned, but what is the force of the jet, can it move a moon?

So you cannot explain the presence of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus using your precious concept of gravity.

This says everything about your failed beliefs in heliocentrism.

M. Selbrede: George Galeczki (in “Mach’s Principle and the True Continuum,” Mach’s Principle and the Origin of Inertia, ed. Sachs & Roy, Apeiron Press 2003, p. 136) states, “Indeed, from the astronomical evidence within the solar system, Laplace concluded that the speed of propagation of gravity has to be at least 10^8c. This limit has been pushed to 10^10c in the last years by Van Flandern, thus strongly suggesting instantaneous propagation of gravity.” Geocentrists are hardly alone in asserting the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light. Some geocentrists derive the speed of gravity from the Planck Density  (by  calculating  the  speed  of  sound  through  an  object  bearing  that  density),  and  some geocentrists posit a property analogous to an optical refractive index to the “empty” space bearing that density (geocentrists are not alone in holding to that idea either, were one to study the refereed literature on that point).

R. Sungenis: Lastly, I think it is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand, claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not incorporate gravity or inertial forces. On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of light because Special Relativity says nothing can go faster than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s speed is limited to light speed?  Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity, is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is because General Relativity deals with frames that include gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself is a non‐inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000 mps by Special Relativity which only deals with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of Relativity contradict themselves.

Are you referring to this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.

Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.

I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 10⁵ kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).

How could this huge emission of mass not have an effect on the overall orbit?

Nothing of note there!

Quote from: kopfverderber on September 03, 2019, 03:28:25 AM

The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.

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 there be? How close would one of those satellites have to be for GoPro camera to see it? Certainly not further than 3 km or so!

How far away is that "airplane exhaust trail"? At least 400 km away! Do you sums!

IN ADDITION :

<< I'll ignore that bit of meaningless drivel >>

Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours :

OK, YOU prove that not "not a single satellite" was captured when it might be a speck a few pixels wide passing the field in a fraction of a second!

Little man Rabinoz and JackBlack 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

What's to explain in that trashy video?

The only inconsistency there is the stupid commentator's total misunderstanding the differences in direction and relative motion make to the apparent movement of the earth.

With the satellite moving at 27,580 km/h or so the apparent motion seen is dominated by that of the satellite and will depend on where the camera is pointing!!

Stupidity deleted.

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

There's your satellite !

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

Look, Mr Cikljamas, NASA has a combined intelligence 1000 times yours! If they were trying to hide anything they would hide it in a way that YOU would never detect it!

The simple fact that they allow video transmission glitches and compression artefacts to be shown is proof in itself that they are not hiding anything.
And that goes for ALL the lunar mission photos too - they knew far more than you do about things like the thermosphere, the Van Allen Belt radiation and conditions on the moon that you ever will.

They don't have to use "PhotoShopped" images.
Apparently YOU do because you have posted at least one video that tries to get away with "PhotoShopped" images to show that NASA uses "PhotoShopped" images.

But YOU got caught red-handed, didn't YOU! Your photos were never from NASA's image library but were fake! Read: The hypocrisy of cikljamas/odiupicku.

I wonder why you REFUSE to respond the that?

Are you referring to this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.

Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.

I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 10⁵ kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).

How could this huge emission of mass not have an effect on the overall orbit?

No I meant the one where you tried to prove that water was being ejected, not disputed, by providing a paper on the orbital mechanics of the last Cassini flyby, something you dont believe happened.

As to this paper did you read it? the actual quote from YOUR link is

The total plume intensity, between 100 and 1000 kg/s, is also stochastically variable between Cassini flybys in UVIS and INMS observations, and estimates of the source rate are dependent (by up to ∼30%) on the assumed temperature and speed of the high Mach emission, as determined by the roles of adiabatic and nonadiabatic fluid expansion in accelerating the gas.

My figure is meaningless?? I dont understand Im asking you to provide the force generated by the plume that would be sufficient to move a small moon.

I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 10⁵ kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).

lol what

Supply the maths please.

I was not addressing you, but the fellow from Australia who posted an estimate using the 1000kg/s figure.

We would need to know the exit pressure, perhaps even the free stream pressure of the plume to reach some final conclusions on the force exerted.


Supply the maths please.

You don't trust me?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241127178_Total_particulate_mass_in_Enceladus_plumes_and_mass_of_Saturn's_E_ring_inferred_from_Cassini_ISS_images

These are the images provided by Nasa:





A nice 500 km rocket, with plenty of thrust provided by the plume/water vapor being ejected at some 600m/s.

Are you referring to this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.

Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.

I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 10⁵ kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).

How could this huge emission of mass not have an effect on the overall orbit?

Easily!
The mass off Enceladus is about 1.08 ×10²⁰ kg.

So even if 1.5 x 10⁵ kg were ejected per DAY and none was returned it would last far longer than the estimated age of the solar system.

That 1.5 x 10⁵ kg is only ¹/_{720,000,000,000,000}‬ of the mass of Enceladus.
After 4.571 billion years (the estimated age of the solar system) only 0.23% of the mass of Enceladus would have been ejected!

No one knows the TRUE MASS of Enceladus until the size/depth of the subsurface ocean is estimated with accuracy.

Where does this water come from?

Your estimates are based on a rocky core. However, now scientists are saying that the core of Enceladus is made up of sand; others even suggest it is pure ice. The latest figure is a core with at least 30% water content.

Therefore that estimate is pure nonsense: try again using a core of ice, you will get a much lower figure for the overall mass.

There could also be huge cavities inside the core, thereby lowering even further the figure for the total mass.

Yeah but the papers had very little to do with your subject and many of your links actually disprove flat earth... well played.

Still to move an object you need to talk about force not speed. Nobody is disputing that water vapour is being jettisoned, but what is the force of the jet, can it move a moon?

Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :

There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas [color=purple]Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied[/color].

THE QUESTION No 1 :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?

Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is
due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,
the universe keeps  turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down.
(Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation).

As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe
or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2158366#msg2158366

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

THE QUESTION No 2 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, what consequence should we expect (from the same cause - geyser activity) to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself??? Extreme consequences???

Wiki quote :

Enceladus is tidally locked with Saturn, keeping the same face toward the planet. It completes one orbit every 32.9 hours within the densest part of Saturn's E Ring.

THE QUESTION No 3 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, and if it is more than reasonably to assume that geyser activity would have extreme consequences to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself, isn't it more than reasonably to assume that Enceladus in these circumstances couldn't remain tidally locked with Saturn due to it's changed rate of rotation?