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

You are trolling the upper forums, since you have nothing else to add.

A single photograph puts an end to your drivel.



Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

I disagree with your ultimate conclusions,

Disagreeing ain't got nothing to do with it.

You have to EXPLAIN the Allais effect if you want anyone here to look in your direction.

If you can't explain it, your personal opinion counts for nothing.

Alleged photographs/gifs from outer space don't count: the missions can easily be faked.

Says who and why? All of your photographic evidence of whatever is thereby rendered inadmissible as well, don't count? Lighthouses and such. The images can be easily be faked

What you want is to provide some kind of an experiment.

Every mission to space is an experiment unto itself.

You are trolling the upper forums, since you have nothing else to add.

A single photograph puts an end to your drivel.

Correct, a single photo puts an end to your drivel. Flat earth, according to you, has Toronto under dozens of feet of water, drowning. Here's what your flat earth photo reveals:

It doesn't work like that.

You have to PROVE your statement.

Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.

Really? 
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was based evidence from Galileo plus a lot of experimental work by Robert Hooke and himself.

Possibly a catalyst was the realisation that the same gravitation that caused the apple to fall stopped the moon from "flying away" as it would with no central force.

Newton and Hooke did not try to find a cause for gravitation, just the way it behaved and that is why it is Newton's Law and not Theory.

But how much experimental work have you done it your attempts to prove Newton wrong? Would that be none?
All I've seen you do is to criticise and ridicule those who attempt versions of the Cavendish experiment.

And Newton never claimed that gravitation was caused by mass attracting mass, just that it behaved that way.

First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.

Why?
The idea that the Globe was rotating on it's axis and orbiting dates right back to Aristarchus of Samos.
Others rejected that largely because it was claimed that the stars should move, stellar parallax.
Quite a number of others, especially in the Middle East and India took it further.

But in the west it wasn't till Copernicus with his admittedly poor model "started the ball rolling" in the West.

But Newton's time most astronomers saw that the Heliocentric Solar System fitted the planets far better than the old Ptolemaic Universe.

But there was not direct evidence of the Heliocentric Solar System until well after Newton's time.

Please entertain us.

I won't bother because you provide all the entertainment we can handle!

I disagree with your ultimate conclusions,

Disagreeing ain't got nothing to do with it.

You have to EXPLAIN the Allais effect if you want anyone here to look in your direction.

If you can't explain it, your personal opinion counts for nothing.

I dont wish to get into this again, but the peer reviewed papers you submitted showed an unknown anomaly, nobody at this stage can explain it, but as there are numerous papers that also record no such anomalies. Your own reference states the experiments cant be replicated. 

I brought it up as the experiments themselves proof the earth rotates.

You can only twist and turn so far without tieing yourself in knots.

Disprove rotation, you disprove allais effect, can you see the issue here.

Well played dodging the math again.

Flat earth, according to you, has Toronto under dozens of feet of water

No.

It means you are unable to accept reality.

This photograph IS NOT POSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH.



Toronto is not under water; it is the limitation of the camera itself which is to blame.

Let me prove this point again to show your silliness.



According to your drivel, at this point in time, Toronto should be under 300 METERS OF WATER.

This is what you are saying.

So is Toronto under water, or is the camera to blame?

Here is a better quality camera, and what do you know, Toronto has a magical drainhole to eliminate the water.



Are you telling your readers that magically the water subsided to a level of 150 METERS?

Can't you see how silly you are?

I have just proven that Toronto IS NOT under water and that, furthermore, the camera itself is to blame.

A better quality camera gives us this shot:



Did the water subside to 90 METERS?

This is what you are telling your readers, that the water magically disappeared from a level of 300 meters down to 90 meters.

See how easy it is to debunk your silliness and at the same time save you some money?


All of your photographic evidence of whatever is thereby rendered inadmissible as well, don't count?

It is a matter of TRUST.

I can prove to you immediately how the LEONOV mission were faked. Would you trust anything coming from the Soviet/Russian space missions? Of course not.

I can prove to you immediately how the EXPLORER mission was faked. Would you trust anything coming from Nasa again? Of course not.

Go ahead and try to disprove the photographs posted by me here from both professional and amateur photographers.

Remember, years ago the RE called the author of the photographs from Grimsby to verify COMPLETELY that what I was saying was true.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was based evidence from Galileo plus a lot of experimental work by Robert Hooke and himself.

Here is some REAL EVIDENCE.

Formulas and experiments.

THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IMMEDIATELY INVALIDATES NEWTON'S FAKE FORMULAS AND IDEAS.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

Refraction won't help you. Refraction won't save you.

Incorrect! Ask any astronomer or surveyor!
Atmospheric refraction has been carefully measured and studied since the work of Tycho Brahe!

And it's so laughable that flat earthers will try to explain sunrise and sunset by massive "upside-down" refraction.
But now you deny a few arcminutes of refraction, what a joke!

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no visible refraction in the photograph, it would amount at most to some 10 meters (I am very generous here).

Sorry but there is no way to simply see refraction like this.
It's not like a mirage that leaves a visible sign though some of your photos show a trace of reflection at the water horizon.

You can't delete 24 meters even though you would like to.

Oh, yes I can and I did! 
And until you prove there cannot be any refraction I'll continue to use it.
You might your work cut out disproving refraction because it's supported by far smarter people than you!

It doesn't work like that.

I don't care what you believe or don't believe but it does work that way - get used to the facts for once!

Nobody is saying that refraction is not possible.

But the images would look different.





Nothing of the sort in the photograph from St. Catherines.

That is why your argument falls to the ground.

As for the 24 meter deletion, if it helps your cognitive dissonance, sure go ahead and make your day.

Here you won't get more than 10 meters, on a sunny day.

Flat earth, according to you, has Toronto under dozens of feet of water

No.

It means you are unable to accept reality.

No, that's you that can't face facts!
Whatever you say those photos, that you keep posting ad nauseum, show a considerable hidden height.

It might not be as much as you think the Globe should have but your flat earth should hide nothing, zilch.

How do you explain that away?

And these photos that I keep posting ad nauseum , also show a considerable hidden height.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level

The left photo show a considerable hidden height but your flat earth should hide nothing, zilch.

How do you explain that away?

I always like to play with the RE.

Well thanks for admitting you are just trolling everyone.
Especially with all your photographic disproofs of a FE.

Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?

Your Bathurst lighthouse photos have already been debunked.

It seems we have go through this several times, before it dawns on you.




Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.


HERE ARE MUCH CLEARER PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH IN HAMILTON, 60 km distance to Toronto/Lakeshore Blvd. West.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto





Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton

Quote from: sandokhan on September 06, 2019, 11:35:14 PM

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

What would pull those "trillions of billions of water" anywhere else against the Earth's gravity?
Where to?

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why? This guy nailed it down :

These guys nailed it down, also :



And now, something completely different :
THIS IS ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICALLY SHAPED :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200711#msg2200711
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201616#msg2201616
If you carefully studied my argumentation provided on the pages to which you will be directed by clicking the links above, you would easily figure out why Rabinoz is right claiming :

"The left photo show a considerable hidden height but your flat earth should hide nothing, zilch."

Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?

WHAT?!

You want to debate rockets with me?

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3K_isinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

K_i = (I_xx - I_zz/I_yy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε²), we obtain


ψ" + 3K_isinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μK_isinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε²)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.


Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.


It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.

v_e = − √[2GM/(r + h)]

Rocket science tells us that the gravitational potential energy between two objects is:

PEi = −GMm/R_i



Therefore, the general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of attractive gravity, in heliocentrism.



It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.

There is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation: it follows that the gravitational escape velocity equation is completely false.

The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The Biefeld-Brown effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

E.T. Whittaker has proven that the potential is represented by pairs of longitudinal bidirectional scalar waves (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

Nobody is saying that refraction is not possible.

But the images would look different.

Do you mind if I show where your photos came from?
Here: MIRAGES IN FINLAND, You can observe shifting horizons, eerie ships and other mirages along the Finnish coastline.
And your first photo was titled: A sailing boat with a typical superior mirage in the background.

The photo above was titled: A house in the archipelago with a superior mirage.

Nothing of the sort in the photograph from St. Catherines.

No there wasn't and I claimed no mirage at all "in the photograph from St. Catherines".

All I claimed was no more than a few arcminutes of refraction as is commonly encountered over water.

That is why your argument falls to the ground.

Not at all!

As for the 24 meter deletion, if it helps your cognitive dissonance, sure go ahead and make your day.

No "cognitive dissonance" on my part.
But either you are ignorant of the differences between simple refraction, looming,  and inferior/superior mirages of trying to pull a"swifty" to prop up your non-existent case.

Here you won't get more than 10 meters, on a sunny day.

I'm not asking you for any 10 metres! I've taken all I need.

But little do you know! A sunny day can be the worst because the air heats faster than the water which is the very thing that can cause excess refraction!

Yes, we know you have a severe cognitive dissonance affliction which makes you stay online some eight hours every day.

In your mind you can do all the cutting you want, here you will never get more than 10 meters.

It boils down to this

It boils down to this:
Rockets work in a vacuum.
That is what all the available evidence indicates.
That is what all known physics indicates.

This thread has being going for quite some time, with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.
You are yet to even attempt to answer it.
Instead you only ever want to discuss what happens after this key issue.

So I ask again, this time making it even clearer where we begin:
We start with the hot gas inside the combustion chamber of the rocket. It has just been burnt. It is currently moving with the rocket, with the chamber having a hole connecting to the nozzle and then to the vacuum of space.
What happens?

Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?
WHAT?!
You want to debate rockets with me?

As that is the topic of this thread, YES!
You made a bunch of baseless claims regarding a moon of Saturn allegedly disproving rockets working in space.
After that was repeatedly destroyed, you then fled from that topic and tried to hide it with mountains of BS.

Can you address that?
Can you either back up your claims, showing clearly that there should be a significant effect, with the relevant, referenced numbers, and that this effect does not occur (not just an absence of evidence of it occurring, show we have precise data on its motion to show this effect does not occur), or admit that it shows nothing about the functioning of rockets in a vacuum.

arbitrarily shaped satellite

ROCKET!!!
Do you understand what a rocket is?

It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.
v_e = − √[2GM/(r + h)]

No, it is literally impossible.
You can stick your head in the sand about gravity and pretend it doesn't exist, but that does nothing to prove that this equation is false.
This is also not directly connected to rockets.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 04:11:58 AM

It boils down to this

It boils down to this:
Rockets work in a vacuum.
That is what all the available evidence indicates.
That is what all known physics indicates.

This thread has being going for quite some time, with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.
You are yet to even attempt to answer it.
Instead you only ever want to discuss what happens after this key issue.

So I ask again, this time making it even clearer where we begin:
We start with the hot gas inside the combustion chamber of the rocket. It has just been burnt. It is currently moving with the rocket, with the chamber having a hole connecting to the nozzle and then to the vacuum of space.
What happens?

This is what happens :

Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)

NASA SAYS  :

"The physics involved in the generation of thrust is introduced in middle school and studied in some detail in high school and college. To accelerate the gas, we have to expend energy. The energy is generated as heat by the combustion of some fuel."

According to Jack, generated energy (as heat by the combustion) is the force which produces another force (thrust) which is (mass (flow (rate) * (exhaust velocity).

The first force (combustion-expansion-chemical reaction) forces one part of the second force (mass flow rate) to accelerate (which is another part of the second force).

So, we have the first force (chemical reaction) and the second force (thrust).
Now, according to Jack's logic, the second force is not the whole force, but only one part of the second force (mass (flow rate)).

In order to get the entire force (thrust) we need the first force (chemical reaction) which is going to accelerate one part of the first force (mass).

Now, according to Jack, the first force (chemical reaction) is actual-real force, and thrust is only one part of what it really is (mass (flow rate)).

This is how Jack invented something (first force) that can artificially separate thrust (which is actually just one part (mass (flow rate)) of what it really is : (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)) from a rocket.

So, the first body is a rocket, second body is a thrust (which is actually just one part (mass (flow rate)) of what it really is : (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity), and the force is actually the first force (chemical reaction) which accelerates second body (thrust) so that we can finally get thrust in it's integrality.

This is an interesting theory (which eventually boils down to nothing more than meaningless wordplay), but it is plainly wrong, that is to say : just one among many classical examples of notorious Jack's stupidities.

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."

Jack still hasn'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= thrust= mass flow rate* exhaust velocity) 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 gas cannot push the ship with the nozzle closed because gas trapped in the combustion chamber does no work but if you open the nozzle all the gas exits immediately before it can push against the ship. Therefore you cannot use gas in the vacuum to power a rocket ship.

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.

An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top. Since we know rockets are not lifted , they must be pushed. Therefore the gasses underneath the rocket must be pushing it up and off the launchpad.

An object moving straight up into the air will eventually be pulled back down by gravity unless it is continuously pushed from underneath or pulled from the top/side by a force greater than gravity.

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!

3. Jack, have you ever seen this :

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

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

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

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

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

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

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

COMMON SENSE :

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.

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

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Jack, have you ever seen this :

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



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).

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?

No! It boils down to this! Do have a conscience or even a scrap of honesty?
I've alesdy pointed out two "PhotoShopped" images your are using to attempt to prove NASA deceives people! What a hypocritical you are.

Now you try to deceive everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!

This guy nailed it down :

Run away with your attempted deception Mr Cikljamas, I know you of old!

That is not the young Neil deGrasse Tyson and YOU know it so read this from two years ago!

I am sickened by the deceit of many flat earthers, especially the most prolific YouTube publishers. Most regulars here are OK.

Cikljamas/odiupicku posted this on YouTube as a personal attack on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Cikljamas posted a clear imposter in an attempt to prove that Neil deGrasse Tyson started out as a "Flat Earther".


cikljamas/odiupicku's version of "Young Neil DeGrass Tyson" [/url]
Note that the spelling of the real
         Neil deGrasse Tyson and the spelling of cikljamas's
         Neil DeGrass Tyson! See anything?

All the following from Buzzfeed, For Everyone Who Is Attracted To Young Neil DeGrasse Tyson

But it's important to note that YOUNG Neil deGrasse Tyson was on an entirely other almost astronomical, level of fine.

Young, buff Neil deGrasse Tyson during a wrestling match

JESUS THOSE BICEPS. Not to mention his smize game. He even has a great watch. EVERYTHING ON HIM IS BETTER.

Does the "alternate" young Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything the real young Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Somehow, I think cikljamas/odiupicku got himself a ring-in (possibly of similar name) and gave him a script.

I and others here, be they Flat Earth or Globe supporters, don't take kindly to deceivers, liars and cheats.

Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?

WHAT?!

You want to debate rockets with me?

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3K_isinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

K_i = (I_xx - I_zz/I_yy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε²), we obtain


ψ" + 3K_isinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μK_isinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε²)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.


Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.


It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.

v_e = − √[2GM/(r + h)]

Rocket science tells us that the gravitational potential energy between two objects is:

PEi = −GMm/R_i



Therefore, the general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of attractive gravity, in heliocentrism.



It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.

There is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation: it follows that the gravitational escape velocity equation is completely false.

The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The Biefeld-Brown effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

E.T. Whittaker has proven that the potential is represented by pairs of longitudinal bidirectional scalar waves (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

Debate rockets in a vacuum then, stop cutting and pasting random arguments and posts together to pretend you  know what you are talking about.

Orbital mechanics has nothing to do with the alleged hoax of rockets in a vacuum, make another thread about it.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 04:11:58 AM

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?

Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!

1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :

It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....

2. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :

Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???

If you asked yourself why i added (at the end of the first question) words in brackets ("at least IN PRINCIPLE"), then the following passage you can use as an explanation (that is to say : the following words will serve as an explanation as to why GAU-8 Avenger will "fly" better in a vacuum than a rocket ONLY IN PRINCIPLE, NOT IN PRACTICE) :

NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




3. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :

LO AND BEHOLD :

Quote from: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:40:12 AM

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,

Quote from: cikljamas

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?

First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!

But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 10²⁷ - not in the same "ball-park"!.

That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 10⁶⁰, does it?

But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.

So, what our great mathematician Rabinoz is actually saying is this :

When you subtract 0,0001 from 1, you get 0,9999...Now, since 0,9999 is practically 1, then the difference between 0,0001 and 1 is 1, not 10000!!!

In an example above, according to our Einstein (Rabinoz) the difference between 10^-3 and 10^-24 is 10^-3 because we have to subtract 10^-24 from 10^-3 in order to get the difference... The difference (in literal meaning of this word "the difference") is 10^-3, indeed, but the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"

So, the real difference between our two numbers (between density of air and density of vacuum) is 10^21 a.k.a. sextillion a.k.a order of magnitude 21.

NASA is no match to our Einstein (Rabinoz)!!!

4. Have you ever seen this Rabinoz :

I am transferring the following passage from one other discussion on the same subject :

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

You used this analogy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :

Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???

I might consider wasting time on you AFTER you have shown yourself man enough to apologise for your stupid lying deceitful fake Neil  DeGrass (sic) video and your use of "photoShopped" photos.

Goodbye!

According to Jack

Stop lying.
That is according to your strawman, not me.

Copying and pasting the same garbage is not going to help you.
No where in it do you actually address my question.

Again: HOW IS THE GAS ACCELERATED?
Apply Newton's laws of motion to the gas, initially in the rocket at rest relative to the rocket.

Don't just start with magically accelerated gas. Tell us how the gas is accelerated; or claim that it will magically stay inside the rocket.

Don't bother with any other garbage, just answer the question.

Hey we're back to the topic of rockets in a vacuum at last!

This is what happens :

Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)

F=ma, this we agree on.  If we were to diagram it out, we would draw a force with one arrow and an equal and opposite force with another arrow in the opposite direction.  We agree that this means the two m*a terms are equal (right? we agree on that?).  That does not mean the two masses are equal, nor the two accelerations are equal.

What are the two masses?  We've got a rocket on one end, and the exhaust on the other.  The force makes the rocket go one way and the exhaust gas go the other way.  The rocket and the exhaust have different masses thus different accelerations, as one should expect.

Gas is not a force.  Expelled gas is not a force.  What's is the force?  Force is the interaction that changes the motion of an object, to steal the first sentence of Wikipedia.  It is the change in momentum with time.  In SI, it's measured in newtons, which is the same as kg*m/s².  Mass in kg, acceleration in m/s².  Gas is not measured in newtons.  How up gas do you have?  You can measure that in kg.  You correctly identify the chemical reaction as the source of the force.  To what is that force being applied?  The rocket on one side, the gas on the other.


I'm wondering if you're thinking about this in the following way.  Something like, the exhaust gas is a "force carrier" that mediates the interaction between the rocket and whatever the exhaust is blasting, such as the atmosphere.  If that is so, let me know.  Also let me know if I'm guessing you wrong.  The problem with this view is that it does not take into account what is interacting with the exhaust gas itself.  The gas is not a free agent to be recruited by the chemical reaction.  It has interia, just like any mass, and that inertia costs energy to move around.  It's just like shooting bullets out of a rifle.  One mass is the bullet, the other is the rifle.  The bullet's light mass is highly accelerated, the rifle (and rifleman's) heavy mass is not accelerated as much, but you still get kickback.  Or to scale it up, the A-10 Warthog can (so I've been told) fire its gatling gun continually enough to stall it out.  All that kickback eats up its forward velocity in the air.  But the bullet is not a "force carrier" for the airplane.  Except in the rhetorical sense, I suppose.
But this analogy has already been brought up, so I won't expand on it further.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 08, 2019, 05:00:43 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 04:11:58 AM

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?

Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!

1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :

No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!

You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?

"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.

Genuine NASA image!

And this:

Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.

The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young

Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?

Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM ».

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 08, 2019, 05:00:43 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 04:11:58 AM

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?

Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!

1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :

No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!

You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?

"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.

Genuine NASA image!

And this:

Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.

The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young

Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?

Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM ».

Rab, only a seriously mental ill person would think someone is trying to pass that video as real. Where is your common sense?
Are you also attracted to young Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

You even argued at a gif I posted as if I tryied to pass it off as real.

You need to get some real mental help for a fatal case of the CURVIES.

And another showing Plat Terra's pitiful ignorance:

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 27, 2019, 11:44:34 AM

Some members of the Globe Community are still trying to adjust to Earths movement through space.

Incorrect!
It's simply that ignorant folk like you that fail to understand that the "Earth's movement through space" causes nothing you can even measure!
Even the sedate Earth's rotation at about 0.00069 RPM is hard enough to measure with very sensitive instruments!

For the simple reason that there is nothing to adjust to! You feel only acceleration and especially changes in acceleration!

The acceleration due to the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% of gravity and simply changes the effective g very slightly - so no one feels it!

The acceleration due to the earth's orbiting the sun is far less at about 0.006 m/s² but that is almost exactly constant anyway so there is nothing to be felt.

Mr Plat Terra, you seem such an expert in demonstrating the numerous way that flat earthers fail to understand such simple concepts - keep it up!

Quote from: rabinoz on September 08, 2019, 03:13:01 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 08, 2019, 05:00:43 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 08, 2019, 04:11:58 AM

It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?

Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!

1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :

No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!

You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?

"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.

Genuine NASA image!

And this:

Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.

The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young

Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?

Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM ».

Rab, only a seriously mental ill person would think someone is trying to pass that video as real.

The only videos I mentioned were made by cikljamas and he obviously thinks that should be taken as real - even his "Photoshopping" and faked "Neil Degrass Tyson".

Where is your common sense?

Right where it belongs! I don't take any videos by cikljamas as real!
They are his sick attempts to ridicule NASA and Neil deGrasse Tyson (note the real spelling!).

Are you also attracted to young Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

Not in the slightest!
I was pointing out that the real young Neil deGrasse Tyson was nothing like the slob that cikljamas used in trying to discredit him.

You even argued at a gif I posted as if I tryied to pass it off as real.

Nothing of the sort! Where in the following do I suggest that you "tryiedi[](sic)[/i] to pass it off as real.".

Incorrect!
It's simply that ignorant folk like you that fail to understand that the "Earth's movement through space" causes nothing you can even measure!
Even the sedate Earth's rotation at about 0.00069 RPM is hard enough to measure with very sensitive instruments!

For the simple reason that there is nothing to adjust to! You feel only acceleration and especially changes in acceleration!

The acceleration due to the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% of gravity and simply changes the effective g very slightly - so no one feels it!

The acceleration due to the earth's orbiting the sun is far less at about 0.006 m/s² but that is almost exactly constant anyway so there is nothing to be felt.

Mr Plat Terra, you seem such an expert in demonstrating the numerous way that flat earthers fail to understand such simple concepts - keep it up!

I guess I the truth be told, and I've said this before, is that you're nothing but a troll, intent on stirring up trouble.

I guess I the truth be told, and I've said this before

You have over 20,000 posts to date. If we were to filter out all the repeat postings and spamming you have made over the years, the real number of contributions is probably just a few dozen.

I bet you have a place on your computer which is filled with templates for posting here. Oh someone wants to talk about the horizon! I know I have a template post showing half the skyline covered in water around here.... 

I bet you have a place on your computer which is filled with templates for posting here.

So sorry to disappoint but I'd never thought of that, Oh exalted one !

Thanks for the tip, much appreciated .