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

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342

I'm not JackBlack, but get this into your head!
There is nothing in there that refutes the plain simple fact that most of the thrust from a rocket engine comes simply from Newton's Force = time rate of change of momentum.

Now stand in the corner till you have read and understood, ROCKET PROPULSION by Robert A. Braeunig
And if you find that too hard try this one, Rocket Science For Dummies

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661

That massive rant seems to boil down to this:

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."

And that presents no problem at all!

The "first body" is the rocket engine (and the rest of the rocket and propellant) and the "second body" is massive amount of burnt propellant ejected at a very high velocity.

The SpaceX Falcon 9's nine engines eject a total of about 2,216 kilograms per second at a velocity of about 3150 m/sec.!

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385

Nothing new there except more of your utter ignorance!

The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199

And there is nothing of relevance to the topic in the rest of your ignorant rant!

Bye-bye, loser!

I am puzzled why there is so little discussion about the Apollo scam and people concentrate on what is between brackets and secondairy ( rockets can’t fly in a vacuum).
It’s about time we bring this topic back on track and talk about the 50 years ongoing Apollo scam that is a total disgrace for the human species.

Human tissue can’t make it into deepspace unless we ‘denigrate’ ourselves with AI and robotic implementations.
Maybe then these hybrid humans can go beyond a certain modest altitude.

Apollo and the outragious claims about a shortcut ‘calculated’ by the ignorant 1969 radiation experts ....the bathing suits, alufoil moonmachines, the absent cosmic particles piercing through the suits and moon machines ...... laughable.

Of course no ordinary human will ever go beyond the VAB. They know it for 50 years , but NASA pees upon ordinary people giving them a slapstick SF movie with funny, singing, playing astronots and still maintain the position we actually went to the moon with humans onboard.

As a fuller answer to all that, you might stock up on pop-corn and peanuts, sit back and enjoy:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon Debunked The Box Set (Mirror) by BlueMarbleScience

One comment under the video on YouTube:

Van Allen Belts.
Here is a quote from Prof Van Allen. "The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes." ~Prof. Van Allen, ( Taken from “Time Magazine”, Monday, May 12, 1958, Page 90)

Quote from: cikljamas on September 13, 2019, 07:11:20 AM

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199

No, it is the same refuted spam.

No where in there do you actually address my question.
You either start with the gas magically accelerated, completely skipping my question; pretend it is a force and completely ignore the question; or just outright ignore it.

Again, keeping it simple by using the simplest type of rocket, a cold gas thruster, i.e. a tank of compressed gas:
We have the gas with the rocket. The gas is currently moving with the rocket.
We pick an inertial reference frame where the rocket and gas are stationary.
Now, we open the tank and expose the pressurised gas to the vacuum of space.
What happens?

Does the gas magically stay with the rocket, staying inside the tank, even though it is open to space and thus all rational thought demands the gas leaves?

Or does the gas leave? But that then means its velocity has changed. It has accelerated to leave the tank and now move outwards.
But by Newton's laws of motion, this demands a force.
You do accept that gas has mass right?
Furthermore, by Newton's laws of motion, and your own interpretation of it (which you have posted in this thread), this demands an interaction with another body with this other body also receiving a force and also accelerating.
The only other body around is the rocket.
That means that the rocket must interact with the gas, with the gas being forced and accelerated backwards while the rocket is forced and accelerated forwards.

That means that rockets must work in a vacuum.

This is what you have been repeatedly avoiding, such as by starting with the gas already accelerated so you can ignore the key part, the acceleration of the gas which demands the rocket is also accelerated.

If you disagree, state exactly which part you disagree with and what the alternative is, i.e. what you think.

Do you disagree that the gas will escape and instead think it will magically remain inside the open container exposed to a vacuum?
Do you disagree that the gas has mass?
Do you disagree that the gas must accelerate?
Do you disagree that the gas requires a force to accelerate it?
Do you disagree that a force requires an equal and opposite force and an interaction with another body?
Do you disagree that the rocket is the only other body?

If you can't provide an alternative, then admit rockets work in a vacuum.

Once you admit rockets do work in a vacuum, or provide an alternative which actually addresses the question/issue I have raised, I will fix up your straw-man of my position.

I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...
If time = measure of change, and change presumes space (three dimensions), then timelessness excludes change (motion) and space (dimensions). Since many philosophers talk about alleged reality (God) which is Non-contingent (necessary) - Everlasting (timeless) - Uncaused, as something which is (for certain reasons like "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" ; "impossibility of infinite regression of causes" etc...) practically self-evident, would you agree that these philosophers actually have no idea what they are talking about, in the first place?

What do i mean? If Timelessness (God) has to be devoid of change (motion) and dimensions (space), then there is no way how we could fathom such "necessary" reality (which is beyond reality). If we are unable to even begin to apprehend "Something" that exists in a way which presumes absence of space and time, does it mean that such "Something" is only expression of inadequacy of our power of comprehension, or it means that such "Something" can't even exist objectively? In other words : Since that "Something" is actually "Nothing" (Nothingness) (as far as our power of reasoning is concerned), could it be that such "Nothing" is something "more" (better to say something "less" (Absolute Nothingness)) than just an expression of limitation of our power of comprehension?

If so then Being = Non-Being!!!
If so, our conversation is an illusion!!!

So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?

Quote from: JackBlack on September 16, 2019, 02:54:24 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 13, 2019, 07:11:20 AM

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342

No, it is the same refuted spam.

So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?

Your topic is "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! Why do you refuse to answer questions relevant to that?

I can only assume it's because you know that you've been thrashed and have no answers.

I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...

While technically scientists are a subset of philosophy, especially with graduates getting a doctor of philosophy for science, I wouldn't call myself a philosopher.
Also, what I stated has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy in the sense it is typically meant.
It is simple physics.

Anything else is a distraction.
Deal with the question asked or admit you cannot deal with it without admitting rockets work in a vacuum.

Again:
We know the gas is initially travelling with the rocket.
Then the tank is opened to space.
What happens?
Does the gas remain magically trapped inside the open container, exposed to a vacuum?
Or does it accelerate and leave it?
If the former, HOW?
If the latter, then as you have already pointed out, this DEMANDS a force. This force DEMANDS a second body to interact with and cause a reactionary force.
As you have pointed out, there is no other body in space. The only thing the gas can interact with is the rocket.
That means it DEMANDS that the rocket also has a force applied and thus it accelerates.
That DEMANDS that rockets do work in a vacuum.

There are very few ways out.
You could reject Newton's laws of motion, and thus claim an object can accelerate without a force or not need a second body to interact with to produce a reactionary force. But that would then mean that rockets could work fine in a vacuum.
You could reject the fact that gas has mass, but that destroys your idea of how rockets work in the atmosphere, and would make drag from the air impossible.
Or you could reject the fact that gasses will tend to remove pressure differences and instead claim the generated gas will just magically stay inside the rocket.

If you think there is another way out, provide it. If you can't, admit rockets work in a vacuum.
Now, can you actually address this massive issue which you have been avoiding since page 1?

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199

Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?
Why is this important question?
Because a small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end!

Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine, secundum philosophum in I caeli et mundi,
ens autem et essentia sunt quae primo intellectu concipiuntur, ut dicit Avicenna in principio suae metaphysicae.

Translation:
A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end, according to the Philosopher in the first book of On the Heavens and the Earth.
And as Ibn-Sînâ says in the beginning of his Metaphysics, being and essence are what is first conceived by the intellect.

So, if our conversation isn't real, then it's a big mistake in the beginning and a huge one in the end!
Let me show you one interesting example of that kind :

A small mistake in the beginning :



A big one in the end :

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342

Still irrelevant to "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"!
You've been thrashed so just admit it and if you want to debate philosophy or such topics make a thread in Philosophy, Religion & Society.

Just in closing, rockets fly better in a vacuum and we just observed the HAPPY ANNIVERSARY of the first mission to the moon.
       
You might find this entertaining so stock up on pop-corn and peanuts, sit back and enjoy:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon Debunked The Box Set (Mirror) by BlueMarbleScience

One comment under the video on YouTube:

Van Allen Belts.
Here is a quote from Prof Van Allen. "The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes." ~Prof. Van Allen, ( Taken from “Time Magazine”, Monday, May 12, 1958, Page 90)

Enjoy !

Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?

A few better questions might be: Are you real or not?  What is reality?  Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?

Quote from: cikljamas on September 17, 2019, 05:05:24 AM

Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?

Are you real or not?

What is reality?

WHEN you woke up this morning, you found the world largely as you left it. You were still you; the room in which you awoke was the same one you went to sleep in. The outside world had not been rearranged. History was unchanged and the future remained unknowable. In other words, you woke up to reality. But what is reality? The more we probe it, the harder it becomes to comprehend.

Let me present you two ways of reasoning on this matter :

1."First and foremost—leaving aside any question of intellectual intuition—the very fact of our existence necessarily implies pure Being; instead of starting with the idea that “I think; therefore I am”, one should say, “I am; therefore Being is”: 'sum ergo est Esse' and not 'cogito ergo sum'. What counts in our eyes is most definitely not some more or less correct line of reasoning but intrinsic certainty itself; reasoning is able to convey this in its own way: it describes the certainty in order to show forth its self-evident nature on the plane of discursive thought, and in this way it provides a key that others might use in actualizing this same certainty.”
― Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence

2.“There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found.”
― Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

What i wrote in my reply#1322 is very similar to what Walpola Rahula said in his quote above...Reply#1322 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2204835#msg2204835So, using what Walpola Rahula said i could shorten my argument like this : if we remove the thought (which is movement) we remove thinker (which is God)...If God thinks, He moves (his existence is dynamical), if He moves then the dynamic of such motion (the dynamic of God's thoughts) can't be understood as something that happens all at once (as some philosophers try to describe Timelessness), because "something that happens all at once" is opposite to "something that is dynamical." If God thinks (dynamically) He moves, and his movement (thoughts) have some quantity (even though it's infinite quantity). If there is some quantity of God's thoughts then we can count them (even if we have to count His countless thoughts), and if we can count them, then we need time to carry out such task. So, dynamical process of God's thoughts means that even God needs time (even if it is never ending activity) to think infinite number of his thoughts. And if he dynamically (not all at once) produces/creates His infinite thoughts, then his thoughts (His essense) are somehow interconnected/interrelated/parallel with Time (as we know it), which leads us to conclude that He also had to pick out certain point/moment on the infinite line of Eternity (Timless Time) in which He was going to create our Universe. However, since that line is infinitely long there would have never come such a moment in which He could actually create our Universe, since before any such hypothetical moment there would have preceded infinite number of previous moments which (infinity) would prevent our creation, and that is the problem.

Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?

Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2019, 06:42:07 AM

Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?

Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...

Agreed.  Rockets fly in a vacuum, as has been demonstrated theoretically and proven practically.

Now as for the rest of your worldview, as interesting as it is, I think it deserves a separate thread.

HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK

No they are not.
I have already pointed out that they aren't.
When you first posted them I explained why they aren't.
You have even copied part of that explanation of why they don't answer my question in those messages.


Stop with the distractions. Stop repeatedly claiming to have already answered them with the same refuted spam, which in no way addresses the issue I have raised.

Either deal with the issue raised, actually dealing with it by telling us just how the gas accelerates and what other body it is interacting with to do so or admit that rockets work in a vacuum.
Once you have done so, we can move on.

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2019, 06:42:07 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 17, 2019, 05:05:24 AM

Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?

Are you real or not?

<< Irrelevant to your own topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! >>

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2019, 06:42:07 AM

What is reality?

<< Irrelevant to your own topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! >>

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2019, 06:42:07 AM

Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?

Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...

Agreed!
So you now admit that the Apollo missions really did go to the moon and that rockets not only can fly in a vacuum but have a higher thrust?

That being the case, why don't you make a thread in Philosophy, Religion & Society forum?

I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...
If time = measure of change, and change presumes space (three dimensions), then timelessness excludes change (motion) and space (dimensions). Since many philosophers talk about alleged reality (God) which is Non-contingent (necessary) - Everlasting (timeless) - Uncaused, as something which is (for certain reasons like "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" ; "impossibility of infinite regression of causes" etc...) practically self-evident, would you agree that these philosophers actually have no idea what they are talking about, in the first place?

What do i mean? If Timelessness (God) has to be devoid of change (motion) and dimensions (space), then there is no way how we could fathom such "necessary" reality (which is beyond reality). If we are unable to even begin to apprehend "Something" that exists in a way which presumes absence of space and time, does it mean that such "Something" is only expression of inadequacy of our power of comprehension, or it means that such "Something" can't even exist objectively? In other words : Since that "Something" is actually "Nothing" (Nothingness) (as far as our power of reasoning is concerned), could it be that such "Nothing" is something "more" (better to say something "less" (Absolute Nothingness)) than just an expression of limitation of our power of comprehension?

If so then Being = Non-Being!!!
If so, our conversation is an illusion!!!

So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?

So God is timeless, therefore rockets can’t fly in a vacuum because there is no rate of change?  This is your current  argument, right?

OK, I’ll bite on your current attempt to deflect and derail your own thread.

If there is an entity or higher power we could call God, do you presume that you, me or any other tiny human mind could be capable of fathoming His/Her/Its nature?

Whatever level of understanding of such things you tell yourself you have, it’s all irrelevant to the function of rockets.

We are not God, we perceive the passage of time.  Rockets are not God, we observe the the effect of time on them, along with every other physical object.

The nature of our reality is that time exists, rates of change happen, acceleration is a thing, and we can fly rockets in space.

God may well laugh at the primitive concepts we use to describe the universe, but us simpletons can still use GPS to help us get around and watch satellite TV.  Neither of which require a PhD in philosophy.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 17, 2019, 03:55:16 AM

I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...
If time = measure of change, and change presumes space (three dimensions), then timelessness excludes change (motion) and space (dimensions). Since many philosophers talk about alleged reality (God) which is Non-contingent (necessary) - Everlasting (timeless) - Uncaused, as something which is (for certain reasons like "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" ; "impossibility of infinite regression of causes" etc...) practically self-evident, would you agree that these philosophers actually have no idea what they are talking about, in the first place?

What do i mean? If Timelessness (God) has to be devoid of change (motion) and dimensions (space), then there is no way how we could fathom such "necessary" reality (which is beyond reality). If we are unable to even begin to apprehend "Something" that exists in a way which presumes absence of space and time, does it mean that such "Something" is only expression of inadequacy of our power of comprehension, or it means that such "Something" can't even exist objectively? In other words : Since that "Something" is actually "Nothing" (Nothingness) (as far as our power of reasoning is concerned), could it be that such "Nothing" is something "more" (better to say something "less" (Absolute Nothingness)) than just an expression of limitation of our power of comprehension?

If so then Being = Non-Being!!!
If so, our conversation is an illusion!!!

So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?

So God is timeless, therefore rockets can’t fly in a vacuum because there is no rate of change?  This is your current  argument, right?

OK, I’ll bite on your current attempt to deflect and derail your own thread.

If there is an entity or higher power we could call God, do you presume that you, me or any other tiny human mind could be capable of fathoming His/Her/Its nature?

Whatever level of understanding of such things you tell yourself you have, it’s all irrelevant to the function of rockets.

We are not God, we perceive the passage of time.  Rockets are not God, we observe the the effect of time on them, along with every other physical object.

The nature of our reality is that time exists, rates of change happen, acceleration is a thing, and we can fly rockets in space.

God may well laugh at the primitive concepts we use to describe the universe, but us simpletons can still use GPS to help us get around and watch satellite TV.  Neither of which require a PhD in philosophy.

IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space) :

IN SHORT (Being and Non Being) :

Being = Dynamics = Motion = Change = Presence = Existence
Non Being = Non Dynamics = No Motion = No Change = Absence = Non Existence

If Being (God) Is (Exists) then He is Nothing because He can't be in motion, since if He is in motion (if he thinks/creates/becomes) he is in Time (which is measure of change which is motion), and if He is in Time then He can't create Universe at any certain point of Time, since whichever point of time He chooses to be that certain moment (of creation of (our) Time) He has to wait infinite number of preceding moments to elapse before that moment (of creation).

If Being (God) Is Not (Doesn't Exist) then He is Something because He is Not in motion and as such (motionless, timeless, non dynamic, absent (of existence)) He can't create anything, He can't think, He "is" Absent Existence which is Nothing.

What this all means?
Knowledge is impossible!
And if knowledge is impossible, how can we even claim that we exist, in the first place?

ON TOP OF THAT :

In Chapter I of the Science of Logic, Hegel defines being to mean 'pure indeterminateness and emptiness', from which he concludes that being is nothing. Hegel then defines nothing as 'absence of all determination.' Since both being and nothing are absence of determination, Hegel concludes that 'being and nothing are the same'. But Hegel then writes:

'But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is, therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one in the other: becoming...'

IN ADDITION :

https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/20229/LECTURES/5-antinomies.pdf

FAUST: I've studied now Philosophy
And Jurisprudence, Medicine,--
And even, alas! Theology,--
From end to end, with labor keen;
And here, poor fool! with all my lore
I stand, no wiser than before:
I'm Magister--yea, Doctor--hight,
And straight or cross-wise, wrong or right,
These ten years long, with many woes,
I've led my scholars by the nose,--
And see, that nothing can be known!
That knowledge cuts me to the bone.
I'm cleverer, true, than those fops of teachers,
Doctors and Magisters, Scribes and Preachers;
Neither scruples nor doubts come now to smite me,
Nor Hell nor Devil can longer affright me.

For this, all pleasure am I foregoing;
I do not pretend to aught worth knowing,
I do not pretend I could be a teacher
To help or convert a fellow-creature.
Then, too, I've neither lands nor gold,
Nor the world's least pomp or honor hold--
No dog would endure such a curst existence!
Wherefore, from Magic I seek assistance,
That many a secret perchance I reach
Through spirit-power and spirit-speech,
And thus the bitter task forego
Of saying the things I do not know,--
That I may detect the inmost force
Which binds the world, and guides its course;
Its germs, productive powers explore,
And rummage in empty words no more!

O full and splendid Moon, whom I
Have, from this desk, seen climb the sky
So many a midnight,--would thy glow
For the last time beheld my woe!
Ever thine eye, most mournful friend,
O'er books and papers saw me bend;
But would that I, on mountains grand,
Amid thy blessed light could stand,
With spirits through mountain-caverns hover,
Float in thy twilight the meadows over,
And, freed from the fumes of lore that swathe me,
To health in thy dewy fountains bathe me!

Ah, me! this dungeon still I see,
This drear, accursed masonry,
Where even the welcome daylight strains
But duskly through the painted panes.
Hemmed in by many a toppling heap
Of books worm-eaten, gray with dust,
Which to the vaulted ceiling creep,
Against the smoky paper thrust,--
With glasses, boxes, round me stacked,
And instruments together hurled,
Ancestral lumber, stuffed and packed--
Such is my world: and what a world!

And do I ask, wherefore my heart
Falters, oppressed with unknown needs?
Why some inexplicable smart
All movement of my life impedes?
Alas! in living Nature's stead,
Where God His human creature set,
In smoke and mould the fleshless dead
And bones of beasts surround me yet!

Fly! Up, and seek the broad, free land!
And this one Book of Mystery
From Nostradamus' very hand,
Is't not sufficient company?
When I the starry courses know,
And Nature's wise instruction seek,
With light of power my soul shall glow,
As when to spirits spirits speak.
'Tis vain, this empty brooding here,
Though guessed the holy symbols be:
Ye, Spirits, come--ye hover near--
Oh, if you hear me, answer me!
Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.com/g/goethe_001.html#WwVi8aDjSqIUMp03.99

Just the other day i was watching this video :


...and i was struck with awe asking myself : just where from this guy (the caller) got this specific idea (my own argument for temporal nature of Universe) (if not from my video or my thread that i opened on FES, both in February this year)...

My video :


My thread :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79628.0

So, Rabinoz, if you want to discuss this philosophical problem we can revive our discussion in that thread...

IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space) :

But the guys in your video are wrong.  As discussed in the past 45 pages.  Doesn't that bother you that they're wrong?  The mass of the exhaust has to be accelerated, thus there is a force applied to the exhaust, and the equal and opposite force is applied to the rocket.

I have this fear that even after reading all posts, as soon as you watch a conspiracy theory YouTube video, your mind just kind of resets back.  Don't you find it disturbing how easily your mind reconforms to the YouTube videos you watch?

Wow! 45 lomg long looong pajes of Cilky refusing to answer the very question created by a topic he created himself. Gish galloping into philosophical discussions about if he is real or not. Just in a bid to refuse to answer. Dude, Sandokhan can learn a lot from you.

I'll try again.

1 simple question.

The gas exiting the rocket. It pushes against the gases in the atmosphere. How does this translate to a foward movement of the rocket?

IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space) :

He's also claiming that energy can be stored in a vacuum.

Wow! 45 lomg long looong pajes of Cilky refusing to answer the very question created by a topic he created himself. Gish galloping into philosophical discussions about if he is real or not. Just in a bid to refuse to answer. Dude, Sandokhan can learn a lot from you.

I'll try again.

1 simple question.

The gas exiting the rocket. It pushes against the gases in the atmosphere. How does this translate to a foward movement of the rocket?

What happens once the ship is moving vertically? For a rocket away from the launchpad, the gas expanding out of the nozzle creates a Hydraulic Jump, which is that ring around water being poured into a sink when water moves along the surface until a wave begins to slow down causing the waves behind it to catch it and bunch it up creating a wall of water. The same thing happens with the expanding gas, the leading edge of which slows down due to air resistance and the fact that force decreases as the square of the distance traveled forming a dense cloud of molecules, which the next wave of expanding gas collides with and so forth, once again pushing up on the rocket. This effect should last until the rocket runs out of fuel or the air becomes thin enough so that the hydraulic jump point is far enough away from the ship to be negligible.

Now, i've got a few questions for you :


1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?

2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?

3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?

4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?

5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy? Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy. Pressure against ship = potential Energy. A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.

Before you try to answer above questions, bear in mind the following, also :

Space is not only a vacuum, it is also absolutely stone cold. There's nothing.

Both P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero. At least, that's what most of the sciences agree upon, hopefully also the science unspoiled by NASA.

The ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T describes the key factors.
P = almost 0
T = almost 0
R = non existent (no gases in a vacuum, only solids with such low T)
V = almost infinite (floating molecules into space)
n = ?

IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space)

In short you still haven't addressed my question which shows that rockets must work in space.

If you wish to assert that they don't you need to tell us how the gas accelerates.

You sure love to run off on tangents, all while avoiding a very simple question.

Before you start asking us a bunch of questions, you should really answer my very simple question.

Again, how does the gas accelerate? Does it push off the rocket? Does it just use pure magic? Or does it not accelerate and instead is magically contained inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?

1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?

They are the same formulas for work/force/thrust in an atmosphere.

2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?

No, because Joule-Thompson only applies to a closed system.  A rocket engine working in space is not a closed system.

3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?

Pressure volume work only applies to a closed system and a rocket engine working in space still isn't a closed system.

4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?

Why do you ignore the fact that gasses have mass, and therefore are aptly represented by Newtonian physics?

5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy?

From what I've seen of rocket launches, quite a lot of energy is expended by the rocket.

Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy.

How does potential get converted into kinetic energy?

Pressure against ship = potential Energy.

Huh?  Please explain.

A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Before you try to answer above questions, bear in mind the following, also :

Space is not only a vacuum, it is also absolutely stone cold. There's nothing.

Which means that there should be nothing to oppose the acceleration of the exhaust gasses.

Both P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero. At least, that's what most of the sciences agree upon, hopefully also the science unspoiled by NASA.

The ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T describes the key factors.
P = almost 0
T = almost 0
R = non existent (no gases in a vacuum, only solids with such low T)
V = almost infinite (floating molecules into space)
n = ?

The rocket engine introduces its own gasses into the environment of the combustion chamber in the form of aerosolized liquid oxidizer and fuel which are then ignited.  The chemical reaction of the burning fuel released a great deal of heat energy which expands and accelerates the resulting gasses.  The rate of the combustion and gas acceleration are controlled by the rate of flow of the propellants and the shape of the rocket engine.  Not really sure why that's so hard to understand.

What happens once the ship is moving vertically? For a rocket away from the launchpad, the gas expanding out of the nozzle creates a Hydraulic Jump, which is that ring around water being poured into a sink when water moves along the surface until a wave begins to slow down causing the waves behind it to catch it and bunch it up creating a wall of water.

Wot?

The same thing happens with the expanding gas, the leading edge of which slows down due to air resistance and the fact that force decreases as the square of the distance traveled forming a dense cloud of molecules, which the next wave of expanding gas collides with and so forth, once again pushing up on the rocket.

That bit of gobbledegook is worth a Quantum Eraser Medal of Honour for the most pseudoscientifically irrelevant trash of the year!

And how does all that translate into thrust on the rocket?

This effect should last until the rocket runs out of fuel or the air becomes thin enough so that the hydraulic jump point is far enough away from the ship to be negligible.

How do you explain the thrust of a rocket engine increasing as the outside pressure decreases?

Now, i've got a few questions for you :

1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?

Easy! Thrust = (exhaust velocity) x (mass flow rate) + (exhaust area) x (exhaust pressure - outside pressure)

2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?

It's irrelevant because the expansion of the gases has done no work on the overall system.

Here is a question and answer in the StackExchange/Physics Forum:

Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas
Q:
We know, the rockets in space use Newton's 3rd law to increase their velocity and hence move. What I don't understand is how it is possible in space aka vacuum-state without air? From what I know, Joule's "Free Expansion of Gas" says that free-expansion compresses the gas and is therefore "affected" by vacuum so it can't make the rocket move as the gas will have zero press/force. Could someone please explain me how rockets do really work and the above-mentioned statement?

Actually, please have a look at this site: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632

Note: The site appears to include some conspiracy theory thingummies, but made me wonder anyway.
<< Read the link for some comments on the question. >>

A#1:
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.

This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force P s² pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work.

This might help:

With the box closed the gas at pressure, P1, is pressing on all sides of the box as on the diagram above. But when the right side is removed there is no longer any force on the  right side of the box but during the expansion there is still a force on the left side of the box. Hence, while no work is done on the vacuum, the box does receive an impluse to the left.

3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?

Because no one says that W = P x V is the work done by a gas.
Try W = P x ΔV but even then no one says that W = P x ΔV is the only way gas can do work.

If you think that explain how steam or gas turbines work.

4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?

They do not "ignore gasses in a vacuum"!

5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy? Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy. Pressure against ship = potential Energy. A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.

The rocket does expend a tremendous amount of energy!
     Propellant = potential energy,
     burning propellant -> thermal energy,
     thermal energy causes expansion (liquid or solid propellant turned into high-temperature gasses) and
     the rocket nozzle turns those high-temperature gasses into lower temperature extremely high velocity gasses - kinetic energy!

Before you try to answer above questions, bear in mind the following, also :
Space is not only a vacuum, it is also absolutely stone cold. There's nothing.

If a perfect vacuum is "nothing" so doesn't even have a temperature.
The temperature of a near-vacuum is simply a measure of the average thermal energy of the gasses in it but is not a measure of the heat in it.

But that is completely irrelevant!

Both P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero. At least, that's what most of the sciences agree upon, hopefully also the science unspoiled by NASA.

Sure, P is "P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero" but why bring NASA into it?
Robert Goddard, the German rocket scientists, including Wernher Von Braun and the Russian rocket scientists after WWII all knew that quite independently of NASA!

And NASA knows this type of science far far better than YOU seem to - maybe you should take some notice sometime.

The ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T describes the key factors.
P = almost 0, T = almost 0, R = non existent (no gases in a vacuum, only solids with such low T), V = almost infinite (floating molecules into space), n = ?

Why is that even relevant?
There is no vacuum within the rocket engine nor in the exhaust plume and you, yourself, gave limits on haw fast that could diffuse into space.

All this boils down to the usual rocket thrust equation being quite accurate and has been shown to allow rocket thrust to be calculated for decades and long before you nemesis, NASA, came into existence!

Now, given the laws of objective probabilities, tell me, is it more likely that people like me (so called conspiracy theorists) are 99 % right (choose any topic you want), and that people like you (main stream stupidity believers) were/are/going to be 99 % plainly wrong (and so - 99 times out of 100 cases - proven outright liars) or is it more likely that the opposite is true???

It is vastly more likely that that it false, especially given how you insult those that accept reality.

People like you needing to avoid very simple questions show that you are almost certainly wrong.
If you were right, you would have answered the question when it was first raised.

The gas exiting the rocket. It pushes against the gases in the atmosphere. How does this translate to a foward movement of the rocket?

No it doesn't ... action and reaction cause the rocket to move...
Still moves whether inside or outside atmosphere ...

Quote from: SpaceCadet on September 27, 2019, 01:14:05 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on September 23, 2019, 02:58:43 AM

Since we have obviously done with this mega-thread, some of you may find equally interesting (phylosophicaly) what you can read in o.p. of the thread which i've just opened : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83281.msg2205833#msg2205833

Assert without proof
Ignore proof given to counter assertion
Rinse
Repeat

Check this out : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83399.0
Now, given the laws of objective probabilities, tell me, is it more likely that people like me (so called conspiracy theorists) are 99 % right (choose any topic you want), and that people like you (main stream stupidity believers) were/are/going to be 99 % plainly wrong (and so - 99 times out of 100 cases - proven outright liars) or is it more likely that the opposite is true???

Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy.  It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.

Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy.  It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.

There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.

Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.

It's a practical question that can be has been definitively answered

FTFY

and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice

I'm curious as to what you mean by this.  Why would a big container of water turn into ice in a vacuum chamber?

Quote from: markjo on October 03, 2019, 06:43:02 AM

Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy.  It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.

There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.

Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.

The water would boil off, not freeze.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2019, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 03, 2019, 06:43:02 AM

Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy.  It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.

There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.

Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.

The water would boil off, not freeze.

Wrong.

Quote from: MouseWalker on October 03, 2019, 09:14:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2019, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 03, 2019, 06:43:02 AM

Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy.  It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.

There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.

Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.

The water would boil off, not freeze.

Wrong.

Simple well documented chemistry: Water at room temperature at or near vacuum would be vapor.