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

In the first vid Leroy Chiao's a bit of a ventriloquist at 6:57.
Don Petit says space is full of polkadots just before that.

What does it matter he says it is full of meatballs and that he likes to smoke a lot of crack?

Is Pettit the only authority?

What you have against round Earth is pretty weak sauce, man.

Are you sure what i have against re is pretty weak?

Are you sure what i have against re is pretty weak?

Given the current status of RE vs FE, yes.

Jack in the box.
Pop the lid and up pops Jack.
Why?
The spring is coiled against the underside of Jack and the bottom of the box.

All that's needed is to uncoil it.
Jack's head is pushing the lid. The lid is closed.
Jack's head is holding back that coiled spring with the aid of a closed lid.

Pop the lid and Jack's head is no longer using the lid to resist the coiled spring.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is. It creates a continuity of the spring as one unit using the base as the springboard/leverage or mere foundation which allows the spring to uncoil against the much less dense Jack, meaning Jack launches into the air until his dense mass hits an equilibrium with the push of the uncoiling spring...and then he fall as the spring collapses, or he sits atop of the spring if it's a much more robust spring.

There's your rocket.
You could use compressed air in a box under Jack and use his head in the same manner as the foundation of the box.
Open the box and Jack launches by using the exact same type of scenario of foundation and compressed air spring like expansion once you allow that expansion to happen by opening the lid.

You could fill Jack up with compressed air and have that hit the foundation to do exactly the same.
In all scenarios you need that foundation. You need a leverage for any forward movement to happen or you simply have zero work.

If you take away a solid foundation then you require some other means of leverage or resistance to force.
Compressed air allows this, as in, in normal atmosphere being used by whatever force is pushed against it to compress it and that compression will expand back towards the force applied against it, creating an equal and opposite reaction. Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.

Back to Jack in the box.

No matter which way you look at anything you always need a foundation or a resistant counter force against any force applied to it, as I explained above.

In fictional space vacuum you get zero counter force. You get zero resistance. You get zero leverage and the only foundation you could ever have is inside the rocket, both ends, assuming both are shut.
Open one end and you allow expansion of matter against zero resistance.
Inside the rocket you have a foundation, but all your expansion of gases would be happening at the opposite end. The open end.

further expansion can only happen towards the opposite end only when the major expansion happens as the gases leave the craft, meaning there is no push back towards the inner foundation, until the very last molecules that were squashed against it, expand but by that time all of the rest have expanded out against each other (and this is key)...meaning there is no work done at all.

Basically you have a magical rocket in suspended animation.
Naturally this is impossible for rockets to work in space or vacuums but I have to use it to show why.

The sooner people understand how and why atmospheric pressure actually works, the sooner people will understand why rockets and everything really do work.

The way people are told by the so called science world of space rocketry, in terms of how they supposedly work, is clever. It's a clever dupe and mind numb.
Very few people seem willing to question it because the brainwashing has elevated to levels way beyond their ability to even dare question  for fear of ridicule.


Space and ll the gunk we've been schooled into is all well and good if you view it for what it is, which is sci-fi.
To believe it in how we're told, as in as a real thing, then all I can say is, fine...enjoy that fantasy as your reality.

You put a lot of effort into writing that very poor analogy.
And unfortunately for ladder guy, you are incorrect.

The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is.

Wrong. It can only hold it up if that is the case. If it wasn't attached to the bottom and instead just held compressed by magic, then when it is released, it will still push the head away.

In all scenarios you need that foundation.

That is a baseless claim you are yet to substantiate in any way, and which has been refuted countless times.
All you need is something to push off. That something you push off doesn't need to have a foundation to push against.
The example of a person throwing a ball on a skateboard proves that.
As the ball is thrown away, they are pushed back.

Compressed air allows this

So the rocket can push against the compressed air in the combustion chamber and nozzle.

Good, with that out of the way, that means rockets work just fine in a vacuum.


If you wish to disagree, feel free to explain what happens to my hypothetical cold gas thruster type rocket in a vacuum:
You have compressed air inside it (and this air has mass), but with an opening on one end, exposed to a vacuum.
What happens?
Does it magically remain inside the tank, even though it is open to a vacuum?
Or does it move, and thus even by your own claims, need something to push off, which when logically followed will result in the rocket being pushed away?


Even if you want to appeal to your expansion nonsense, it isn't expansion without resistance.
The gas is only capable of expanding in one direction, it will then push the obstruction away, just like a bomb pushes shrapnel away while it expands.
If you like, you can consider that rocket as part of the expansion.

Jack in the box.
Pop the lid and up pops Jack.
Why?
The spring is coiled against the underside of Jack and the bottom of the box.

All that's needed is to uncoil it.
Jack's head is pushing the lid. The lid is closed.
Jack's head is holding back that coiled spring with the aid of a closed lid.

Pop the lid and Jack's head is no longer using the lid to resist the coiled spring.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is. It creates a continuity of the spring as one unit using the base as the springboard/leverage or mere foundation which allows the spring to uncoil against the much less dense Jack, meaning Jack launches into the air until his dense mass hits an equilibrium with the push of the uncoiling spring...and then he fall as the spring collapses, or he sits atop of the spring if it's a much more robust spring.

There's your rocket.

Have you ever heard of force = mass x acceleration? 
And one SpaceX Merlin 1D rocket engine accelerates about 329 kg/s of propellant from 0 m/s to about 2570 m/s every second (relative to the rocket).
That requires a force of 329 x 2570 = 844,959 Newtons or 845 kN.

That is the force that must be applied to that propellant to accelerate it to that velocity and the only source of the force can be the rocket engine.

That is where the thrust of a rocket comes from and that is how it can be generated right from ground level to up into space.

There is absolutely no need to push on anything outside the rocket though, of course, the high velocity propellant moist be ejected at that velocity.

Jack in the box.
Pop the lid and up pops Jack.
Why?
The spring is coiled against the underside of Jack and the bottom of the box.

All that's needed is to uncoil it.
Jack's head is pushing the lid. The lid is closed.
Jack's head is holding back that coiled spring with the aid of a closed lid.

Pop the lid and Jack's head is no longer using the lid to resist the coiled spring.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is. It creates a continuity of the spring as one unit using the base as the springboard/leverage or mere foundation which allows the spring to uncoil against the much less dense Jack, meaning Jack launches into the air until his dense mass hits an equilibrium with the push of the uncoiling spring...and then he fall as the spring collapses, or he sits atop of the spring if it's a much more robust spring.

There's your rocket.
You could use compressed air in a box under Jack and use his head in the same manner as the foundation of the box.
Open the box and Jack launches by using the exact same type of scenario of foundation and compressed air spring like expansion once you allow that expansion to happen by opening the lid.

You could fill Jack up with compressed air and have that hit the foundation to do exactly the same.
In all scenarios you need that foundation. You need a leverage for any forward movement to happen or you simply have zero work.

If you take away a solid foundation then you require some other means of leverage or resistance to force.
Compressed air allows this, as in, in normal atmosphere being used by whatever force is pushed against it to compress it and that compression will expand back towards the force applied against it, creating an equal and opposite reaction. Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.

Back to Jack in the box.

No matter which way you look at anything you always need a foundation or a resistant counter force against any force applied to it, as I explained above.

In fictional space vacuum you get zero counter force. You get zero resistance. You get zero leverage and the only foundation you could ever have is inside the rocket, both ends, assuming both are shut.
Open one end and you allow expansion of matter against zero resistance.
Inside the rocket you have a foundation, but all your expansion of gases would be happening at the opposite end. The open end.

further expansion can only happen towards the opposite end only when the major expansion happens as the gases leave the craft, meaning there is no push back towards the inner foundation, until the very last molecules that were squashed against it, expand but by that time all of the rest have expanded out against each other (and this is key)...meaning there is no work done at all.

Basically you have a magical rocket in suspended animation.
Naturally this is impossible for rockets to work in space or vacuums but I have to use it to show why.

The sooner people understand how and why atmospheric pressure actually works, the sooner people will understand why rockets and everything really do work.

The way people are told by the so called science world of space rocketry, in terms of how they supposedly work, is clever. It's a clever dupe and mind numb.
Very few people seem willing to question it because the brainwashing has elevated to levels way beyond their ability to even dare question  for fear of ridicule.


Space and ll the gunk we've been schooled into is all well and good if you view it for what it is, which is sci-fi.
To believe it in how we're told, as in as a real thing, then all I can say is, fine...enjoy that fantasy as your reality.

And if the spring pushes the head one way, it will also push the box the other way.
In an air the push will have drag, be slower, and generate less thrust.

You put a lot of effort into writing that very poor analogy.
And unfortunately for ladder guy, you are incorrect.

Not sure what you're trying to explain.

feel free to explain what happens to my hypothetical cold gas thruster type rocket in a vacuum:
You have compressed air inside it (and this air has mass), but with an opening on one end, exposed to a vacuum.
What happens?
Does it magically remain inside the tank, even though it is open to a vacuum?
Or does it move, and thus even by your own claims, need something to push off, which when logically followed will result in the rocket being pushed away?
Even if you want to appeal to your expansion nonsense, it isn't expansion without resistance.

It is far from nonsense. How do you think you can compress air in the first place?
The clue is in the word "compress" and you can't compress anything without making the molecules smaller. And you can't decompress without allowing the same molecules to expand again.

As for the expansion needing resistance. Of course it does. I already explained it.
The reality is, the resistance is not against the rocket, the resistance is against the molecules themselves. The compressed gas now able to expand due to an opening allowing them to do just that.

From that point on it's molecules pushing against molecules. Each row of molecules using the row behind as leverage to push the row in front and so on and so on all down the tank.
All the tank foundation is doing at this particular time is merely acting as a foundation.

The end result in your fictional vacuum would be zero work done other than expansion of molecules which would quickly go dormant as they expand, having nothing else to push because there's no more expansion.

Your rocket couldn't survive that fiction but we have to argue from a point  and scenario of the extremes.

The gas is only capable of expanding in one direction, it will then push the obstruction away, just like a bomb pushes shrapnel away while it expands.
If you like, you can consider that rocket as part of the expansion.

No. A bomb works because it is encased and creates an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the casing, meaning it expands inside and creates a massive expanded pressure on the casing walls which shatters the walls at the weakest points.

Your rocket will expand out of one end and that's it, if there's no resistance to that expansion.
Luckily there is resistance. It's called atmospheric pressure.

In fake space there is no atmospheric pressure as we're told and therefore no moving rockets, either.

There is absolutely no need to push on anything outside the rocket though, of course, the high velocity propellant moist be ejected at that velocity.

The very reason why rocket fuel burns like it does is to super expand the atmosphere under and around that flaming thrust.

That super expansion creates a super compression of the wider atmosphere and that super compression reacts by decompressing back against the thrust and creating a foundation and leverage for that thrust as it is ejected and burned every nano second.

The rocket is merely squeezed up just like a hot air balloon is squeezed up.

If this has been already presented, I do apologize.

Would just like to hear which part of the presentation is false, and how. To better understand how rockets do not work in vacuum.

If the rocket is full of unburned gas or liquid but then burns the gas or liquid externally then the remaining gas or liquid inside the rocket is not going to push in another direction. It's going to be pushed down towards the exit ready to be burned and super expand the atmosphere within that burn.
That massive sort of super expanded like void the burn has created has to be equalised and it does equalise because the super expansion has super compressed the atmosphere around that burn.

Think of it like you standing on a trampoline. Your mass leaves a indent in it due to you being pushed down by above atmosphere against your mass which has also displaced it.

You want to make a bigger indent in that trampoline but the only way you can do it is to use the atmosphere and your energy to create a bigger push.
Basically you bend your legs and use the trampoline as a spring to make you push harder into the atmosphere above, which also acts harder back onto you because you've compressed it more and that compression pushes you back down to that spring foundation, which has also decompressed as you sprung away from it and allowing you to recompress it but with more force, until that trampoline cannot be used much more to create a bigger compression and decompression by deeper indentation.

Now imagine trying to do the very same thing only this time you have a 4x4 foot board strapped to your head like a graduates mortar board and now try and do the very same jump.
You find your jump and resistance to the above atmosphere tries to push your head into your neck.

With a rocket, they're streamlined in order to push through the above atmosphere by ensuring they're shaped to create less resistance to the push from below.

Imagine a trampoline capable of resisting the thrust of a rocket.
The rocket stands on the trampoline and needs to use it to push through the atmosphere.

Imagine the thrust of burning gases against the trampoline. It pushes the trampoline down and expands the springs which ensures the trampoline bed gets pushed down more and more but that trampoline is now at a point where it ready to decompress against that rocket mass and energy.
The rocket is them sprung into the air but in this case it is like having trampoline after trampoline doing the same thing as each one springs back against the burn.

Just transfer that trampoline to atmosphere and there's your rocket in reality using it's own fuel as energy against a compressed air foundation/leverage/resistance.

There's none of this action and reaction happening inside any rocket to push it up. It's nonsense and should be seen as just that.

So which part of the presentation is wrong? The one with arrows pointing where? Draw a freehand diagram of how rockets work.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 03, 2019, 02:46:28 AM

You put a lot of effort into writing that very poor analogy.
And unfortunately for ladder guy, you are incorrect.

Not sure what you're trying to explain.

Ill quote you in ref to your last post...
Hahaha

Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.
Too bad.

But at least we have a new player.

So.
Explain this to us please.

If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:

1.  If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?

2.  When air bubbles rise up in the water, are they flat on top?   Or flat on bottom?   The air bubble has a water column above it pushing down on it.  Water is a fluid and will have near similar push down properties (in behaviour) of the air in the atmoplane.

If you take away a solid foundation then you require some other means of leverage or resistance to force.
Compressed air allows this, as in, in normal atmosphere being used by whatever force is pushed against it to compress it and that compression will expand back towards the force applied against it, creating an equal and opposite reaction. Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person  who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.

The ladder guy video and my whole discussion with lackless revolves around your two's inability to undedstand physics.

The mass (medball) has to be ejected from the being or else there is no action-reaction.
If the skater does a throwing motion, but holds onto the ball, he goes no where.
Ladder guy attempts to jump but endes up just moving his legs and goes no where - now if his legs detached while kicking, he would move.

So now ill post the questions that  lackless refuses to answer, to you -

If you stood in front of lackless and he threw a med ball at your face, would that med ball create a push of air to push you back?

What if it were a volleyball of similar dimension?

It is far from nonsense.

Is that why you are completely unable to justify it in any way, nor answer very simple questions which show it to be wrong?

How do you think you can compress air in the first place?

By reducing the volume. It is quite basic fluid mechanics.

The clue is in the word "compress" and you can't compress anything without making the molecules smaller.

And more nonsense.
You don't need to make the molecules smaller. All you need to do is reduce the space between them.
In fact, one of the limitations of the ideal gas law is that real gasses aren't ideal because they have a real, physical size of the atoms/molecules.
One of the drawbacks of this is that it can only be compressed to a certain extent before it becomes a liquid or a solid.

This makes no sense with your nonsense.

All the tank foundation is doing at this particular time is merely acting as a foundation.

Which is pushed by the molecules.
If it wasn't, the molecules can't push off it and thus can't expand.

No. A bomb works because it is encased and creates an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the casing

Only while it is encased. As soon as it cracks, you have your opening and according to you, that should mean just free expansion with no work.
That would mean bombs should just push out air, never shrapnel.

Luckily there is resistance. It's called atmospheric pressure.

No, it's call the mass of the exhaust.
That needs a force to accelerate it.
That is the resistance that the rocket needs to push off.


Remember, your entire objection is that you can't simply have the rocket push off nothing to move. That same applies to the gas inside the rocket.
You can't simply have it push off nothing to move.
It needs to push off something, which means it needs to push something.

Again, a rational line of reasoning goes like this:
The high pressure gas is exposed to a vacuum and thus will move to go into/towards the vacuum.
This means the gas is accelerating as it is changing its velocity.
This means it will need to have a force applied to it in order to accelerate.
This means it must push off something and apply a force to something.
The only available object is the rocket.
This means the gas must push off the rocket.
This means the rocket will be pushed by the expanding gas.
This means that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

Just which point do you disagree with here and why?
Do you claim a complete defiance of so much observed about gas and instead which to claim that even when exposed to a vacuum the gas will magically remain inside the tank?
Do you claim that even though it is accelerating to move out of the rocket, it somehow isn't accelerating, a pure nonsense claim which contradicts itself? (The same applies to the last point)
Do you claim that even though it is accelerating it doesn't need a force applied to it? Again, a complete defiance of physics, this time with what is known about motion. Perhaps more importantly, a key part of what you are relying upon to falsely assert that rockets can't work, as if objects (like gas) can accelerate without a force applied, why can't a rocket?
The latter points (except the last) are quite similar, in that rejecting them means rejecting quite well established physics, backed up by mountains of evidence which you are relying upon to claim rockets can't work. If you reject any of them, it would mean that you are rejecting your arguments against rockets not being able to work.

If you can't justify a problem with that line of reasoning, you have no case.

The answer to "can rockets fly in a vacuum?" is a pretty simple one.  Yes, they can.  Apply the law of conservation of momentum to rocket and the gases it will exhaust.  You will see fairly quickly that as mass moves out the back of the rocket, the rocket itself must move in a forward direction. 

The statement "combustion can't happen in space" really depends on your definition of combustion.  If you are defining combustion as a reaction which requires oxygen from the environment as a reactant, this statement would be correct.  Would you consider the termite reaction to be combustion?  It does not require oxygen from the environment since the substances being used are self-oxidzing.  It would probably be more accurate to think of the reaction in a rocket engine as a redox reaction since the fuels being used self-oxidize without needing an external oxygen source.

The answer to "can rockets fly in a vacuum?" is a pretty simple one.  Yes, they can.  Apply the law of conservation of momentum to rocket and the gases it will exhaust.  You will see fairly quickly that as mass moves out the back of the rocket, the rocket itself must move in a forward direction. 
.

Lacki and scepti both dont believe in "conventional" physics.
Which is the issue here.
They believe rockets and med balls are pushing off the stationary air.

Lacki and scepti both dont believe in "conventional" physics.
Which is the issue here.
They believe rockets and med balls are pushing off the stationary air.

You can "not believe" all you want.  I would like to see a mathematically consistent and logical way to deal with every situation where conservation of momentum applies that does not use conservation of momentum. 

Right... which is why scepti posts an insanely long and insane analogy based description of his version of physics.
He doesnt "math".

Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.

Henceforthwith, what am I, the wheeled medicine ball tosser compressing against? How is my tossing of the medicine ball somehow compressing the entire earth's atmosphere and pushing me back? Do I have that much of an effect on all things on the planet by just touching or tossing them?

If I were inside a room, would I be 'compressing' off a wall? If I were outside, would I be compressing off of a cloud?

How do you calculate this force, this 'compression' force? The springback, if you will.

Your argument is woeful, suspect, and utterly incomprehensible. Try, much, much harder.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 03, 2019, 06:45:28 PM

Lacki and scepti both dont believe in "conventional" physics.
Which is the issue here.
They believe rockets and med balls are pushing off the stationary air.

You can "not believe" all you want.  I would like to see a mathematically consistent and logical way to deal with every situation where conservation of momentum applies that does not use conservation of momentum.

Scepti doesn't believe that you need math to prove something so obvious.

You have to work with spmeones cognitive ability (limit).
In this case , requires analogies and easily reproducible experiments.

So which part of the presentation is wrong? The one with arrows pointing where? Draw a freehand diagram of how rockets work.

All of it.

Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.
Too bad.

But at least we have a new player.

So.
Explain this to us please.

If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:

1.  If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?

No because your hair sort equalises  because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.

2.  When air bubbles rise up in the water, are they flat on top?   Or flat on bottom?   The air bubble has a water column above it pushing down on it.  Water is a fluid and will have near similar push down properties (in behaviour) of the air in the atmoplane.

Not flat just slightly misshaped due to being squeezed up.

The mass (medball) has to be ejected from the being or else there is no action-reaction.
If the skater does a throwing motion, but holds onto the ball, he goes no where.

Yes, if the skater holds onto the ball then the action and equal and opposite reaction comes into play, meaning an equal atmospheric reaction to the medicine ball in a push forward or push back = zero gain.

Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it. It creates a leverage.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.

Ladder guy attempts to jump but ends up just moving his legs and goes no where - now if his legs detached while kicking, he would move.

Did the ladder collapse?

So now ill post the questions that  lackless refuses to answer, to you -
If you stood in front of lackless and he threw a med ball at your face, would that med ball create a push of air to push you back?

If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
The same would happen if you threw it at me in open air but the air hitting my face would be minimal due to the area allowing dissipation of the medicine ball's dense mass of air displacement.

What if it were a volleyball of similar dimension?

The volley ball would be extremely minimal due to it already being mostly air and a simple outer skin of dense mass....which....if you were to take away the air and mould it into a denser ball, it would likely be as small as a dogs rubber ball.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 03, 2019, 11:37:29 AM

Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.
Too bad.

But at least we have a new player.

So.
Explain this to us please.

If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:

1.  If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?

No because your hair sort equalises  because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.

You do realize that there is already a word for dense mass displacing less dense atmosphere, don't you?  That word is "buoyancy".  It's a well understood phenomenon and it requires gravity so that the more dense mass knows which way to go.