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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 03:05:46 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2019, 02:53:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Also this is a rocket thread so make another.

Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?

The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
It becomes a gas on gas fight, not a gas against rocket push.

The rocket merely sits on this compression and expansion cushion fight. I've explained this so why can;t you grasp it?

Here is JackBlack's tube again. Now what happens if the tube is in a vacuum? It seems that your above explanation should still apply in a vacuum.

This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 03:16:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 03:05:46 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 07, 2019, 02:53:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Also this is a rocket thread so make another.

Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?

The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
It becomes a gas on gas fight, not a gas against rocket push.

The rocket merely sits on this compression and expansion cushion fight. I've explained this so why can;t you grasp it?

Here is JackBlack's tube again. Now what happens if the tube is in a vacuum? It seems that your above explanation should still apply in a vacuum.

This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

OK then, what happens if the tube is in a vacuum?

Before the tube is opened there is equal pressure on each end.
When the right-hand end is opened there is, at least for a very short time, still pressure on the left-hand end but no pressure on the right.

So it would seem that for that very short time there was an unbalanced force pushing the tube to the left.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 02:55:05 AM

There is plenty to compress against. Air molecules crushing air molecules crushing air molecules and so on which will compress and create a resistance.

You mean like what happens with a rocket in a vacuum, with the air molecules in the exhaust creating resistance?

Nope. I've already explained.
Read back what I said.

OK then, what happens if the tube is in a vacuum?
Before the tube is opened there is equal pressure on each end.
When the right-hand end is opened there is, at least for a very short time, still pressure on the left-hand end but no pressure on the right.

So it would seem that for that very short time there was an unbalanced force pushing the tube to the left.

Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itself and into the extreme low pressure environment with negligible resistance to that, plus the expansion from the breached end is allowed to expand on it's own with near zero resistance, out. The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forward whilst the molecule behind that one pushes that one forward and so on and so on all the way up that tube, until the very last molecules expand by using the inner wall of the other end of the tube as a mere foundation to expand into the tube towards the exit but, by this time they will be frozen due to having no more push or vibration.
This means the tube moves nowhere.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 07, 2019, 02:02:43 AM

As jackb mentioned many times ago
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.

In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.

How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?

And you said you knew my theory.
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.

Also this is a rocket thread so make another.

This is a rocket thread.
Your theory is sht if you cant answer these questions.
So in summary your refutation that rockets cant work based on a nonexistient undersranding of workable (WORKABLE) physics, you are worng and gtfo.
You can then re-represent your theory in the denP thread.

This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.

I think the word you're looking for is "inertia".  All mass has inertia, so you're good to go.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 06, 2019, 11:44:58 PM

This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.

I think the word you're looking for is "inertia".  All mass has inertia, so you're good to go.

Scepti has his own ridiculous redefinitions of come words.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 07, 2019, 02:02:43 AM

As jackb mentioned many times ago
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.

In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.

How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?

And you said you knew my theory.
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.

Also this is a rocket thread so make another.

This is a rocket thread.
Your theory is sht if you cant answer these questions.
So in summary your refutation that rockets cant work based on a nonexistient undersranding of workable (WORKABLE) physics, you are worng and gtfo.
You can then re-represent your theory in the denP thread.

If you want to argue rockets, fill your boots.

Scepti has his own ridiculous redefinitions of come words.

Like "molecule"!  I'd love to hear more about his personal atomic theory, but we've got to stay focused.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 07, 2019, 08:03:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 07, 2019, 02:02:43 AM

As jackb mentioned many times ago
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.

In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.

How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?

And you said you knew my theory.
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.

Also this is a rocket thread so make another.

This is a rocket thread.
Your theory is sht if you cant answer these questions.
So in summary your refutation that rockets cant work based on a nonexistient undersranding of workable (WORKABLE) physics, you are worng and gtfo.
You can then re-represent your theory in the denP thread.

If you want to argue rockets, fill your boots.

Like i said
Cant even answer simple queations

This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

You mean this pigeon has avoided the issue yet again?

Nope. I've already explained.
Read back what I said.

No you haven't.
You have repeatedly avoided it because you know your claims contradict each other.

It is quite simple, can the air create resistance? If so, rockets work in a vacuum, because the gas inside them can create the necessary resistance.

If the gas alone can't and instead you need something for that gas to push against (i.e. a foundation), then there is no reason for there to be resistance in that example as you are just pushing the air without it having something to use as a foundation.

Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itself

As you have repeatedly said, IT REQUIRES LEVERAGE!!
What is it using as leverage?

The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forward

And why aren't these magical expanding molecules also pushing the rocket?

Again, you are applying a massive double standard to try to avoid the massive with your claims.

Again, you have very few options if you want to remain internally consistent (i.e. not refute yourself).
You can have the pressurised gas in the middle act as a foundation and have leverage applied to it.
That means that the gas and rocket can push against it to move outwards. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say the gas in the middle is just transferring the force as it would need something to push against as well. Instead, the gas at the edge pushes through the gas in the middle to the rocket. These then push each other apart so the gas moves one way and the rocket moves the other. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say that the rocket too would only be able to transfer the force and needs a foundation/leverage and there is nothing outside the rocket to be used as leverage or a foundation, thus the rocket and the gas remain where they are. That will mean that rockets don't work in a vacuum, but that also means you have pressurised gas directly next to a vacuum, not moving into the vacuum.

Again, if you want to disagree, and have anyone take you seriously and/or have an internally consistent model, you need to explain what the gas is pushing against which allows it to move/expand into the vacuum, which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against.
You are yet to do this and as such, you are yet to explain anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 04:33:26 AM

This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

You mean this pigeon has avoided the issue yet again?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 05:14:28 AM

Nope. I've already explained.
Read back what I said.

No you haven't.
You have repeatedly avoided it because you know your claims contradict each other.

It is quite simple, can the air create resistance? If so, rockets work in a vacuum, because the gas inside them can create the necessary resistance.

If the gas alone can't and instead you need something for that gas to push against (i.e. a foundation), then there is no reason for there to be resistance in that example as you are just pushing the air without it having something to use as a foundation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 05:23:53 AM

Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itself

As you have repeatedly said, IT REQUIRES LEVERAGE!!
What is it using as leverage?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 05:23:53 AM

The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forward

And why aren't these magical expanding molecules also pushing the rocket?

Again, you are applying a massive double standard to try to avoid the massive with your claims.

Again, you have very few options if you want to remain internally consistent (i.e. not refute yourself).
You can have the pressurised gas in the middle act as a foundation and have leverage applied to it.
That means that the gas and rocket can push against it to move outwards. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say the gas in the middle is just transferring the force as it would need something to push against as well. Instead, the gas at the edge pushes through the gas in the middle to the rocket. These then push each other apart so the gas moves one way and the rocket moves the other. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say that the rocket too would only be able to transfer the force and needs a foundation/leverage and there is nothing outside the rocket to be used as leverage or a foundation, thus the rocket and the gas remain where they are. That will mean that rockets don't work in a vacuum, but that also means you have pressurised gas directly next to a vacuum, not moving into the vacuum.

Again, if you want to disagree, and have anyone take you seriously and/or have an internally consistent model, you need to explain what the gas is pushing against which allows it to move/expand into the vacuum, which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against.
You are yet to do this and as such, you are yet to explain anything.

I'm being very consistent and on point.
The issue is in you and others not getting the gist of what I'm explaining but arguing black and blue that you are.

I've tried to explain it's a gas on gas fight and the rocket sits atop of it.
There's nothing inside of that rocket pushing it up, it's all outside of it.

The nozzle is the big clue.

Doesn’t that sound pretty daft?

I'm being very consistent and on point.

No you aren't.
If you were, you would be able to explain what the gas is using for leverage, and accept that it is either the rocket itself, or the gas in between which the rocket would then also be able to use and thus admit that rockets do work in a vacuum.

But you can't. Instead all you do is repeatedly insult those who show you are wrong and dodge the issue again and again and again.

Here you are dodging yet again.

I've tried to explain it's a gas on gas fight and the rocket sits atop of it.

And I have explained how you can't just rely upon that, i.e. your explanation failed.
If it was just gas on gas, the gas would expand outwards in all directions.

You claim that in order to move there must be leverage.
So what is the gas at the edge using as leverage?
If it is the gas in the middle, the rocket can use that as well and thus there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum.

This is where the massive inconsistency comes from. You claim that the gas at the edge is using the gas in the middle as leverage, even though it would transfer the force all the way through, with the logical conclusion being all the way through to the tank and thus push the tank itself, yet you then ignore that logical conclusion and instead have the force propagation magically stop before the tank and claim the tank has nothing to push against even though all that gas is there for the tank to push against.

Either you can push against the gas, or you can't.
If you can, the rocket has something to push against.
If you can't then the gas has nothing to push against and thus must remain.

If instead that gas needs a foundation/leverage, then the only possible source in this situation is the rocket itself.
That would mean it isn't a gas on gas fight. It is a rocket on gas fight.
The rocket pushes the gas one way, and the gas pushes the rocket the other way.

If that isn't enough, then there is no foundation or leverage and thus the rocket and gas remain where they are, with the high pressure gas remaining right next to a vacuum.

This is the same issue you have avoided every single post in this thread.

Now again, what is the gas pushing against which isn't the rocket itself and which the rocket can't push against?
There is literally nothing that matches that.

Yes, consistent.
But no, not on point.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 01:28:19 PM

I'm being very consistent and on point.

No you aren't.
If you were, you would be able to explain what the gas is using for leverage, and accept that it is either the rocket itself, or the gas in between which the rocket would then also be able to use and thus admit that rockets do work in a vacuum.

But you can't. Instead all you do is repeatedly insult those who show you are wrong and dodge the issue again and again and again.

Here you are dodging yet again.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 01:28:19 PM

I've tried to explain it's a gas on gas fight and the rocket sits atop of it.

And I have explained how you can't just rely upon that, i.e. your explanation failed.
If it was just gas on gas, the gas would expand outwards in all directions.

You claim that in order to move there must be leverage.
So what is the gas at the edge using as leverage?
If it is the gas in the middle, the rocket can use that as well and thus there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum.

This is where the massive inconsistency comes from. You claim that the gas at the edge is using the gas in the middle as leverage, even though it would transfer the force all the way through, with the logical conclusion being all the way through to the tank and thus push the tank itself, yet you then ignore that logical conclusion and instead have the force propagation magically stop before the tank and claim the tank has nothing to push against even though all that gas is there for the tank to push against.

Either you can push against the gas, or you can't.
If you can, the rocket has something to push against.
If you can't then the gas has nothing to push against and thus must remain.

If instead that gas needs a foundation/leverage, then the only possible source in this situation is the rocket itself.
That would mean it isn't a gas on gas fight. It is a rocket on gas fight.
The rocket pushes the gas one way, and the gas pushes the rocket the other way.

If that isn't enough, then there is no foundation or leverage and thus the rocket and gas remain where they are, with the high pressure gas remaining right next to a vacuum.

This is the same issue you have avoided every single post in this thread.

Now again, what is the gas pushing against which isn't the rocket itself and which the rocket can't push against?
There is literally nothing that matches that.

Let's see how you answer this.
Picture a small tube and a mass of sponge balls much bigger than the tube entrance.
Now start to fill the tube. How do you do this?

You have to compress each sponge to fit in that tube and then with each sponge ball pushed into it, that sponge ball will push the other further into that tube until it hits the other sealed end.

Fair enough?

Now that you've filled the tube to the point where the last sponge ball simply sits at the open end but not expanding out.
Now you add more sponge balls into that tube and in doing so you compress the sponge ball closest to it and that sponge ball is compressed into the next and so on and so on, until the compression evens out, as long as you close the exit with each inserted ball.
Now we have what's know as a compressed gas inside that tube that is creating the same pressure on each end as long as it's closed at each end.

Now allow them to decompress and you'll notice that the very last sponge ball you placed in will be the first out...naturally.
This will be the first one to fully expand, followed by the one behind that is pushing it out by using the third in line as leverage.
This will happen until the sponge balls cannot hold the compression enough to expand any more out. This is what we would call a freeze inside the tube.

Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.

Surely you can grasp this.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

Let's see how you answer this.
Picture a small tube and a mass of sponge balls much bigger than the tube entrance.
Now start to fill the tube. How do you do this?

You have to compress each sponge to fit in that tube and then with each sponge ball pushed into it, that sponge ball will push the other further into that tube until it hits the other sealed end.

Fair enough?

Now that you've filled the tube to the point where the last sponge ball simply sits at the open end but not expanding out.
Now you add more sponge balls into that tube and in doing so you compress the sponge ball closest to it and that sponge ball is compressed into the next and so on and so on, until the compression evens out, as long as you close the exit with each inserted ball.
Now we have what's know as a compressed gas inside that tube that is creating the same pressure on each end as long as it's closed at each end.

Now allow them to decompress and you'll notice that the very last sponge ball you placed in will be the first out...naturally.
This will be the first one to fully expand, followed by the one behind that is pushing it out by using the third in line as leverage.
This will happen until the sponge balls cannot hold the compression enough to expand any more out. This is what we would call a freeze inside the tube.

Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.

Surely you can grasp this.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

So you're claiming that under a certain pressure limit, gas can't pass through an orifice?  Should be simple enough to test.   How about some example numbers on that?

So you're claiming that under a certain pressure limit, gas can't pass through an orifice?  Should be simple enough to test.   How about some example numbers on that?

Testing it out is easy. A freeze up will prove the point with any extreme expansion.

However we're dealing with rockets and how they actually move.
I've given the reason why they do and the reason why they cannot work in extreme low pressure, or space as people believe there is.

Let's see how you answer this.

Why, so you can try to deflect yet again?

No thanks. I've given you enough chances with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.

Why can't you just answer the simple questions asked of you?
What is the gas using as leverage?

Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.

No, I don't notice that, as you are yet to show it in any way.
The only way for that to not happen is if the gas itself can be what is used for leverage, which would mean that the rocket can use that gas as leverage.
Surely you can grasp this.

And no, in reality, it doesn't happen as you say.
You can try and make the force tiny, such that other forces can make it appear that the tube has no force against it, but that is just being dishonest.

Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

Again, we understand, we also understand that it is wrong.
Realising that you are wrong doesn't mean not understanding you.

I've given the reason why they do and the reason why they cannot work in extreme low pressure, or space as people believe there is.

No, you haven't.
Instead of even trying to explain why they can't work in a vacuum, you repeatedly avoided it.
You cannot answer a very simple question, likely because you know it will show your claims to be pure fantasy.

Again, what is the gas using as leverage? You have very few choices.
The only options lead to the rocket working, or the gas remaining trapped inside the tube, even though they are exposed to a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 01:56:46 PM

Let's see how you answer this.
Picture a small tube and a mass of sponge balls much bigger than the tube entrance.
Now start to fill the tube. How do you do this?

You have to compress each sponge to fit in that tube and then with each sponge ball pushed into it, that sponge ball will push the other further into that tube until it hits the other sealed end.

Fair enough?

Now that you've filled the tube to the point where the last sponge ball simply sits at the open end but not expanding out.
Now you add more sponge balls into that tube and in doing so you compress the sponge ball closest to it and that sponge ball is compressed into the next and so on and so on, until the compression evens out, as long as you close the exit with each inserted ball.
Now we have what's know as a compressed gas inside that tube that is creating the same pressure on each end as long as it's closed at each end.

Now allow them to decompress and you'll notice that the very last sponge ball you placed in will be the first out...naturally.
This will be the first one to fully expand, followed by the one behind that is pushing it out by using the third in line as leverage.
This will happen until the sponge balls cannot hold the compression enough to expand any more out. This is what we would call a freeze inside the tube.

Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.

Surely you can grasp this.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

So you're claiming that under a certain pressure limit, gas can't pass through an orifice?  Should be simple enough to test.   How about some example numbers on that?

In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?

The rocket is ignited at the closed end, where the first sponge is, if, by your analogy, ignition is equivalent to the sponge expanding.

Yes
We understand your crude analogy.
Youve made no point though as to how the sponges push the outside sponges or push the rocket tube..

Lets finish the thought.

Theres sponges at regular compression all around the tube outside.
If shooting up, your claim is the sponges stack up between the tube and the foundation causing the tube to raise up as the sponges exit and expand.


So
This is easily verifiable.
Waterbottle rockets.
Try it with water as per their instruction.
Try it withoutwater and just a lot of air.
According to your theory, you would be abke to get more height out of the rocjet because you can compress more sponges into a waterless rocket tube.
Thus proving rockefs need air and foundation for liftoff.

Guess by my smugass response which experiment goes higher (water vs waterless)?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2019, 01:56:46 PM

Let's see how you answer this.

Why, so you can try to deflect yet again?

No thanks. I've given you enough chances with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.

Why can't you just answer the simple questions asked of you?
What is the gas using as leverage?

I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything. You seem irate and bad tempered. Sort this out before you correspond with me from this point on.
All you do is go on the attack, so I'm giving you fair warning.

I guess you could copy-paste the answer, if you have one at the ready? A lot of pages to read thru otherwise.

In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?

Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.

If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.

Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.

If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.

The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.

Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.

Yes
Have a reeeal good think about it.



Rebemebr this video?
Scepti posted it.
Accodding to sceptis theory, the spognes expand to raise the hose nozzle head.
The nozzle uses air and foundation to rise.
But at 1:06, and all things equal, magically the sponges dont ruse the nozzle any higher, even though the foundation height has changed (from ground to window).
Whats up with that?

Yes
Have a reeeal good think about it.



Rebemebr this video?
Scepti posted it.
Accodding to sceptis theory, the spognes expand to raise the hose nozzle head.
The nozzle uses air and foundation to rise.
But at 1:06, and all things equal, magically the sponges dont ruse the nozzle any higher, even though the foundation height has changed (from ground to window).
Whats up with that?

Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2019, 12:34:48 AM

In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?

Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.

If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.

Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.

If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.

The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.

Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.

For your sponges in a tube to be analogous to how a rocket works, the sponge expansion occurs at the ignition point. Which is at the closed end of the tube, not the open end. In a rocket, the closed end is where the fuel is and is ignited, pushing the gas off of the closed end and forcing its way out toward the open end.

Having the sponge at the open end as the first one to expand is not analogous to a rocket, it's the opposite.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 08, 2019, 06:55:42 AM

Yes
Have a reeeal good think about it.



Rebemebr this video?
Scepti posted it.
Accodding to sceptis theory, the spognes expand to raise the hose nozzle head.
The nozzle uses air and foundation to rise.
But at 1:06, and all things equal, magically the sponges dont ruse the nozzle any higher, even though the foundation height has changed (from ground to window).
Whats up with that?

Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.

Make what up?
You posted this video in that other thread.
Not my video.

Or if i inaccurately described sponges please feel free to correct the statement.

I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything.

And this is yet another deflection from you filled with more insults.

If you had really explained it before it would be very easy for you to do so again.

The problem is you haven't explained it. All you do is avoid the explanation.

Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.

Good advice. You should try following it sometimes.

Stop making stuff up and try and act honestly.

Admit that the rocket is in the same situation as the gas.
Either they can push off each other (or the gas in the middle) and thus rockets do work in a vacuum, or there is no leverage for the gas to push against and the gas can't leave the rocket.

If you wish to claim otherwise, then explain it.
Explain what the gas is pushing against which the rocket can't also use.
Stop just saying expansion and the like. Actually tell us what the gas is using as leverage.
Remember, if it is the gas in the tube, then the rocket can use it as well.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 08, 2019, 05:49:35 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2019, 12:34:48 AM

In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?

Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.

If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.

Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.

If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.

The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.

Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.

For your sponges in a tube to be analogous to how a rocket works, the sponge expansion occurs at the ignition point. Which is at the closed end of the tube, not the open end. In a rocket, the closed end is where the fuel is and is ignited, pushing the gas off of the closed end and forcing its way out toward the open end.

Having the sponge at the open end as the first one to expand is not analogous to a rocket, it's the opposite.

So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.