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

  • 2049 Replies
  • 38197 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1650 on: November 10, 2019, 05:48:13 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
You admit that "They do move" and surely you cannot deny that a force of required to make a mass that was at rest start to move!
I accept they need a force applied to move. Contraction and expansion of molecules means they move against each other, just as a wave does. And the end product of any movement, is work, as long as there is something of a mass that is resisting it, as you mention with your mass, which totally kills your space rocket.
But "contraction and expansion of molecules" and simply moving "against each other" cannot cause a nett movement in a single direction which is where your whole thing falls apart.
They would cause a wave and the very end product of that wave against any mass, will create a nett force/movement/work.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
Suppose you had a 100 kg weight hanging stationary on a long wire. The friction would be quite negligible.
Would you suggest that weight could be set in motion without applying a force? Of course not! That would be ridiculous!
All you have is potential energy from the force applied to get the weight onto the long hanging wire.
To realise it back to the energy applied would be to wait for the wire to weaken or to cut it.
I'm sorry, but I meant that a force must be applied laterally to start the weight swinging.
Then you still have to re-apply lateral energy to that already hanging mass on the wire.
You still have to push it against a resistance and compress that resistance of atmosphere which creates a higher compression than the other side where the push/force originated which leaves a lower compression that has to be equalised which compresses right back, which is then compressed again....and so on, creating the swing motion.
You can equate this higher compression against a lesser compression as merely contraction and expansion.

Reason:
The mass you push from one side is already taking up it's own mass of atmosphere and is already compressing the atmosphere away from it by that mass and also the atmosphere is stacked above it.

By you pushing the mass from one side, say, to the left, the stack above, of atmosphere drops into that place all the time that mass is moving from the force applied. But the stack is only equalising that portion whilst the mass itself is compressing what's to the left side of the mass.
This also has to be equalised and it is by simple transference of the wave created back into that lower pressure behind it by that stack above, drop.

Action and reaction based on energy applied, which still leaves potential energy after the mass and swing is compressed/resisted to a dangling stop..


Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
You simply are forced to deny the undeniable because to do anything else would destroy you imagined World View.
I'm not forced to deny anything. I'll argue any point with my points. That's it, as I have done.
But your important explanation was quite incorrect. This one: "contraction and expansion of molecules" and simply moving "against each other".
Moving "against each other" cannot cause a nett movement in a single direction - to the right in this case.
Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
One genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!
I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
I didn't "use this as an argument". I just used that to explain why you dare not accept that space flights can possibly be real.
You used it as a weak attempt of an appeal to authority.

Quote from: rabinoz
Now I can never prove it and you would not believe me if I claimed that these two photos are genuine photos taken on a genuine film camera:
I fail to see what logical reason you might have to claim that they are not genuine photos.

And this one and it has nothing to do with NASA but was taken on a film camera from near the moon:

Quote from: rabinoz
Other than you own prejudice, what reasons have you to claim that either photo is not genuine?
I've been giving reasons for many years on here.
I'm giving you reasons as we type to each other.

Now, other than your own adherence to schooled thoughts, what reasons do you have for all this to be genuine?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 05:51:00 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sokarul

  • 16124
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1651 on: November 10, 2019, 06:06:15 AM »
Quote from: many years ago
How does a molecule measuring in the nanometer range expand to the meter range?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1652 on: November 10, 2019, 06:07:39 AM »
Quote from: many years ago
How does a molecule measuring in the nanometer range expand to the meter range?
It doesn't. Only you decided on this for some weird reason.

*

sokarul

  • 16124
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1653 on: November 10, 2019, 06:11:24 AM »
So what is the limit of expansion?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1654 on: November 10, 2019, 07:08:54 AM »
So what is the limit of expansion?
It varies with each molecular density.
To actually give you a real life size is an impossibility and you should be aware of this.
Put it this way, it's way beyond our perception/vision.

*

sokarul

  • 16124
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1655 on: November 10, 2019, 07:27:01 AM »
Ok so meter in size is possible. Got it.

So do you have any evidence?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rvlvr

  • 1373
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1656 on: November 10, 2019, 08:32:05 AM »
I say three meters.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5071
  • I abuse wise
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1657 on: November 10, 2019, 08:51:13 AM »
So Scepti....

I stuck a compressed spongeball at the bottom a tube.  The bottom was closed and the top was open..  The spongeball did not fully expand and didn't leave the tube.  Why didn't it work?
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

*

Macarios

  • 1742
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1658 on: November 10, 2019, 09:53:03 AM »
That sounds, I donít know, odd...?

Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
Ok think of this.

If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.

Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?

Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?

You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.

Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.

So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.

What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.

To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.

Gas expands in all directions, which means: as you expand your body your head keeps pushing the sealed end throwing it eventually away together with the rest of the rocket.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1659 on: November 10, 2019, 10:45:51 AM »
Quote
Quote from: rabinoz
One genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!
I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
For the genuine Photo from space, I suggest you go to your local weather channel, or turn into, the weather news, and there you go you got them, just look out your window, for verification.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1660 on: November 10, 2019, 12:28:40 PM »
Here you go, like I promised.
Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?

What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?

i.e. something like this:


As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.

So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.

My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?

Ok, there you go.


Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1661 on: November 10, 2019, 12:30:02 PM »
It's been explained. Feel free to deny it.
No it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided answering these simple questions and providing an explanation.
Do you know why?
Because as I said, you are left with 2 options:
1 - There is leverage and thus rockets can work.
2 - There is no leverage and thus the gas remains inside the rocket next to a vacuum.

You can lie all you want and say that you have explained it but everyone here can see that you haven't.

If you had actually explained it, then it would be very easy for you to directly answer my question and tell me what is being used as leverage.

Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.
So if you have a rocket, and the applied energy of its burning fuel, then it can move, just by moving against itself?
Again, the same claims you make for the gas can still allow the rocket to move in a vacuum.

Again, the only way you can be internally consistent and claim that the rocket can't move is if you also claim the gas can't, i.e. that it will remain trapped inside the rocket, even though there is an opening exposing it to the vacuum of space.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1662 on: November 10, 2019, 01:34:54 PM »
So Scepti....

I stuck a compressed spongeball at the bottom a tube.  The bottom was closed and the top was open..  The spongeball did not fully expand and didn't leave the tube.  Why didn't it work?
Because one sponge ball represents one molecule and you need quite a few sponge balls to compress into the tube and into each other to create the pressure build.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1663 on: November 10, 2019, 01:37:17 PM »
That sounds, I donít know, odd...?

Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
Ok think of this.

If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.

Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?

Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?

You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.

Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.

So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.

What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.

To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.

Gas expands in all directions, which means: as you expand your body your head keeps pushing the sealed end throwing it eventually away together with the rest of the rocket.
Only if it's contained at both ends.
Try and expand your body with both ends sealed and you get what you are implying.

Open one end and your legs straighten out without the need to push your head off the closed end.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1664 on: November 10, 2019, 01:44:10 PM »
Here you go, like I promised.
Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?

What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?

i.e. something like this:


As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.

So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.

My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?

Ok, there you go.


Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1665 on: November 10, 2019, 01:45:52 PM »
It's been explained. Feel free to deny it.
No it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided answering these simple questions and providing an explanation.
Do you know why?
Because as I said, you are left with 2 options:
1 - There is leverage and thus rockets can work.
2 - There is no leverage and thus the gas remains inside the rocket next to a vacuum.

You can lie all you want and say that you have explained it but everyone here can see that you haven't.

If you had actually explained it, then it would be very easy for you to directly answer my question and tell me what is being used as leverage.

Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.
So if you have a rocket, and the applied energy of its burning fuel, then it can move, just by moving against itself?
Again, the same claims you make for the gas can still allow the rocket to move in a vacuum.

Again, the only way you can be internally consistent and claim that the rocket can't move is if you also claim the gas can't, i.e. that it will remain trapped inside the rocket, even though there is an opening exposing it to the vacuum of space.
You're not helping yourself. Most likely deliberate.
You've been told how it works.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1666 on: November 10, 2019, 01:59:04 PM »
You're not helping yourself. Most likely deliberate.
You've been told how it works.
I'm not the one needs help here. That would be you, as clearly demonstrated by your complete inability to answer a very simple question.
Also demonstrated by your contradictory model where you need to provide numerous contradictory explanations to try and explain different things, and at times need to appeal to contradictions in the explanation for a single thing, such as rockets in a vacuum.

You are yet to tell me how it works because you repeatedly leave out a key part.
This key part results in one of 2 conclusions depending upon what route you take.
Either there is something for the gas to use as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as well (or the rocket is the leverage and thus the rocket uses the gas as leverage), and thus rockets do work in a vacuum,
or there is nothing for the gas to use as leverage and thus it cannot move and thus the gas remains trapped in a tube while exposed to a vacuum.

In order to tell me how it works you need to tell me what the gas is using as leverage/resistance/foundation/whatever BS you want to call it.
The simple one in real physics is what the gas is pushing against.

Until you tell me what the gas is using as leverage in a clear way, and clearly explain why the rocket can magically not use it (and why it isn't the rocket itself), then you have not explained anything.

So again, what is the gas using as leverage?

Only if it's contained at both ends.
Which again would mean bombs don't work.
Back in reality, the gas still exerts pressure in all directions, pushing anything it is up against outwards.
That means it will accelerate shrapnel in bombs and rockets.

Open one end and your legs straighten out without the need to push your head off the closed end.
But it still pushes away the other end.
That is the point, you don't need to push off the top to be able to push the bottom, your own mass will provide resistance to motion.

It would if the pressure was not dissipated.
So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.

So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum

*

rabinoz

  • 22636
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1667 on: November 10, 2019, 02:07:47 PM »
Quote
Quote from: rabinoz
One genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!
I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
For the genuine Photo from space, I suggest you go to your local weather channel, or turn into, the weather news, and there you go you got them, just look out your window, for verification.
Or go to the Bureau of Meteorology like this? Himawari-8 Satellite and smoke from fires in Eastern Australia ę on: Today at 07:00:05 AM Ľ

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1668 on: November 10, 2019, 02:21:56 PM »

So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.

So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.

*

sokarul

  • 16124
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1669 on: November 10, 2019, 02:40:11 PM »
So how much air does a million pound rocket push off of?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Macarios

  • 1742
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1670 on: November 10, 2019, 04:14:36 PM »
That sounds, I donít know, odd...?

Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
Ok think of this.

If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.

Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?

Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?

You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.

Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.

So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.

What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.

To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.

Gas expands in all directions, which means: as you expand your body your head keeps pushing the sealed end throwing it eventually away together with the rest of the rocket.
Only if it's contained at both ends.
Try and expand your body with both ends sealed and you get what you are implying.

Open one end and your legs straighten out without the need to push your head off the closed end.

Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22636
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1671 on: November 10, 2019, 04:44:55 PM »

So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.

So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.
If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.

Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1672 on: November 10, 2019, 06:06:32 PM »
Here you go, like I promised.
Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?

What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?

i.e. something like this:


As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.

So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.

My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?

Ok, there you go.


Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?

Sorry
Did anyone address this?
Theres so many different discussioms going on right now.

Either way
Then lets adress the inconsistency -
If the stack of spoges holds up the rocket/ nozzle, how could it dissipate?
If dissipated it wiuld cease to hold the stack of sponges!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1673 on: November 10, 2019, 09:56:51 PM »


Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
Which I've already explained.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1674 on: November 10, 2019, 10:00:45 PM »

So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.

So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.
If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.

Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1675 on: November 10, 2019, 10:06:45 PM »
Here you go, like I promised.
Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?

What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?

i.e. something like this:


As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.

So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.

My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?

Ok, there you go.


Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?

Sorry
Did anyone address this?
Theres so many different discussioms going on right now.

Either way
Then lets adress the inconsistency -
If the stack of spoges holds up the rocket/ nozzle, how could it dissipate?
If dissipated it wiuld cease to hold the stack of sponges!
Look at how many breaches that hose has. Each breach loses force. It's dissipated with some, including the one through the window, because that's not designed to be a massive force but the one's holding up the hose, are.

Explain to me what's keeping that hose off the ground to actually go through that window.
Explain what you think is happening.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1676 on: November 10, 2019, 10:50:38 PM »
Here you go, like I promised.
Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?

What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?

i.e. something like this:


As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.

So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.

My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?

Ok, there you go.


Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?

Sorry
Did anyone address this?
Theres so many different discussioms going on right now.

Either way
Then lets adress the inconsistency -
If the stack of spoges holds up the rocket/ nozzle, how could it dissipate?
If dissipated it wiuld cease to hold the stack of sponges!
Look at how many breaches that hose has. Each breach loses force. It's dissipated with some, including the one through the window, because that's not designed to be a massive force but the one's holding up the hose, are.

Explain to me what's keeping that hose off the ground to actually go through that window.
Explain what you think is happening.
The hose provides the water to the nozzle, as long as the water leaving the  nozzle creates a pressure greater than the weight of the hose and nozzle, it will move upwards, to the point of equalization, by which time it stabilizes and stays level. The hose under pressure, stays stiff, as you can see it being moved in and out. The narrow window ledge has little effect.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22763
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1677 on: November 10, 2019, 11:05:08 PM »

The hose provides the water to the nozzle, as long as the water leaving the  nozzle creates a pressure greater than the weight of the hose and nozzle, it will move upwards, to the point of equalization, by which time it stabilizes and stays level. The hose under pressure, stays stiff, as you can see it being moved in and out. The narrow window ledge has little effect.
The water flows along the horizontal of the hose, right?
It also flows from every breach along that horizontal hose and each breach has a working pressure.
So look at the largest pressure keeping the hose up. Just concentrate on this area alone and tell me why you think this hose is raised from the ground.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1678 on: November 10, 2019, 11:14:27 PM »
I notice you are still ignoring the very simple question which shows you are wrong.

Again, what is the gas using as leverage/resistance/foundation?
What is it pushing against (which must in turn be pushed)?

It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket.
The vast majority of it is. That is the entire point of the nozzle.

But if it wasn't, that means just outside the rocket you have high pressure gas. Why can't the rocket push off that like it pushes off the atmosphere?


Explain to me what's keeping that hose off the ground to actually go through that window.
Explain what you think is happening.
You sure seem to love asking for others to explain, but don't want to give explanations of your own.

The water, as an analogy for air, would be required to push off something in your model. The window provides far more resistance than the air, and thus should push the hose up a lot more.
But that isn't observed.
Why?
Is it because your model is entirely wrong?

*

rabinoz

  • 22636
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1679 on: November 11, 2019, 12:34:39 AM »
If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.

Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.
In other words you have no knowledge of the design of the expanding bell of a rocket engine nozzle nor of hypersonic gas flow, I realised that long ago.

But whether you like it or not the propagation velocity of disturbances is the speed of sound.
"Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" aficionado, Cikljamas, "proved" that earlier.

The velocity of the exhaust gas in a properly designed rocket nozzle is everywhere greater than Mach 1.
Hence the gas inside the nozzle cannot "know" about the vacuum outside. So there is not "vacuum" inside the nozzle
Learn about de Laval nozzles used in steam turbines - almost the same theory!