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

Quote from: Macarios on November 10, 2019, 04:14:36 PM

Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.

Which I've already explained.

You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 10, 2019, 09:56:51 PM

Quote from: Macarios on November 10, 2019, 04:14:36 PM

Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.

Which I've already explained.

You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.

Nope. I've already explained all directions when contained and one direction when breached container allows expansion.

No I'm not saying anything of the sort.

If that was the case it would continue pushing in all directions.
It would mean what is outside is irrelevant to the gas as it will just keep pushing.
It means that it doesn't matter if it is air or a vacuum outside, you get the same result.

Start making sense.

Good advice, you should follow it.
Try to be coherent, it helps to make sense.

Does mass need leverage to push off in order to accelerate?
If so, what is your gas pushing against in a vacuum?
If not, why should a rocket?

I don't believe in space craft for the reasons I gave.

You don't believe in them because they show your model is wrong.
Your model is pure speculation, it provides no justification to reject the reality of spacecraft.

I'm telling you from my side why it does what it does

And then you directly contradict it.

usage of super large engines which are an idiotic way to move any rocket with the way they're set up

How do you plan to move it without an engine? A crane? Just put a bunch of explosives below it and destroy it?

Even fireworks have rocket engines.

unless you can absolutely back it up to a point where I cannot dispute it.

You have failed to provide a rational argument against it and instead just appealed to your self contradictory nonsense.
I would say that counts.
You can't refute it (which is what is important), you can just reject it.

Meanwhile your claims have been refuted repeatedly and you have repeatedly ran from very simple questions.

So no, we haven't failed. You have.

Repeated denial wont help your case.
I am showing the logical conclusions of your claims.

If what I am saying is wrong there, it means what you were saying is wrong as well.

It's clear to see the massively unbalanced forces.

Yes, which shows your diagram is complete garbage and in no way explains how it works.
You have your gas pushing against nothing and having a force come from no where to push it.
It is pure fantasy and directly contradicts your claims.

Itself.

So you are saying objects can push themselves to move?
Even though one of your big objections to rockets working in space is that they can't push themselves to move.

Again, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Can objects push themselves? If so, rockets work in a vacuum.
If not, then the gas can't push itself. It needs something else to push it to move.

The rocket sits on the gas and the gas pushes the rocket up

And thanks, you finally admit that rockets work in a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

However, it's how and why it moves which is the crux of the matter, of which I've explained.

You have explained nothing.
Instead you have repeatedly contradicted yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

it does not complicate matters.

It does, quite a bit, especially for fools that have no idea what they are talking about which then go and spout all sorts of nonsense.

There are 2 quite simple ways to explain how rockets work, which do not need the atmosphere at all, and unlike your nonsense, it is actually capable of explaining how rockets work, and the same principles explain so much.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

To leave it out would be to hand your the fictional vacuum argument of a rocket supposedly working in space.

You mean to accept the REALITY of rockets working in a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

Not equally it's not.

Do you understand the definition of pressure?
If it isn't equal, the pressure isn't equal.
But at least you are making progress and admitting that it does still act in all directions.
That means the air inside the rocket is still pushing the rocket.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

Bombs work

No BS, just deal with what was said.
You claim that an opening magically means pressure doesn't get exerted in all directions and instead is just exerted in the direction of the opening.
If that was the case then the gas would just go out the opening as soon as there was a crack.

The only explanation for how the bomb works is that the gas is still exerting pressure on the shrapnel even after the explosion.

So yet again, you are massively contradicting reality and yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

A balloon filled with air is now a compressed air container, if the end is tied.

And I'm clearly not talking about when the end is tied.
I am talking about when it is open.
Again, according to you that magically means your sentient gas stops pushign on the balloon and instead just forces its way out the opening.
That means there is nothing to hold the balloon open and it will shrink almost instantly, regardless of how quickly the air is let out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

I've shown massive problems with it

Really? I'm yet to see any.
I have seen you repeatedly dismiss it, but you are yet to show any problem.
You dismissing it and asserting your own nonsense is not showing a problem

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

Clearly it is not easily dis-proven or you wouldn't be arguing the points.

It is often the other way around, where things which are had to disprove (like real physics) is just dismissed (like you are doing), while things which are easily disproven (like your nonsense) are torn to shreds (as plenty of people here are doing).

The simple fact that you need to run from so much and simply dismiss so much shows just how easy it is to refute your nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

The only way water will be released from the rocket is if there's a compression behind that water.

Again, who cares.
Why not remove the water and just have air?

Real physics has an explanation, but you don't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

The gas expands all on its own

Again, HOW?
This expansion requires movement.
According to you, movement requires leverage against resistance, and an object can't push itself (even though you have contradicted that).
This means the gas needs to be pushing against something other than itself.

SO WHAT IS IT?

See, this is why you have no explanation, because you repeatedly contradict yourself.


If you want to have an explanation you need to tell us what the gas is pushing against, which wont also work for the rocket and which isn't the rocket.

You are yet to identify this elusive thing (because it doesn't exist).

Again
The container tube also has dense mass.

And incorrect the potential energy is held in the pressureized compressed air.

So what does the water do for the water rocket aside from being called a water rocket?
By your theory, you can fit more air sponges into it and cause greater liftoff.
Yet that doesnt happen.
Why

Does mass need leverage to push off in order to accelerate?
If so, what is your gas pushing against in a vacuum?

Itself. It's expanding back from the compression it was placed under.

The simple fact that you need to run from so much and simply dismiss so much shows just how easy it is to refute your nonsense.


If you want to have an explanation you need to tell us what the gas is pushing against, which wont also work for the rocket and which isn't the rocket.

You are yet to identify this elusive thing (because it doesn't exist).

It's been explained.
Your attempts to pick pieces and overwhelm a post does not make your points any different, just more lengthy.

Again
The container tube also has dense mass.

And incorrect the potential energy is held in the pressureized compressed air.

Nope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.
If you half fill it then you have normal atmospheric pressure trapped inside. That's not potential energy, because it's already there.
Unless you actually compress that air to become more compressed than the external pressure, then you can add it in as potential energy along with the water.

So what does the water do for the water rocket aside from being called a water rocket?
By your theory, you can fit more air sponges into it and cause greater liftoff.
Yet that doesnt happen.
Why

The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 12, 2019, 03:52:55 AM

Does mass need leverage to push off in order to accelerate?
If so, what is your gas pushing against in a vacuum?

Itself

Yes, you already said that, and I responded, and you have completely ignored that response.

ARE YOU SAYING OBJECTS CAN PUSH AGAINST THEMSELVES TO MOVE?
A complete defiance of everything known about motion?
A complete defiance of one of your main objections to how rockets work?

Do you then admit that a rocket can push against itself and thus rockets can work in a vacuum?

Until you do so, YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION!

If you don't accept that inevitable conclusion then you have to reject your claim that the gas pushes against itself.

So what's it going to be? Do rockets work, or does the gas not push against itself?

Nope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.

Nope.
This is quite easy to demonstrate.
Get a water rocket, and don't pump in any air. See how high it goes.
Now use the same amount of water, but pump in lots of air.

This is showing it is the air inside it that has the energy, not the water.

The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.

Which only helps if you accept that it is the reaction from the water being thrown out that causes it to move, meaning rockets work in a vacuum.
Otherwise it works directly against it.
The atmosphere with the water rocket is like the vacuum to the gas rocket, providing very little resistance against the dense mass.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 03:57:25 AM

Again
The container tube also has dense mass.

And incorrect the potential energy is held in the pressureized compressed air.

Nope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.
If you half fill it then you have normal atmospheric pressure trapped inside. That's not potential energy, because it's already there.
Unless you actually compress that air to become more compressed than the external pressure, then you can add it in as potential energy along with the water.

Quote from: Themightykabool

So what does the water do for the water rocket aside from being called a water rocket?
By your theory, you can fit more air sponges into it and cause greater liftoff.
Yet that doesnt happen.
Why

The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.

You may feel youre saying something, but youre not.
Maybe you could draw a picture.

The air in the tube is compressed and is at a greater pressure than outside the tube.
If the air wasnt compressed the water rocket would not work.

The tube is also more dense than rhe air.
And the tube is above the outside stack.
So you still havent provided a reason for the water's presence.

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Possibly its another case of scepti also not wanting to use conventional definitions for words and purposefully confusing the discussion

Quote from: Macarios on November 12, 2019, 03:25:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 10, 2019, 09:56:51 PM

Quote from: Macarios on November 10, 2019, 04:14:36 PM

Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.

Which I've already explained.

You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.

Nope. I've already explained all directions when contained and one direction when breached container allows expansion.

So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?

If the expansion is only in one direction when the tank is open, the other side shouldn't have any pressure as the force is moving in one direction, the direction of the open valve.

Quote from: Stash on November 12, 2019, 12:22:03 AM

There's always a push, right? And in the closed container, the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, right?

Right.

Quote from: Stash

The container is breached in some manner, let's say at one end where a nozzle is, and logic would dictate that the pressurized or combusted gas that was just a second ago pushing on all sides of the inside of the container, keeps pushing, expanding, but now it has somewhere to go, out the breach/nozzle. 

Correct.

Quote from: Stash

When the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, why does it stop doing so when the container is breached? What's causing that existing pressure to completely evaporate? Why does it no longer push? Where did it go?

It expands away from the containment and straight into awaiting resistance. In this case it would be atmospheric pressure for resistance to that.

If it's expanding away from containment then it's pushing off of all sides of the inside of the container as it was doing just before the container was breached. If not, why does it all of a sudden stop pushing against all sides of the inside of the container when breached? Why does it no longer push?

I believe it is because it knows there is an opening on one end. So no need to sweat trying to get out from every side, just head for the exit.

I believe it is because it knows there is an opening on one end. So no need to sweat trying to get out from every side, just head for the exit.

Just like how things just know to fall down.
Haha

I believe it is because it knows there is an opening on one end. So no need to sweat trying to get out from every side, just head for the exit.

Makes sense that it would realize that pushing on the walls as it had been is silly considering there's all of a sudden a way out. So it just stops pushing and moseys on down to the exit, apparently under is own new found locomotion and will to seek freedom.

ARE YOU SAYING OBJECTS CAN PUSH AGAINST THEMSELVES TO MOVE?

I'm saying they expand. As each one expands the one behind can expand and the one behind that and so on and so on all the way to the back.

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Both of you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 04:43:03 AM

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Both of you.

Aah
Then if we re wrong means you have an answer better than "it is because it is".
Why doesnt the rocket go higher if we put more sponges into it?

So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?

If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.

However, if you open the valve you will clearly see the pressure gauge start to read a lower pressure consistently as long as that valve remains open at the opposite end.
This proves the molecules are headed in one direction, which is to the breached valve..
See what I mean?

If the expansion is only in one direction when the tank is open, the other side shouldn't have any pressure as the force is moving in one direction, the direction of the open valve.

Yep and that's what you see on the gauge. You see the pressure drop because everything is flowing away from the gauge.

If it's expanding away from containment then it's pushing off of all sides of the inside of the container as it was doing just before the container was breached. If not, why does it all of a sudden stop pushing against all sides of the inside of the container when breached? Why does it no longer push?

Think carefully about what I'm going to say.

If you have a plastic bottle under pressure and you try to squeeze the sides of it, you find it's pretty solid, right?
This means your molecules are pushing against the sides, like you mention. And also the back and also the top.
Now open the top and tell me how easy it is to squeeze.
It's because the flow is now expanding to the breach (bottle top).
It's not exerting any push, only a friction slide down the inside of the bottle.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 12, 2019, 09:50:14 AM

So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?

If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.

However, if you open the valve you will clearly see the pressure gauge start to read a lower pressure consistently as long as that valve remains open at the opposite end.
This proves the molecules are headed in one direction, which is to the breached valve..
See what I mean?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

If the expansion is only in one direction when the tank is open, the other side shouldn't have any pressure as the force is moving in one direction, the direction of the open valve.

Yep and that's what you see on the gauge. You see the pressure drop because everything is flowing away from the gauge.

If you see the pressure dropping, it's still pressing against the gauge side as it's dropping. According to you, when the valve is opened the gauge side should instantly be zero, not dropping.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 11:58:20 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 04:43:03 AM

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Both of you.

Aah
Then if we re wrong means you have an answer better than "it is because it is".
Why doesnt the rocket go higher if we put more sponges into it?

Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance in the stack directly below the expansion of rocket gas.

If you see the pressure dropping, it's still pressing against the gauge side as it's dropping. According to you, when the valve is opened the gauge side should instantly be zero, not dropping.

No it shouldn't instantly be zero.
You need to pay attention.
Take a look at the diagram and see the arrows expanding in stages from front to back.

Quote from: Stash on November 12, 2019, 12:10:31 PM

If you see the pressure dropping, it's still pressing against the gauge side as it's dropping. According to you, when the valve is opened the gauge side should instantly be zero, not dropping.

No it shouldn't instantly be zero.
You need to pay attention.
Take a look at the diagram and see the arrows expanding in stages from front to back.

I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.

Quote from: JackBlack

ARE YOU SAYING OBJECTS CAN PUSH AGAINST THEMSELVES TO MOVE?

I'm saying they expand.

No, you literally said that it is pushing against itself.
So answer the simple question, can objects push against themselves?
Yes or no?

If yes, then rockets can push against themselves and work in a vacuum.
If no, then you are wrong and have failed to identify what the gas is pushing against.

Which is it?

Your posts sure seem to indicate the latter, and the gas at the edge pushes against the gas in the middle.
But if the gas in the middle can be used as leverage, then why can't the rocket use it as leverage and move?

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 04:43:03 AM

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Both of you.

Then why are you completley unable to explain any problem with what we have said?

Simple observations like we have appealed to show quite easily that you are wrong and that the water is not the source of the energy.

If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.

So you admit that the gas doesn't just magically push at the way out. Instead it also pushes on the gauge?

However, if you open the valve you will clearly see the pressure gauge start to read a lower pressure consistently as long as that valve remains open at the opposite end.
This proves the molecules are headed in one direction, which is to the breached valve..
See what I mean?

No, it doesn't.
When you open the gauge you see the pressure continue to drop as air leaves the tank.
If you close the valve the pressure doesn't magically jump.

The time that typically happens is if you have a pressure gauge at the valve end.

Yep and that's what you see on the gauge.

No, it's not what you see and you have already admitted that.
If it was as you claim, you should read a pressure of 0 on the gauge.

If you have a plastic bottle under pressure and you try to squeeze the sides of it, you find it's pretty solid, right?
This means your molecules are pushing against the sides, like you mention. And also the back and also the top.
Now open the top and tell me how easy it is to squeeze.
It's because the flow is now expanding to the breach (bottle top).
It's not exerting any push, only a friction slide down the inside of the bottle.

No, it is because it is no longer under pressure, and it equalises against any pressure change.
It in no way indicates the air isn't pushing against the sides.

As already pointed out, a better example is a balloon. It is held inflated due to the pressure inside. If you magically remove that pressure, the balloon will contract, very quickly.

If what you are saying is true, then as soon as you open the balloon and let the air out, it should collapse to its uninflated size.

But back in reality, when you do such a thing the balloon stays inflated and only slowly decreases in size (with that rate depending on how much air is being let out).

This proves beyond any sane doubt that the air inside is still forcing the balloon outwards, that pressure is still being exerted in all directions.

Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance

That "resistance" is what you have repeatedly appealed to to try and explain how rockets work.
Now you are saying it hinders the operation.
Again, this means a rocket should work much better in a vacuum than in air as there is much less resistance to try and cut through.

No it shouldn't instantly be zero.
You need to pay attention.

No, you need to pay attention and start trying to be consistent.

A simple pressure gauge works by measuring how much it is being pushed by the gas.
You are saying that when it is open it should no longer be pushed as the gas magically only pushes towards the opening.
That means it should read 0.
The only way out is to admit that it the pressure does still push out in all directions.

I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.

It's not pushing off all sides.

Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.

When you open the gauge you see the pressure continue to drop as air leaves the tank.
If you close the valve the pressure doesn't magically jump.
The time that typically happens is if you have a pressure gauge at the valve end.

Pay attention to what's being said. You're mixing it up.
I've wiped the rest of your stuff because it's clear to see what your game is.

From this point on deal with one thing at a time.

Quote from: Stash on November 12, 2019, 12:27:31 PM

I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.

It's not pushing off all sides.

Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.

Then the gauge at the top would immediately show zero pressure. It wouldn't drop. If it immediately when to zero, a balloon would immediately completely collapse when the end is opened. Please explain how there can still be pressure yet it has decided not to be pushing in all directions? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 02:08:06 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 12, 2019, 12:27:31 PM

I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.

It's not pushing off all sides.

Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.

Then the gauge at the top would immediately show zero pressure. It wouldn't drop. If it immediately when to zero, a balloon would immediately completely collapse when the end is opened. Please explain how there can still be pressure yet it has decided not to be pushing in all directions?

To do that you'll have to start looking at how a spring works.

Take a look at this spring being allowed to expand out of the front and also take a look at the untethered back end of the spring.
It is not compressing against the back of the magazine. It follows an expansion out of the magazine.

This is what gas does on expansion.

Think about it carefully.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 12:04:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2019, 11:58:20 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2019, 04:43:03 AM

Oh wow look at that.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?

Both of you.

Aah
Then if we re wrong means you have an answer better than "it is because it is".
Why doesnt the rocket go higher if we put more sponges into it?

Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance in the stack directly below the expansion of rocket gas.

Seriously.
Stringing along a bunch of sciency words doesnt make you sound smart.
And we know you like to change meanings.
You'll have to say it again in laymans terms.