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

There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.

Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
While that gas is still the rocket it is accelerated from zero velocity to thousands of metres per second.
A force is required to accelerate any mass and that force is the rocket's thrust and the outside pressure has very little effect on it.

As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.

I've always been confused about this bit. The water rocket pushes really hard. How does an air stack below it "know" to compress? A hard press of water, denser than air, all of a sudden makes the less dense air rally a group to coalesce and provide a platform for the water to push off of?

How would the air know how to do that? And how could it do that?

There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.

You mean as can actually explain it?

Again, if it is just sitting on it, how does the force get transferred?
And again, what is the purpose of the water?
Why wouldn't air work as well?
If you are appealing to the density of it to be more penetrating, then the less dense the air is the better it should be, i.e. a rocket should work best in a vacuum.

What is touching physically to a helicopter to keep it hovering?

Helicopters operate on vastly different principles.
They have a rotary wing, not a rocket engine.

And it is the air directly below the wing, which according to you shouldn't be pushing up on it at all and instead should just decompress.

Resting on the compressed stack below it which is more dense than the stack above it because of that downward compression into it.

Which would make it impossible for it to move up.
You can't force yourself up by pushing down on air. Try it yourself.

Your rocket does not work as you've been told.

And why should we believe that as you have been completely unable to provide a viable alternative or show any problem with how they actually work as mainstream science explains.

Again, until you can answer the very simple questions you have been repeatedly avoiding then you have nothing! You have absolutely no justification for your claims that rockets cannot work in a vacuum. The only way to even come close to backing that up is if you first claim that gas will magically remain trapped inside a tube which is open to vacuum.

Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?

Again the first one is the real killer.
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum. But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.

The only way out, for you to say rockets don't work in a vacuum is to claim that the gas will remain trapped inside an open container exposed to a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:30:28 PM

It's the actual decompression of the gas on gas not on the structure.

You mean rocket squeezes some gas out and then the next portion of gas pushes off the first portion.
That gas has no mass and you can't get pushed back in resistance while pushing it?

The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.

What about force that squeezes both of these portions out of the combustion chamber and the nozzle?
That force doesn't get any reaction?
Or there's no such force and the gas decides on its own to get out?

The gas inside the rocket is allowed to decompress once the valve is opened. That decompression is then further expanded very quickly by combusting it.
It makes the molecules super expand against each other which naturally push aside the atmospheric compression in the stack to create a delve or a warp of that stack due to this super compression of it.
This super compression will always decompress back to its original form in that stack and each stack all the way up.
The rocket merely sits atop this. The rocket doesn't do any work in itself, the gases on gases do it all.

The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.

Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?

See highlighted statement below.

From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2019, 10:41:41 PM

sorry
to clarify
my example is purely the water rocket as you have yet to account for all the pieces - water, tube air, tube.
thought that would've been clear when "water" was a component in my post.

I have accounted for them all but you've chose to overlook them.

Water is denser than air.
You out some water in the bottle and then compress air into it wich gets trapped behind the water and is now pushing on that water and also on the sides and upturned bottom.
The air at this point is pushing on all sides, including on top of the water.

Once the lid is popped off or the cork or whatever to create an opening at the bottom. the air above the water in the bottle can expand on top of the water and the following air molecules also start to expand behind and behind them and behind them and so on like a fast to slower to slower expansion in a chain reaction sort of way.

As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.

This creates a gas on water resistance and the bottle simply sits on this as it builds because the stack under is continually decompressing as much as it's being compressed by that water.

Just remember that a stack is exactly what it means. A continuity for air stacked on air all the way up and a stack comes into play at every point something is pushed into it to compress into that specific portion to create a delve (if you like) which is merely a massive compression on air that becomes so compressed as to create an equal resistance to the mass pushed into it.


There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.
It's the actual decompression of the gas on gas not on the structure.
All the structure is doing at the point of opening is to simple be a container for flow, not for pressure against the actual bottle for internal push.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:30:28 PM

There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.

Incorrect.
Gas has mass.

Everything has mass.

While that gas is still the rocket it is accelerated from zero velocity to thousands of metres per second.

Still?
Not sure what you mean here.

A force is required to accelerate any mass and that force is the rocket's thrust and the outside pressure has very little effect on it.

The outside pressure has everything to do with the reaction to the thrust. It's why everything works, not just a rocket.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:30:28 PM

As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.

I've always been confused about this bit. The water rocket pushes really hard. How does an air stack below it "know" to compress? A hard press of water, denser than air, all of a sudden makes the less dense air rally a group to coalesce and provide a platform for the water to push off of?

How would the air know how to do that? And how could it do that?

Let's equate this to water.
We will use the surface of water as a sort of analogy to being once piece of the stack.

Ok, if a rocket thrusts it's fuel into that stack it parts the stack. It opens it up....or to give you a visual, it parts the water.
I'm sure you understand this which is easily verified using ant thrust.

Ok, so in this water stack you are creating a bulge in that vicinity of the thrust, because you have created a delve directly under that thrust.

This bulge of this stack pushes back and as it does so it starts to push the water back up from the point of the bottom of the delve, upwards.

Basically it's creating a stack resistance against the thrust.

Now then, all you have to do is picture the atmosphere as the surface of water all the way up, meaning you thrust into one stack and are pushed back against by that delve made into it which pushes back as the thrust is already at the next stack....repeat repeat repeat.

The rocket itself is merely riding on this gas on gas fight, because action creates the equal and opposite reaction externally to ensure the rocket advances into the air, not on the inside.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:30:28 PM

There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.

You mean as can actually explain it?

Again, if it is just sitting on it, how does the force get transferred?
And again, what is the purpose of the water?
Why wouldn't air work as well?
If you are appealing to the density of it to be more penetrating, then the less dense the air is the better it should be, i.e. a rocket should work best in a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:34:52 PM

What is touching physically to a helicopter to keep it hovering?

Helicopters operate on vastly different principles.
They have a rotary wing, not a rocket engine.

And it is the air directly below the wing, which according to you shouldn't be pushing up on it at all and instead should just decompress.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:34:52 PM

Resting on the compressed stack below it which is more dense than the stack above it because of that downward compression into it.

Which would make it impossible for it to move up.
You can't force yourself up by pushing down on air. Try it yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2019, 10:34:52 PM

Your rocket does not work as you've been told.

And why should we believe that as you have been completely unable to provide a viable alternative or show any problem with how they actually work as mainstream science explains.

Again, until you can answer the very simple questions you have been repeatedly avoiding then you have nothing! You have absolutely no justification for your claims that rockets cannot work in a vacuum. The only way to even come close to backing that up is if you first claim that gas will magically remain trapped inside a tube which is open to vacuum.

Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?

Again the first one is the real killer.
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum. But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.

The only way out, for you to say rockets don't work in a vacuum is to claim that the gas will remain trapped inside an open container exposed to a vacuum.

Pick something and I'll happily deal with it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 03:51:09 AM

The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.

Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?

The gas exits on its own.
Each molecule or gas decompresses against each molecule in a chain reaction.
As long as there's compression in one container that is more compressed than the environment it can decompress directly into, each molecule will decompress into that.
As this happens the less decompressed gas is now compressed much more due to this chain reaction of decompression from the container.
It creates a massive resistance and push back.

See highlighted statement below.

From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.

I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.

You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.

It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.

Now just picture this all happening super fast.

You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.

Quote from: Macarios on November 27, 2019, 03:56:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 03:51:09 AM

The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.

Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?

The gas exits on its own.
Each molecule or gas decompresses against each molecule in a chain reaction.
As long as there's compression in one container that is more compressed than the environment it can decompress directly into, each molecule will decompress into that.
As this happens the less decompressed gas is now compressed much more due to this chain reaction of decompression from the container.
It creates a massive resistance and push back.

You are contradicting yourself.

First you say it exits on its own, and then you say it decompresses against the next molecule in chain.
(Meanwhile that next molecule also decompresses and pushes it out.)

When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 04:41:56 AM

See highlighted statement below.

From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.

I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.

You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.

It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.

Now just picture this all happening super fast.

You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.

Great
So the air in the tube  that is expanding/ decompressing and pushing the water out is the same spongs air you claim is not pushing the inside of the rocket tube - so what is in contact between the rocket tube and this foundation of water?

You are contradicting yourself.

First you say it exits on its own, and then you say it decompresses against the next molecule in chain.

No I'm not contradicting myself. I'm being perfectly straight in what I say. The problem is people like yourself honestly not grasping the full set up. You always seem to take one step forward and one step back. You end up getting nowhere.

Remember this.

All matter is attached, no free space. No such thing as free space that exists, nothing.
Understand this from my side and you'll go a longer way to understanding what I'm saying.

Let me make this clear.
Each molecule is compressed by each molecule and all dependent on applied energy to that group under pressure.
If you then take away the energy that was applied you allow each molecule to expand on their own but each one simply expands into each other because they are all attached. And by mass they create the return force or to put it simply, the reaction to the action in equal terms.

Now to answer your question.

When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".

Yes it did.
The remaining 999 litres did push it out but it did it in a chain reaction of allowed expansion, starting from the gas molecules directly behind the water surface the gas is pushing on.
Because the water has been allowed to become it's own reactionary force by it's own dense mass against the atmosphere trying to resist it, it then has the extra decompression of air behind it which only happens because the valve is opened to allow that decompression.

This molecules decompressing with that water  are followed by the next stack and the next. It's almost like thinking of a spring decompressing widers at the front and gradually getting less and less wide or closer coiling all the way to the top.
A chain reaction which all equates to a gas push by that chain expansion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 06:57:34 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 04:41:56 AM

See highlighted statement below.

From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.

I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.

You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.

It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.

Now just picture this all happening super fast.

You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.

Great
So the air in the tube  that is expanding/ decompressing and pushing the water out is the same spongs air you claim is not pushing the inside of the rocket tube - so what is in contact between the rocket tube and this foundation of water?

It's not positively pushing. I've explained this time and time again, same with the gauge.
The only times the air will positively push is when it is either applied energy to add more pressure to compress or the compression already in the container is sealed and contained.

Open it up and you lose the positive pressure on the container and transfer it all to the open end and everything hit by it or resisting it, it being feeling that positive exiting pressure.

Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.
Youve defined negative as "less than before".
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"

And now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".
If "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?




Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.

Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.

Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.


Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?

When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".

Yes it did.
The remaining 999 litres did push it out but it did it in a chain reaction of allowed expansion, starting from the gas molecules directly behind the water surface the gas is pushing on.
[/quote]

You have confused me with somebody else.
I was not talking about water.
I was talking about gas in chamber.

1000 liters of gas with 1000 PSI pressure push one of those liters out (by force),
the liter that is exiting is pushing back with reaction force.

I know that you know what is "reaction force".

Remaining 999 liters expand into 1000 liters of a bit less dense gas, with the pressure of 999 PSI.
One of those liters gets pushed out with the 0.1% weaker force.
Is that weaker force still there?
Is the reaction force of the next liter just 0.1% weaker, or doesn't exist at all any more?

The first liter has mass, the second liter also has mass, and as they exit they make stack.

Pick something and I'll happily deal with it.

I have, and you refused. Instead you just repeatedly ignored it.

I want you to explain what the gas is pushing off for a rocket in a vacuum. I have repeatedly asked you for this and made it clear this is the key issue.
Yet you repeatedly ignore it because you know you can't provide an answer. So stop saying you will happily deal with it when you wont.
Instead of answering it you just try and derail with horribly flawed analogies and trying to change the subject.

If you just want to deal with 1 thing, then deal with this as this what the topic is actually about.

Again:
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum. But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.

The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.

But without the rocket forcing the gas out, there is nothing to do so.
The best you can do to avoid that is have the gas use the rocket as leverage to push the gas closer to the opening out.

The gas inside the rocket is allowed to decompress once the valve is opened.

You keep saying that but avoid the key part of what the gas is pushing against to get out.

The rocket merely sits atop this.

Then how does it get pushed up?
You need something touching the rocket to push it up. The only thing there is the gas.

The outside pressure has everything to do with the reaction to the thrust. It's why everything works, not just a rocket.

No, it is a fairly minor factor limiting the amount of thrust you can get out of it.

Ok, if a rocket thrusts it's fuel into that stack it parts the stack. It opens it up....or to give you a visual, it parts the water.
I'm sure you understand this which is easily verified using ant thrust.

So it doesn't push it down, it just splits it apart. That means it compresses sideways and would try to expand back sideways, not upwards.

This bulge of this stack pushes back and as it does so it starts to push the water back up from the point of the bottom of the delve, upwards.

Again, this clearly isn't the case.
We don't see the water from a water rocket flying up. It goes down.

But the other issue is what about the other way?
You have the rocket pushing up into the stack. Why doesn't the stack just push it back down?

Again, your claims make no sense at all.
If what you are saying is true, motion should be basically impossible with the air pushing you back whenever you try to move through it.
What actually makes sense is the mainstream explanation, which you are yet to show any actual problem with it. The gas, which applies pressure outwards in all directions, applies pressure to the rocket which is unbalanced as there is an opening on one side, making it move upwards.

The gas exits on its own.

How?
Is it sentient?
How does the gas just manage to move itself?
Why can't the rocket do the same?

Each molecule or gas decompresses against each molecule in a chain reaction.

So not by itself, it is the gas behind it pushing it out, which eventually goes down to the rocket, i.e. the rocket pushes the gas out.
Stop trying to stop the chain reaction before it reaches the rocket.

No I'm not contradicting myself.

Really?
You just did in that post.

Now to answer your question.

Quote from: Macarios

When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".

Yes it did.
The remaining 999 litres did push it out

Notice the direct contradiction?
First, "the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out"
followed by "The remaining 999 litres did push it out"

A direct contradiction.
So which is it? Did the remaining 999 litres push it out or not?
You can't have both.

\
It's not positively pushing.

Stop using your fake definitions and bringing in positive or negative. Start using the real definitions which other people here are using.
It is pushing, plain and simple. There is still pressure acting on the gauge.

Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.

Learn to understand what's being said.

Youve defined negative as "less than before".
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"

I've provided two because there is two in the scenario I gave.
You create your own problems by refusing to pay attention.

And now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".

I haven't provided a third.

If "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?




Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.

Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.

Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.


Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?

I suggest you stop putting barriers in your own way.

One simple question for Sceptimatic.
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?

Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?

The thrust is then pointed toward 'space', with nothing to push against. Will the scale reading still increase when the rocket fires?

Then the rocket simply thrusts into the above atmospheric stack and compresses that which pushes back by decompressing to create the equal and opposite reactionary push back which adds more mass measurement to the scale.

Not sure what you're trying to gain from this.

Quote from: Lag_Man on November 27, 2019, 08:48:05 AM

One simple question for Sceptimatic.
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?

Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?

Stop answering questions with semantic questions.

You have confused me with somebody else.
I was not talking about water.
I was talking about gas in chamber.

My apologies. I simply thought you were on about gas and water as in the water bottle rocket. This is what happens when there's a few people to deal with all with different queries.

1000 liters of gas with 1000 PSI pressure push one of those liters out (by force),
the liter that is exiting is pushing back with reaction force.
I know that you know what is "reaction force".
Remaining 999 liters expand into 1000 liters of a bit less dense gas, with the pressure of 999 PSI.
One of those liters gets pushed out with the 0.1% weaker force.
Is that weaker force still there?
Is the reaction force of the next liter just 0.1% weaker, or doesn't exist at all any more?
The first liter has mass, the second liter also has mass, and as they exit they make stack.

Yes the force would be weaker inside the container if you shut it off after losing 0.1% because the overall expansion would equalise to become a now overall compression but 0.1% less compressed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 03:46:31 PM

Quote from: Lag_Man on November 27, 2019, 08:48:05 AM

One simple question for Sceptimatic.
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?

Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?

Stop answering questions with semantic questions.

I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2019, 03:56:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 03:46:31 PM

Quote from: Lag_Man on November 27, 2019, 08:48:05 AM

One simple question for Sceptimatic.
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?

Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?

Stop answering questions with semantic questions.

I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.

You aren't clear on anything.  You are deflecting from actually providing an answer that you know will result in contradicting yourself.

You aren't clear on anything.  You are deflecting from actually providing an answer that doesn't contradict yourself.

I am very clear on everything. What's not clear to you is the fact you can't grasp what I'm putting forward and that's clear to me.

I have no need to deflect anything worthy of reply. I also do not contradict myself pertaining to this.
I'm certainly not infallible and can make mistakes in explanations but then again when you type to a lot of different people who are hitting you with all kinds of scenarios, I'm bound to appear like I'm all the things you and other say. But whose fault is that?

The problem a lot of you have is in refusing to see my way of thinking because you place your own barriers up due to adherence to your mainstream model...which is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of how mine works, yet many will argue they know, when clearly I can see they only get part of it before setting themselves back.

It becomes frustrating for some who then resort to using the arguments that I'm contradicting and using my own words or not being clear or not even using English by someone who can't even take the time to type it.


And so on.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2019, 04:08:59 PM

You aren't clear on anything.  You are deflecting from actually providing an answer that doesn't contradict yourself.

I am very clear on everything. What's not clear to you is the fact you can't grasp what I'm putting forward and that's clear to me.

I have no need to deflect anything worthy of reply. I also do not contradict myself pertaining to this.
I'm certainly not infallible and can make mistakes in explanations but then again when you type to a lot of different people who are hitting you with all kinds of scenarios, I'm bound to appear like I'm all the things you and other say. But whose fault is that?

The problem a lot of you have is in refusing to see my way of thinking because you place your own barriers up due to adherence to your mainstream model...which is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of how mine works, yet many will argue they know, when clearly I can see they only get part of it before setting themselves back.

It becomes frustrating for some who then resort to using the arguments that I'm contradicting and using my own words or not being clear or not even using English by someone who can't even take the time to type it.


And so on.

What you post is very clear.  It isn't hard to understand what you are saying.

What is problematic is when you explain something that is contradictory to what is observed in reality and when questioned further, your further examples and details are contradictory to your previous statements.  You bounce around avoiding answers.  Complain that people don't understand.  Provide little or half-assed details.

If your theory is so solid and correct, you shouldn't be avoiding any questions.  Your claim that people don't understand wouldn't need to be said.  You would present your ideas with clear information and not deflect from questions.


If you want to be taken seriously, present your idea without deflection.  Your theory would be better received if you didn't deflect from answering.  Bad examples and explanations are better than deflecting.  Your failure to admit to it, just adds to the acceptance that your theory is absolute junk.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2019, 03:56:11 PM

Stop answering questions with semantic questions.

I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.

Yes, we're "sure people are clear on what your stance is" and we're simply trying to tell you that it does not fit reality.

Rockets do work and continuing to have a huge thrust in air of such low density that any claims that they push off the air are completely unbelievable.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 08:44:49 AM

Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.

Learn to understand what's being said.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Youve defined negative as "less than before".
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"

I've provided two because there is two in the scenario I gave.
You create your own problems by refusing to pay attention.

Quote from: Themightykabool

And now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".

I haven't provided a third.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?




Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.

Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.

Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.


Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?

I suggest you stop putting barriers in your own way.

The barriers are the ones you use to confuse and avoid.

Like this.
You refuse to answer the question.

What you post is very clear.  It isn't hard to understand what you are saying.

If that's the case then stop using it as an argument.

What is problematic is when you explain something that is contradictory to what is observed in reality and when questioned further, your further examples and details are contradictory to your previous statements.  You bounce around avoiding answers.  Complain that people don't understand.  Provide little or half-assed details.

There's nothing contradictory and I do not avoid answers, except the one's I've already answered time and time again.

If your theory is so solid and correct, you shouldn't be avoiding any questions.  Your claim that people don't understand wouldn't need to be said.  You would present your ideas with clear information and not deflect from questions.

My theory may not be solid and correct to anyone except me. I believe it's closer to what I'm saying because it fits with what I see in reality and not what we're told happens.

If you want to be taken seriously, present your idea without deflection.  Your theory would be better received if you didn't deflect from answering.  Bad examples and explanations are better than deflecting.  Your failure to admit to it, just adds to the acceptance that your theory is absolute junk.

I do present it without deflection.
If you don;t want to be confused then stick to one thing at a time and get familiar with it before you try to put obstacles in your own way.

Yes, we're "sure people are clear on what your stance is" and we're simply trying to tell you that it does not fit reality.

No, you're not. What you are trying to tell me is, it doesn't fit what you've been trained into thinking is your reality.

Rockets do work and continuing to have a huge thrust in air of such low density that any claims that they push off the air are completely unbelievable.

They are completely unbelievable because you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressure because you simply walk about in it and think it's neither nothing nor something in the grand scheme of things.

You fail to understand that the power of it is massive when there is a direct.....DIRECT conflict with it with an object of energy.

You only know the power of it when you take something from it or contain it and then you see.

The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.

You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber using the upside down nozzle end of the bottle as yourchamber seal.

Then simply pop open the nozzle and see if your bottle rocket takes off.

I'll let you work that one out.