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

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 03:37:48 PM

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.

All questions were answered and you're simply wasting your own time coming back with the same questions.
You simply refuse to understand what's been said.

Your quoted statements are laid bare.
You cant answer a simple question.

It took 20pg to fianlly figure out youve changed the definition of negative.
You were playing games and trolling us.

You said "not positive".
So how else are we to understand this phrasing?
And such, it contradicts what your theory basis is.
So therefore, your theory is sht.

Your quoted statements are laid bare.
You cant answer a simple question.

It took 20pg to fianlly figure out youve changed the definition of negative.
You were playing games and trolling us.

You said "not positive".
So how else are we to understand this phrasing?
And such, it contradicts what your theory basis is.
So therefore, your theory is sht.

What are you talking about?
Not positive?

I suggest you read what's being said and stop getting yourself into a frustrated mess trying to use silly arguments, making out that I'm now trolling.
Just accept you can't grasp what I'm saying or admit you refuse to grasp it and we can be done.
If you are serious in understanding it then stop whining and get on with it.

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.

Here's how it works out.

Here we have a soda can in a vacuum showing that the gas expelled from the back of the can pushes the can forward before it can make contact with the wall:



As shown and explained here at the 7:00 mark:

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

If you actually cared about being clear you would stop using made up definitions.
You would pretend that something being less than before makes it negative. Instead you would admit it is still positive.

You are intentionally being opaque to try and hide the fact that your model doesn't work.

But whose fault is that?

Your's, for having a model which doesn't work to describe reality yet continuing to pretend it does, and using intentionally misleading language which is not English to try and pretend you have a working model; all while refusing to answer very simple questions.

We are not the problem here.

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

You mean the ones you have been unable to answer and ran away from time and time again?
The ones where at best you offer non-answers and then run from the refutation of those non-answers?

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.

And we have done that before, and then brought up a new thing and you directly contradicted your prior explanation, because the new thing we brought up doesn't work with your prior explanation.

you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressure

No, that would be you.
We accept the pressure of gases, and how they push outwards.
But you want to pretend they all just happily decide to pushing outwards in all directions and instead just walk on out.
If you actually accepted the power of air pressure you would accept that rockets work in a vacuum due to pressure inside the rocket engine.

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

Then run along and test it.
Because all the evidence indicates they work.
The proof they MUST work is provided in a very simple question you have been repeatedly avoiding.

You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber

No sane person would put large amounts of water into a reasonably sized evacuation chamber unless they didn't care about the quality of the vacuum.
It is quite a pain to get it all out.

It is also entirely pointless as people like you will still dismiss it saying the rocket was pushing off the floor of the chamber, or that it wasn't actually a vacuum.

If you want to say you aren't avoiding questions, then why I have been unable to get you to answer a very simple one with anything more than a few words which completely ignores the point of the question and which immediately raises more?
Is it because you actually are avoiding these questions because you know you cannot answer them without destroying your model or sounding completely ridiculous?

If you aren't avoiding the questions then ANSWER THEM!
I will even be nice and just make it the 1 question.
If you don't answer this question in a meaningful way which actually addresses the issues raised, guess what that means? YOU ARE AVOIDING IT!

Again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?
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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 10:02:46 PM

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.

Here's how it works out.

Here we have a soda can in a vacuum showing that the gas expelled from the back of the can pushes the can forward before it can make contact with the wall:



As shown and explained here at the 7:00 mark:

You need a substantially bigger sized chamber than that.

First of all the chamber isn't a vacuum. It's low pressure and the can is super high pressure and the very second it breaches the super high pressure is immediately super expanded into the chamber and filling the space in super quick time, directly in front of the breach which builds that external compression back to expansion reaction.

Make that chamber much much bigger and you'll see a massive difference with that can and any other supposed rocket.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 04:06:40 PM

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

If you actually cared about being clear you would stop using made up definitions.
You would pretend that something being less than before makes it negative. Instead you would admit it is still positive.

You are intentionally being opaque to try and hide the fact that your model doesn't work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 04:16:39 PM

But whose fault is that?

Your's, for having a model which doesn't work to describe reality yet continuing to pretend it does, and using intentionally misleading language which is not English to try and pretend you have a working model; all while refusing to answer very simple questions.

We are not the problem here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 09:52:46 PM

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

You mean the ones you have been unable to answer and ran away from time and time again?
The ones where at best you offer non-answers and then run from the refutation of those non-answers?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 09:52:46 PM

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.

And we have done that before, and then brought up a new thing and you directly contradicted your prior explanation, because the new thing we brought up doesn't work with your prior explanation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 10:02:46 PM

you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressure

No, that would be you.
We accept the pressure of gases, and how they push outwards.
But you want to pretend they all just happily decide to pushing outwards in all directions and instead just walk on out.
If you actually accepted the power of air pressure you would accept that rockets work in a vacuum due to pressure inside the rocket engine.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 10:02:46 PM

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

Then run along and test it.
Because all the evidence indicates they work.
The proof they MUST work is provided in a very simple question you have been repeatedly avoiding.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 10:02:46 PM

You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber

No sane person would put large amounts of water into a reasonably sized evacuation chamber unless they didn't care about the quality of the vacuum.
It is quite a pain to get it all out.

It is also entirely pointless as people like you will still dismiss it saying the rocket was pushing off the floor of the chamber, or that it wasn't actually a vacuum.

If you want to say you aren't avoiding questions, then why I have been unable to get you to answer a very simple one with anything more than a few words which completely ignores the point of the question and which immediately raises more?
Is it because you actually are avoiding these questions because you know you cannot answer them without destroying your model or sounding completely ridiculous?

If you aren't avoiding the questions then ANSWER THEM!
I will even be nice and just make it the 1 question.
If you don't answer this question in a meaningful way which actually addresses the issues raised, guess what that means? YOU ARE AVOIDING IT!

Again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?
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.

Deal with one specific thing only and I'll play along with you.
I'm not wasting my time on this stuff all the time.

Quote from: Stash on November 27, 2019, 10:28:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 10:02:46 PM

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.

Here's how it works out.

Here we have a soda can in a vacuum showing that the gas expelled from the back of the can pushes the can forward before it can make contact with the wall:



As shown and explained here at the 7:00 mark:

You need a substantially bigger sized chamber than that.

First of all the chamber isn't a vacuum. It's low pressure and the can is super high pressure and the very second it breaches the super high pressure is immediately super expanded into the chamber and filling the space in super quick time, directly in front of the breach which builds that external compression back to expansion reaction.

Make that chamber much much bigger and you'll see a massive difference with that can and any other supposed rocket.

First of all, you referenced an "Extreme low pressure" environment *see your above comment). This experiment here is extreme low pressure. A near vacuum as specified.

Second of all, in a near vacuum, the can shouldn't move at all, according to your theory. Yet it does.

Thirdly, for one with a theory, you never produce any math or experiments to back up your theory. Yet you ask others to do so. Why is that?

This little web video alone blows up (no pun intended) denpressure.

First of all, you referenced an "Extreme low pressure" environment *see your above comment). This experiment here is extreme low pressure. A near vacuum as specified.

Yep and a suitably sized evacuation chamber.
In something as small as the one in the video, it negates that suitability for obvious reasons of which I'm sure you will understand.

Second of all, in a near vacuum, the can shouldn't move at all, according to your theory. Yet it does.

In an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.

Do you agree?
If not then go and do the experiment with the same set up of hanging the same can and apply heat under it until it bursts and see what happens.
This alone proves your low pressure creates much less reaction to can breach of expanded gases and liquid.
 

Thirdly, for one with a theory, you never produce any math or experiments to back up your theory. Yet you ask others to do so. Why is that?

I don't need maths to explain anything.
Experiments are for you people to do to prove to yourselves, not to me. I don't care what you believe without experiment. You are welcome to stick rigid to mainstream ideals but you can do your own experiments to prove stuff to yourself only, without any need to follow mass peer pressure to simply believe on theory without genuine proof by physical reality.

This little web video alone blows up (no pun intended) denpressure.

No it doesn't. It actually doesn't do a lot to be fair.

Deal with one specific thing only and I'll play along with you.

I gave you one specific thing to deal with, and you ignored it.
I'm not going to not object to all the BS you spout just so you can ignore me again.
Until you start playing nice and actually dealing with what is being said I will continue to expose all of your BS.

Like I said, if you just want 1 thing to deal with, deal with the question I have asked you repeatedly, which you have repeatedly avoided.
Here it is again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?
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.

If you aren't going to deal with that, then you have no excuse.
So are you going to "play along"?
You are the one wasting time here, by repeatedly avoiding such simple questions and asking for experiments which you have no intention of ever accepting the results for.

First of all the chamber isn't a vacuum.

And surprise surprise, you dismiss it.
Why bother asking when you are just going to reject it?

Like I said, go do it yourself, or better still, answer my question.

It's low pressure

i.e. a vacuum.

the can is super high pressure

Just like the rocket exhaust.

the very second it breaches the super high pressure is immediately super expanded into the chamber and filling the space in super quick time

Nope. Clearly contradicted by the video where the gauge doesn't show any increase in pressure.
Gas, by virtue of having mass, cannot immediately do anything. It takes time for it to spread out.

These are YOUR words.
And as per belpw, highlighted and underlined., youve defined to us what positive is and what positive isnt.
And since "not positive" is incorrect,
The pressure is not all transferred to the open end.
then we can throw your shit out and end this insanity.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 07:41:17 AM

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.

Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.

Quote from: Stash on November 27, 2019, 10:47:46 PM

First of all, you referenced an "Extreme low pressure" environment *see your above comment). This experiment here is extreme low pressure. A near vacuum as specified.

Yep and a suitably sized evacuation chamber.
In something as small as the one in the video, it negates that suitability for obvious reasons of which I'm sure you will understand.

In your world, the can shouldn't move at all as it has nothing to push off of. Extreme low pressure and the gas doesn't hit the wall, yet it moves forward. Hmmm.

Quote from: Stash

Second of all, in a near vacuum, the can shouldn't move at all, according to your theory. Yet it does.

In an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.

And your evidence for this is? Hmmm

Do you agree?
If not then go and do the experiment with the same set up of hanging the same can and apply heat under it until it bursts and see what happens.
This alone proves your low pressure creates much less reaction to can breach of expanded gases and liquid.

Makes no sense, gibbersih.

Quote from: Stash

Thirdly, for one with a theory, you never produce any math or experiments to back up your theory. Yet you ask others to do so. Why is that?

I don't need maths to explain anything.
Experiments are for you people to do to prove to yourselves, not to me. I don't care what you believe without experiment. You are welcome to stick rigid to mainstream ideals but you can do your own experiments to prove stuff to yourself only, without any need to follow mass peer pressure to simply believe on theory without genuine proof by physical reality.

Here's what you don't get: It's not an appeal to just mainstream explanations of reality. It's observed and applied reality. What you don't understand is that lots of stuff is designed, engineered and manufactured to work certain ways based upon what you would refer to as 'mass peer pressure' ways and means. Your notions render common tools, modes, and any sort of locomotion unusable by existing mechanisms. If we applied your notions to the real world, things as designed wouldn't work. But they do. That's the conundrum. It's not just things like rockets, a combustion engine would not work as designed based upon your notions. The way we understand how water freezes and thaws doesn't work in your notion. So many things as designed just simply would not work if we all of a sudden adhered to your notions. That's where I'm truly confounded.

Why does everything work when they don't even remotely take your notions into account?

Quote from: Stash

This little web video alone blows up (no pun intended) denpressure.

No it doesn't. It actually doesn't do a lot to be fair.

Oh, but it does and then some.

Like I said, if you just want 1 thing to deal with, deal with the question I have asked you repeatedly, which you have repeatedly avoided.
Here it is again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?

First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.
The gas inside that rocket, once allowed to be decompressed, will decompress by the exit first, meaning the molecules of gas at the front will naturally fully expand out because there's nothing for them to hit to be recompressed a little against any resistant external atmosphere/molecules.

These exiting molecules are simply decompressing on their own after being squashed inside the container/rocket.
The first molecules out would hit nothing. They would be free to expand to their full potential because there's nothing to push back onto them.
Ther molecules behind them are already expanding with those at the front because they are attached behind and those behind them are expanding, all at different rates.
Like an uncoiling spring.

There is no return force inside the rocket to push it in the opposite direction, because all the gas molecules are expanding out in the opposite direction and are not pushing back as they do, they are simply expanding out.

What does push back is the external atmosphere but in this fantassy vacuum scenario, there is no such thing, so no working rocket.

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.

The rocket is a solid object. All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.

If I put laminate floor down and don't leave a gap, it'll expand and create a push on push, which would be the positive pressure I mentioned.
If I left a gap then it would simply expand into that gap.

This is all your solids would do.
What we are dealing with are the applied energy fuels to propel those solids.

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.

You can't fill a rocket up with gas then open a valve to exit that gas to propel the rocket forward if you do not have something external as a resistance, like another gas or fluid.

They don't work from inside and that's it. Anyone should be able to understand this if they dare to put their mind to it.
There's enough basic stuff around us to show what's really going on.The problem is people are scared to marry it up because they fear ridicule.

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.

The gas does use gas as leverage. I've repeatedly mentioned the gas on gas fight of thrust against resistance....externally....not internally to move the rocket.

In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.

Simply massive expansion on exit against massive compression of external atmospheric gas/fluid.

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.

Nope. The gas does not push on the rocket internally. It's all done externally.

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.

The rocket uses it all but it's used in the ways I've explained.

Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.

Clearly not.
It's best for you to acknowledge that I've answered all your questions fair and square and I'll be using this as my reference to show that I've repeatedly answered these questions.

If you aren't going to deal with that, then you have no excuse.
So are you going to "play along"?
You are the one wasting time here, by repeatedly avoiding such simple questions and asking for experiments which you have no intention of ever accepting the results for.

If you can't accept the answers then don;t but do not start whining about not being given answers.
I'm not here to give you the answers you crave and you're not here to accept anything against mainstream ideals.
Understand this and you can carry on at your leisure.

Scepti quote:

There is no return force inside the rocket to push it in the opposite direction, because all the gas molecules are expanding out in the opposite direction and are not pushing back as they do, they are simply expanding out.


Again you srate no pushing back up through into the rocket.
Youce said it many different ways and we are all left to interpret that youre a joke - because up the line of push on push on fight on fight, somewhere there needs to be touching the rocket sending it up.
Keeo failing at basic logic.

These are YOUR words.
And as per belpw, highlighted and underlined., youve defined to us what positive is and what positive isnt.
And since "not positive" is incorrect,

I'm pretty sure you can understand what the words underneath mean.

It's not positively pushing.

This is what I said.
I'm sure you can decipher it if you try. Don't spend too  much time on it. It says what it says and cherry picking snippets to make out they mean nothing only confuses yourself...not me.

The pressure is not all transferred to the open end.
then we can throw your shit out and end this insanity.

I have no clue what you're saying here.
Try being clear.

Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.

They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.

This is a perfect example.

First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.
The gas inside that rocket, once allowed to be decompressed, will decompress

HOW?
This requires the gas to move.
What is the gas pushing against to move?
Decompressing on their own means expanding outwards in ALL directions.

But you aren't even having them just expand. Instead you have the gas molecules at the edge magically move outwards and expand. This makes no sense.

Yet again you are ignoring the question.
What are they pushing off to move?

If they don't need something to push off to move, then there is no basis to claim the rocket does.

All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.

Expansion and contraction alone can't move anything.
All it can do is change its size.

Anyone should be able to understand this if they dare to put their mind to it.

No, if people actually bother to put their mind to it and think about even just this simple question they would realise that rockets MUST work in a vacuum, as the only alternative is for the gas to remain magically trapped inside the tube.

The gas does use gas as leverage.

So the gas inside the rocket?
If so, WHY CAN'T THE ROCKET?
If you mean the gas outside the rocket, that isn't there in this case and thus is irrelevant.

Clearly not.

Clearly so, as the option you picked out of those 3 was the gas using gas as leverage, which means the rocket can as well.

It's best for you to acknowledge that I've answered all your questions fair and square

Only when you actually address the issues raised.
Once again you started off by completley ignoring it, appealing to the gas simply expanding rather than telling me what it is pushing off.
The closest you have come to answering has been saying the gas is using gas as leverage, which would mean the rocket can as well.

When you either tell me what the gas is pushing off in this scenario and either admit the rocket can also push off against that or provide an actual explanation as to why the rocket can't, or you instead claim that the gas will remain trapped in the tube, then I will say you have answered the question.
Until then, I won't, as you haven't answered the question.

Again stop with the insults.
I am here to debate. If you can actually justify mainstream science being wrong, I will accept that. If you can actually provide a model which can explain things without repeatedly contradicting itself, I will accept that.
But so far you haven't done either. You haven't even come close.

I'm not going to accept that you have answered a question just because you claim to have.
I'm not going to accept your repeated non-answers which avoid the very issue the question is raising as an answer, as it doesn't address the issue raised.
Nor will I accept anything vague.

My bad, missed this part before:

In an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.

Do you agree?
If not then go and do the experiment with the same set up of hanging the same can and apply heat under it until it bursts and see what happens.
This alone proves your low pressure creates much less reaction to can breach of expanded gases and liquid.

No, I don't agree, and I'm pretty sure no one would.

The energy from the rocket comes from a pressure difference.

Which should produce more thrust, 1 bar in a can opened to the atmosphere, or 10? Why the 10? Because it has a larger pressure differential.

And no, your suggestion wont help at all.
What you need to do is have the can fail at the same temperature so the gas inside is at the same pressure. That way the only variable is the outside pressure.
Your suggestion of heating up the can will increase the pressure inside the can.

Your hypothetical experiment does nothing to prove anything.

I don't need maths to explain anything.

If you want anything quantitative you do.

Experiments are for you people to do to prove to yourselves

We already have abundant proof that rockets work in a vacuum and that your model is pure nonsense.
You are the one who needs to be doing experiments, rather than relying upon hypothetical thought experiments where you get the hypothetical results to back up your model.

I'm pretty sure you can understand what the words underneath mean.

Quote from: scepti

It's not positively pushing.

This is what I said.
I'm sure you can decipher it if you try. Don't spend too  much time on it. It says what it says and cherry picking snippets to make out they mean nothing only confuses yourself...not me.

If you were speaking English it would be simple, it means it is not pushing. (as "negative pushing" would really be pulling).
But with your skepanese, you have negatively pushing as just pushing less, which means it is still pushing.
So is that what you mean by "not positively pushing", that it is still pushing, just less than before?

They remove themselves from the bus

So they are sentient?
They stop pushing outwards in all directions and just casually step off the bus?

If they aren't sentient, then why do the stop pushing outwards in all directions?

And no, the slinky is not a perfect example.
All you have there is a travelling wave.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 11:54:24 PM

First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.
The gas inside that rocket, once allowed to be decompressed, will decompress

HOW?
This requires the gas to move.
What is the gas pushing against to move?
Decompressing on their own means expanding outwards in ALL directions.

Quote from: JackBlack

But you aren't even having them just expand. Instead you have the gas molecules at the edge magically move outwards and expand. This makes no sense.

Of course it makes no sense to you, because you refuse to understand it.

Quote from: JackBlack

Yet again you are ignoring the question.
What are they pushing off to move?

I explained. If you can;t understand it then it's your problem.

Quote from: JackBlack

If they don't need something to push off to move, then there is no basis to claim the rocket does.

They do need something to push off. Your problem is you won;t accept what's told because you want your rocket to be the one doing the pushing from inside.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 11:54:24 PM

All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.

Expansion and contraction alone can't move anything.
All it can do is change its size.

That's all that's happening.
It's the changing of size that creates the movement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 11:54:24 PM

Anyone should be able to understand this if they dare to put their mind to it.

No, if people actually bother to put their mind to it and think about even just this simple question they would realise that rockets MUST work in a vacuum, as the only alternative is for the gas to remain magically trapped inside the tube.

The gas cannot remain in the tube unless there are not enough of them to expand out of it and this can only ever happen after the mass of compressed molecules have expanded out to leave what's left to expand but stay dormant inside the tube but this would be against equally dormant molecules on the outside or basically would be in a low pressure environment.

In atmosphere everything would simply equalise after the point of the gas being unable to compress the atmosphere due to the amount of the molecules expanding against it.
This would then be equalised.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2019, 11:54:24 PM

The gas does use gas as leverage.

So the gas inside the rocket?
If so, WHY CAN'T THE ROCKET?
If you mean the gas outside the rocket, that isn't there in this case and thus is irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the rocket becomes irrelevant. It simply does not work how you think.
I've explained it enough for you to grasp that.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 11:31:51 PM

Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.

They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.

This is a perfect example.

no sorry
i'm not talking about reactionary forces.
i meant that vaccuums and empty space can exist if all the spnoge people are removed from the bus.

We already have abundant proof that rockets work in a vacuum and that your model is pure nonsense.

So why are you arguing with me?
Don't come out with the nonsense that you're trying to help others not fall for what I'm saying, because if it was clear nonsense then you wouldn't need to bother giving it the time you do, yet you expend a lot of time and energy doing just that.

If they aren't sentient, then why do they stop pushing outwards in all directions?

They don't stop pushing outwards in all directions. Everything is attached so everything is resistant to the next in some capacity.
The issue is in how, which I've explained.

And no, the slinky is not a perfect example.
All you have there is a travelling wave.

The slinky is a perfect example of the waves because that's what's happening with everything.
It's all waves and vibrations due to compression and decompression of anything.

Notice where the spring collides to create push on push due to expansion to compression to expansion to compression...and so on.
This is what's happening outside the rocket from gases expanding out to atmospheric stack being compressed down and pushing back by decompression.

Just imagine this in super fast mode.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2019, 12:08:31 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 11:31:51 PM

Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.

They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.

This is a perfect example.

no sorry
i'm not talking about reactionary forces.
i meant that vaccuums and empty space can exist if all the spnoge people are removed from the bus.

You see that spring with the wave and the compression and decompression, right?
Now picture one half as atmosphere and the other as exiting thrust of expanded gases from the rocket.
This would move the rocket if it was married up to gas on gas instead of spring on spring clash analogy.


Now take away the foundation of the spring, or the man's hand and you lose that return energy because there's nothing to clash and compress.
This would be your vacuum which makes your space rocket pointless, because it absolutely could not use its gases to do any reactionary work to it's action of expansion.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 28, 2019, 01:28:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2019, 12:08:31 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 27, 2019, 11:31:51 PM

Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.

They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.

This is a perfect example.

no sorry
i'm not talking about reactionary forces.
i meant that vaccuums and empty space can exist if all the spnoge people are removed from the bus.

You see that spring with the wave and the compression and decompression, right?
Now picture one half as atmosphere and the other as exiting thrust of expanded gases from the rocket.
This would move the rocket if it was married up to gas on gas instead of spring on spring clash analogy.


Now take away the foundation of the spring, or the man's hand and you lose that return energy because there's nothing to clash and compress.
This would be your vacuum which makes your space rocket pointless, because it absolutely could not use its gases to do any reactionary work to it's action of expansion.

no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.

The gas cannot remain in the tube

That still isn't answering the question.
I know the gas won't remain in the tube, because it is pushing outwards in all directions, including on the rocket. This will cause the gas to go one way and the rocket to go the other (as the rocket pushes back).
But you reject that.
Instead you claim the rocket can't move because it has nothing to use as leverage.
That applies equally to the gas.
So how can the gas escape if what you claim is true?

Again, what is the gas pushing off?

Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.


Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.

So again, what is the gas pushing off and why doesn't that mean the rocket will move as well?

Of course it's irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant then why bring it up?
You tell me to stick to one issue, and thing bring up other issues. Why?
Is it because you don't actually want me to stick to one, because you know it will show you are wrong?

So why are you arguing with me?

Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
You have come here and spouted pure nonsense to try and encourage others to completely disregard reality.

Also, I would hardly call it arguing as you aren't even bothering to attempt to address the issues raised.

They don't stop pushing outwards in all directions.

Thanks for the admission that gas always pushes outwards in all directions.
With that the discussion is over as that means inside the rocket the gas is still pushing outwards in all directions.
This means it is applying a force to the rocket.
As there is an opening in the rocket, this force will be unbalanced.
This means the rocket will have a net force acting upon it from this gas.
This means the rocket will move, with no need for an external atmosphere.

If you wish to say otherwise, then you need your gas to NOT push outwards in all directions, which raises the question of why does it magically stop? Is it sentient?

The slinky is a perfect example of the waves

Waves yes, but not what we are talking about.
We are talking about bulk motion, not waves. They are quite different.
If you want a slinky as an example, having one which is released is far better.

Notice where the spring collides to create push on push due to expansion to compression to expansion to compression...and so on.

And notice how it doesn't stay in the one location?
Notice how it doesn't just magically flip the wave around?

Or do you mean when it hits the end?
If that was the case then the gas would need to fly down, hit the ground, bounce and come back. So that doesn't explain rockets at all.

no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.

They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?

No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2019, 01:21:05 AM

The gas cannot remain in the tube

That still isn't answering the question.
I know the gas won't remain in the tube, because it is pushing outwards in all directions, including on the rocket. This will cause the gas to go one way and the rocket to go the other (as the rocket pushes back).
But you reject that.

Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.
Here's the full quote.

The gas cannot remain in the tube unless there are not enough of them to expand out of it and this can only ever happen after the mass of compressed molecules have expanded out to leave what's left to expand but stay dormant inside the tube but this would be against equally dormant molecules on the outside or basically would be in a low pressure environment.

Next time you do this you will be overlooked completely.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2019, 01:31:47 AM

So why are you arguing with me?

Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.

Let's just leave it there.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 28, 2019, 02:07:45 AM

no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.

They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?

No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.

Wait, im confused by your logic now. Maybe because I have not read this whole thread, there is a lot.

But if vacuums cant exist. And rockets dont work in vacuums.

Your saying rockets work in space!

I think we are making progress