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

If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.

When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.

The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.

However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.

The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.

Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.

It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.

What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?

Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)

Imagine a bath with a pressure gauge on it that, as you fill the bath the gauge reacts to the air pressure in the pipe as the water is pushing that air up and compressing it against the gauge needle.
I'm sure you can understand this.

Ok, you fill the bath and the gauge needle says it's full because the air inside the tube is now compressed enough to keep that gauge at that full point because the gauge spring can't push the air away and the air cannot compress any more because the dense water has stopped pushing that air. We now have a sealed unit where there is a POSITIVE pressure on that gauge spring and that gauge spring has a positive push due to it being compressed and storing potential energy but is reliant on it being allowed to be expanded.


Now pull the plug out and think of this as opening a valve.
Once that water starts to go out of the plug hole, so does the compressed air expand out of the tube and gauge and the gauge spring decompresses in following that. No positive pressure is applied to the spring. The spring is now applying the positive pressure behind the air as it turns that potential energy into energy by being allowed to expand that spring, which means you see the pointer drop.

There is zero positive pressure in the opposite direction to the plug hole/valve/nozzle.

Quote from: Stash on December 16, 2019, 03:53:18 PM

What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?

Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)

Imagine a bath with a pressure gauge on it that, as you fill the bath the gauge reacts to the air pressure in the pipe as the water is pushing that air up and compressing it against the gauge needle.
I'm sure you can understand this.

Ok, you fill the bath and the gauge needle says it's full because the air inside the tube is now compressed enough to keep that gauge at that full point because the gauge spring can't push the air away and the air cannot compress any more because the dense water has stopped pushing that air. We now have a sealed unit where there is a POSITIVE pressure on that gauge spring and that gauge spring has a positive push due to it being compressed and storing potential energy but is reliant on it being allowed to be expanded.


Now pull the plug out and think of this as opening a valve.
Once that water starts to go out of the plug hole, so does the compressed air expand out of the tube and gauge and the gauge spring decompresses in following that. No positive pressure is applied to the spring. The spring is now applying the positive pressure behind the air as it turns that potential energy into energy by being allowed to expand that spring, which means you see the pointer drop.

There is zero positive pressure in the opposite direction to the plug hole/valve/nozzle.

Nope, still doesn't work. When the valve is opened, the gauge goes down in accordance with how fast the pressure is being released. Open the valve more, the gauge goes down faster, open it less, the gauge goes down slower. I'm sure you understand this.

There must be some pressure resistance on the gauge that tells the gauge at what speed it needs to go down. Otherwise, the gauge would immediately drop to zero regardless of whether the valve was opened fully, partially or somewhere in between. I'm sure you understand this.

You realize that how you want pressure gauges to work is not how any pressure gauges work the world over? Now pressure gauges are part of our indoctrinated sheep-like populace conspiracy? At a certain point you have to face at least some simple, rudimentary facts. I mean c'mon.

So how does the gauge know to go down at the speed in accordance to the amount of pressure being released? None of your explanations address this.

When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.

Rambling off the same nonsense with your false definitions doesn't help your case.

You have been unable to explain how your allegedly non-sentient gas displays sentience and only moves away from the opening, nor why the gauge doesn't almost instantly drop to 0.
The rational explanation is that the non-sentient gas still pushes outwards in all directions and thus there is still pressure on the gauge (which strange people like to call negative pressure just because it was less than what it was before), and the gauge shows the pressure as the pressure in the container drops.

You are yet to substantiate your nonsense in any way, and you are yet to show any problem with the conventional explanation.

Put this mindset towards a rocket

And you will get no where because it is just pure nonsense.
If instead you use rational thought it is clear to see why rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind

I know you likely wont change your mind as you have no concern at all for the truth, but how about being honest for once and admit you aren't looking for logical people at all.
If you want me to stop calling you out on your BS, stop spouting it or admit it is BS.
Or do the impossible and actually justify it.

Until you do, I will continue to press you for an explanation as you are yet to provide one.

Again, how does the gas leave the rocket?
You claim that the rocket can't move because there is nothing to push against. That also applies to the gas inside the rocket, and thus the gas can't leave the rocket.
Any excuse you provide for why the gas can leave destroys your argument against rockets working.


Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

Stash, scepti refuses to use english in the commonly understood form.

His form of "positive and negative" is only in relation to its previous fixed state and is not in relation to atm or psig.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 16, 2019, 12:12:03 PM

If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.

When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.

The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.

However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.

The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.

Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.

It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.

Real rockets don't have needles, springs, nozzle valves, blocked and unblocked flow, ...

Real rockets pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber and burn it there,
which increases the pressure inside and pushes some mass of gas out (backward).
It is long-lasting controlled explosion, with intensity regulated by flow of fuel and oxidizer.
Every explosion generates pressure (force per area) in all directions and pushes all matter away from the center.

Gas does not get out on its own, it gets pushed. (And not only gas.)

You can't push (accelerate) any mass without force.
And you can't have any force without the adequate reaction force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2019, 10:39:26 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 16, 2019, 03:53:18 PM

What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?

Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)

Imagine a bath with a pressure gauge on it that, as you fill the bath the gauge reacts to the air pressure in the pipe as the water is pushing that air up and compressing it against the gauge needle.
I'm sure you can understand this.

Ok, you fill the bath and the gauge needle says it's full because the air inside the tube is now compressed enough to keep that gauge at that full point because the gauge spring can't push the air away and the air cannot compress any more because the dense water has stopped pushing that air. We now have a sealed unit where there is a POSITIVE pressure on that gauge spring and that gauge spring has a positive push due to it being compressed and storing potential energy but is reliant on it being allowed to be expanded.


Now pull the plug out and think of this as opening a valve.
Once that water starts to go out of the plug hole, so does the compressed air expand out of the tube and gauge and the gauge spring decompresses in following that. No positive pressure is applied to the spring. The spring is now applying the positive pressure behind the air as it turns that potential energy into energy by being allowed to expand that spring, which means you see the pointer drop.

There is zero positive pressure in the opposite direction to the plug hole/valve/nozzle.

Nope, still doesn't work. When the valve is opened, the gauge goes down in accordance with how fast the pressure is being released. Open the valve more, the gauge goes down faster, open it less, the gauge goes down slower. I'm sure you understand this.

There must be some pressure resistance on the gauge that tells the gauge at what speed it needs to go down. Otherwise, the gauge would immediately drop to zero regardless of whether the valve was opened fully, partially or somewhere in between. I'm sure you understand this.

There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.
The point I'm making is, it's a negative one, not a positive one.

You realize that how you want pressure gauges to work is not how any pressure gauges work the world over? Now pressure gauges are part of our indoctrinated sheep-like populace conspiracy? At a certain point you have to face at least some simple, rudimentary facts. I mean c'mon.

You do realise I'm giving out alternate thought to what we're told, don't you?

So how does the gauge know to go down at the speed in accordance to the amount of pressure being released? None of your explanations address this.

It goes down at whatever rate of expansion allows it to go down.
The rate of expansion out of the valve determines how that spring can push on the gas going out.
The more expansion the more chain reaction of following molecules expanding more.
All molecules will not be expanding at the same rate. Every stack of them will expand at a slightly different rate all the way to the back of the container. This is why there's resistance but why there is no positive push in the opposite direction.

Put some effort in because you're clearly not trying to understand it from my side, you're merely looking at your book of gas molecules and saying "nope" it's not like that.

Let's be clear here. This is about rockets working or not in what you class as space but I do not identify as the space you adhere to. Right there we have a conflict and you have the mainstream so called science of it on your side. You know I do not follow it and you know I have an alternative reason as to why I don't think they work.

You telling me I'm wrong can only be you doing it from your adherence to the books/schooling you go with. That does not mean you know the reality and it doesn't mean I know the exact reality.

But here's the key.
You cannot have free space between molecules. No matter how much you accept you can, I'm 100% sure you can't for a very simple reason.
Free space means nothing and you cannot have nothing, which should be absolute logic at its most basic.

So on that note I suggest you try and understand my side. Nobody's asking you to accept it. Just understand it and stop pretending you do. I'll know when you fully understand it.

Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2019, 10:28:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 16, 2019, 12:12:03 PM

If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.

When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.

The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.

However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.

The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.

Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.

It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.

Real rockets don't have needles, springs, nozzle valves, blocked and unblocked flow, ...

Real rockets pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber and burn it there,
which increases the pressure inside and pushes some mass of gas out (backward).
It is long-lasting controlled explosion, with intensity regulated by flow of fuel and oxidizer.
Every explosion generates pressure (force per area) in all directions and pushes all matter away from the center.

Gas does not get out on its own, it gets pushed. (And not only gas.)

You can't push (accelerate) any mass without force.
And you can't have any force without the adequate reaction force.

If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.
We're told they work like that because to tell it like it really is would render space rockets as the fantasy they really are.

There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.
The point I'm making is, it's a negative one, not a positive one.

And the point we are making is that you are just lying about what the words mean.
It is still a positive pressure. Even with it being less than before, it is still positive.

It goes down at whatever rate of expansion allows it to go down.

Which only makes sense if it is still applying pressure to the gauge.
If the gas was no longer applying pressure in all directions then there is no reason for the gauge to read that pressure and thus the guage should drop to 0.

Put some effort

Follow your own advice.
Try and actually put in some effort to come up with a coherent model and address the issues people have raised rather than simply repeating the same non-answers.

You cannot have free space between molecules.

Prove it.
Repeatedly asserting the same baseless nonsense doesn't magically make it true.
You are yet to substantiate that claim in any way.
Just like the rest of your model. All you have is wild speculation and baseless assertion. Absolutely nothing to back any of it up.

So why are you giving me the time of day?

Because unlike you, I actually care about the truth, so I will continue calling out your pathetic BS.

If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.

Why?
Again, repeating the same lie will not help your case.

The only reason you have for rejecting how rockets work is because they show Earth isn't flat.

Quote from: Macarios on December 17, 2019, 04:51:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2019, 10:28:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 16, 2019, 12:12:03 PM

If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.

When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.

The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.

However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.

The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.

Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.

It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.

Real rockets don't have needles, springs, nozzle valves, blocked and unblocked flow, ...

Real rockets pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber and burn it there,
which increases the pressure inside and pushes some mass of gas out (backward).
It is long-lasting controlled explosion, with intensity regulated by flow of fuel and oxidizer.
Every explosion generates pressure (force per area) in all directions and pushes all matter away from the center.

Gas does not get out on its own, it gets pushed. (And not only gas.)

You can't push (accelerate) any mass without force.
And you can't have any force without the adequate reaction force.

If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.
We're told they work like that because to tell it like it really is would render space rockets as the fantasy they really are.

For those "smithereens" the regulated explosion would have to be much stronger.
(The dosage of fuel and oxidizer pumped in would have to be much higher.)

Quote from: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 02:39:07 AM

Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?

How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 17, 2019, 10:19:32 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 02:39:07 AM

Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?

How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...

ok, 82 pages and you have learned nothing. Got it.

Quote from: radioflat on December 18, 2019, 05:18:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 17, 2019, 10:19:32 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 02:39:07 AM

Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?

How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...

ok, 82 pages and you have learned nothing. Got it.

Correction: radioflat is not a resident of that Mythical Land of Flatardia so he's saying that sceptimatic has learned nothing.

We, on the other hand, have learned plenty about little details of how rockets work and the significance of the well-known thrust equation: .

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 17, 2019, 10:17:37 PM

There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.
The point I'm making is, it's a negative one, not a positive one.

And the point we are making is that you are just lying about what the words mean.
It is still a positive pressure. Even with it being less than before, it is still positive.

No, I'm not lying. You not understanding what they mean in what I'm saying is your issue but it isn't me lying.
I know my own theory and that's what you need to understand. It's my theory. By all means call it lies or whatever; I don't expect anything more from people like you.

For those "smithereens" the regulated explosion would have to be much stronger.
(The dosage of fuel and oxidizer pumped in would have to be much higher.)

It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.
It's a controlled burn against atmospheric resistance. It really is as simple as that but far too simple for a space rocket because a space rocket has to cut out the obvious and this is why the internal explosion nonsense comes about.

The only thing that shocks me about people believing this space rocket stuff is, anyone who's taken a short amount of time to use their logic and still accepts space rockets.

Those who accept them on face value are fine by me, because they don't know any better.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 17, 2019, 10:19:32 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 02:39:07 AM

Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.

So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?

How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...

It's called not giving up and rattling globalb heads who have a mission to ensure nobody actually see through the global nonsense.
You're just an extension of it.

Correction: radioflat is not a resident of that Mythical Land of Flatardia so he's saying that sceptimatic has learned nothing.

We, on the other hand, have learned plenty about little details of how rockets work and the significance of the well-known thrust equation: .

Of course you've learned. It's been put on a platter for you and a set of equations to say it works.
The problem is, those equations mean nothing in terms of how it works in reality, in terms of the way matter is working.

No, I'm not lying.

You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
That is lying.

Just because the pressure is dropping doesn't mean it is negative.
The direction of the force is still the same. It is only the magnitude which has decreased.

It's my theory.

No, it isn't. It is your collection of incoherent ideas which have no chance of explaining reality.

It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.

This depends entirely upon how you define explosion.
By most people's definition it would be an explosion as it very rapidly increase the volume of gas present.

It's a controlled burn against atmospheric resistance. It really is as simple as that

Again, the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
It is simply high pressure gas pushing the rocket, or alternatively, it is simply conservation of momentum with the gas getting thrown backwards and the rocket moving forwards.
You are yet to justify your insane claims that the atmosphere is needed.

far too simple for a space rocket because a space rocket has to cut out the obvious

No, that would be you. You need to cut out the obvious and act oblivious to pretend they can't work in space.

Your "obvious" argument obviously requires gas to be magically trapped inside an open container, defying all reason.

Simple, obvious thought processes show you have 2 options, either rockets do work, or gas remains trapped in an open container.
You still haven't managed to find an excuse to get out of it.

The only thing that shocks me about people believing this space rocket stuff is, anyone who's taken a short amount of time to use their logic and still accepts space rockets.

Why would people believing things supported by logic shock you? Are you surprised that people aren't as foolish as you hoped?

It's called not giving up and rattling globalb heads who have a mission to ensure nobody actually see through the global nonsense.

You mean to try and prevent people from realising you are just spouting pure nonsense and accepting the reality of a round Earth.

But thanks for once again showing that your objection to rockets has nothing to do with rockets and instead is entirely based upon you not wanting Earth to be round.
Even without rockets Earth is still round, but with rockets we have obtained photos of Earth, clearly showing it is round. You can't handle that so you need to reject (not refute) rockets.

But you have no basis for your rejection.

If you want to honestly claim it is nonsense and that rockets can't work in a vacuum then you need to address the issue you have been avoiding which was raised before you even joined this thread, an issue that all the FEers have been avoiding because they know that an honest answer would lead to the inescapable conclusion that rockets work in a vacuum and consistent answers would lead to either rockets working in a vacuum or gas magically staying trapped.

Again, you claim that there is nothing to push against so it can't move. You claim there is no atmosphere so it can't move.
The same applies to the gas.
So either there is nothing to push against and no atmosphere so the gas remains trapped in the rocket, unable to leave it, or motion is possible and your argument is BS.
There is no third option.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2019, 11:22:14 PM

No, I'm not lying.

You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
That is lying.

Just because the pressure is dropping doesn't mean it is negative.

It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 18, 2019, 11:55:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2019, 11:22:14 PM

No, I'm not lying.

You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
That is lying.

Just because the pressure is dropping doesn't mean it is negative.

It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.

Again, you are trying to refute how all pressure gauges are designed to work, actually work, and are deeply relied upon by every industry imaginable, some non-vital and some absolutely life critical. All based upon your musings and nothing else.
Please pay attention to that notion: Your musings and nothing else. No evidence, no experiments, just inside your head musings. Just simply your disdain for science in books and findings by folks far more learned than you or me.

It begs the question; are you really that narcissistically devoted to your own non-evidentiary constructs as to dispense with the simple mechanics of a pressure gauge as designed and claim that all of the world has and is using it incorrectly? You believe that you are the "one"?

You believe that you are the "one"?

One what?

Quote from: Macarios on December 18, 2019, 02:03:26 AM

For those "smithereens" the regulated explosion would have to be much stronger.
(The dosage of fuel and oxidizer pumped in would have to be much higher.)

It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.
It's a controlled burn against atmospheric resistance. It really is as simple as that but far too simple for a space rocket because a space rocket has to cut out the obvious and this is why the internal explosion nonsense comes about.

The only thing that shocks me about people believing this space rocket stuff is, anyone who's taken a short amount of time to use their logic and still accepts space rockets.

Those who accept them on face value are fine by me, because they don't know any better.

Let me remind you that explosion IS a burn that generates pressure.
You DO know that the intensity is regulated to be insufficient to break the combustion chamber walls.
The walls contain the pressure increase, so the pressure pushes gas only through the nozzle.

You are also very well aware that no burn needs atmosphere when the oxygen is supplied from an oxidizer.
The pressure inside the combustion chamber will build up regardless of the presence of an atmosphere.

We know that you DO know these things, but still continue to blur them by sneaking your own "explanation" in.
Is the purpose of that behavior to hide the reality from yourself, or to deceive those who don't know enough?

It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.

No, it doesn't.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.
If you stopped regurgitating the same lies and BS you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.

Figured out how the gas leave the rocket when you claim no atmosphere makes motion impossible?

Let me remind you that explosion IS a burn that generates pressure.
You DO know that the intensity is regulated to be insufficient to break the combustion chamber walls.
The walls contain the pressure increase, so the pressure pushes gas only through the nozzle.

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

This is how ridiculous it gets so don;t even bother with this nonsense.

You are also very well aware that no burn needs atmosphere when the oxygen is supplied from an oxidizer.

No atmosphere, no burn. Pretty simple.

The pressure inside the combustion chamber will build up regardless of the presence of an atmosphere.

Pressure  actually would if it really worked as you say. But guess what? Your rocket would be left in a heap on the floor after a pressurised explosion. It would go nowhere and literally be a standing bomb.

We know that you DO know these things, but still continue to blur them by sneaking your own "explanation" in.

Of course I know these things. I know what people like yourself has been schooled into. The difference is, I don't buy into the nonsense of it.

Is the purpose of that behavior to hide the reality from yourself, or to deceive those who don't know enough?

The purpose is very simple. To ensure that people know I don't buy into it.
What others do, is their business.
All I do is give them something to think about, along with others who don't believe the nonsense of space rockets.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 12:03:52 AM

It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.

No, it doesn't.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.

The direction is not still the same.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 19, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

No, it doesn't.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.

The direction is not still the same.

Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
This is how ridiculous it gets so don;t even bother with this nonsense.

Yes, this is how ridiculous it gets.
Not even an attempt at an argument, just a demand to not tell you reality.

You have been unable to provide any rational objection to the reality of rockets working in a vacuum so you just need to assert nonsense and claim it can't be true.

No atmosphere, no burn. Pretty simple.

No, not simple at all.
A complete lack of understanding of how combustion works.

Your rocket would be left in a heap on the floor after a pressurised explosion. It would go nowhere and literally be a standing bomb.

Again, you have literally nothing to back this up.

Of course I know these things.

If you actually knew these things you would be able to justify your insanity instead of just repeating it.
You would be able to answer very simple questions which show your claims to be pure garbage.

The actual difference is that we actually understand it rather than spouting nonsense to prop up an ancient failed model of the universe, which is so far removed from that ancient model it isn't funny.

The direction is not still the same.

So you have a pressure gauge on a tank oriented horizontally.
Initially the tank is nice and pressurised and sealed and pushing to the left on the gauge, with the spring trying to push it back to the right.
Now you open the tank.
What direction is the gas pushing on that gauge? Left or right (or not at all)?
If not at all, the gauge will very quickly go to 0.
If right, the gauge will return to 0 even faster.
The only way to slow the gauge returning to 0 is if the gas is pushing to the left to provide resistance against the spring.

So what direction?


And again, figured out how your gas can move when you claim such motion is impossible?

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:51:31 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 19, 2019, 02:20:13 AM

No, it doesn't.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.

The direction is not still the same.

Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.

Wrong.