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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 393393 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2610 on: December 30, 2019, 01:22:04 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2611 on: December 30, 2019, 01:23:37 AM »

The only one wasting time here is you.

If you don't like it just observe and say nothing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2612 on: December 30, 2019, 01:24:42 AM »
Its all a distraction deflection from his diagram.
Dont drag this on for another 20pg guys!
Scepti needs to sort out his diagram.
You people need to sort out your own because none of yours makes any sense of reality. It makes perfect sense for fictional fantasy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2613 on: December 30, 2019, 01:30:27 AM »

That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
You're not marrying up anything here.
And you not answering the question.
I asked, "Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?"
Please answer if with something better than ridicule.
Don't go on about ridicule when you come out with it regularly. Pigeons playing chess?
If you want ridicule I'll give you it aplenty in pm if it floats your boat.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Deal with your space and an internal pressure like your ISS argument.
What you're showing me is a compressed air tank against a compressed air external environment.

It doesn't marry up. Get your act together.
My act's already together, thanks.

As far as any stresses on a container are concerned it makes not the slightest difference whether
  1) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth, ie 7 Bar absolute (103 psia) or
  2) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above zero pressure in space, ie 6 Bar absolute (87 psia).

The stress on a tank, a tyre or the ISS depends only on the difference in pressure.

If you disagree please give logical reason and show how you would calculate the stress.
If you cannot calculate the stress on a simple cylinder your ideas are worthless because real engineers have to do just that!
The logical reasons have been given.
The tank is a good enough reason to whos what happens with close to 15 psi placed upon it from it's own internal pressure.
You can't comprehend a vacuum or internal to external pressures because your space is fantasy and you can only go on total made up nonsense handed to you of which you swallow with gusto.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2614 on: December 30, 2019, 02:40:14 AM »

That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
You're not marrying up anything here.
And you not answering the question.
I asked, "Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?"
Please answer if with something better than ridicule.
Don't go on about ridicule when you come out with it regularly. Pigeons playing chess?
If you want ridicule I'll give you it aplenty in pm if it floats your boat.
So you have no answers! Thought not.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Deal with your space and an internal pressure like your ISS argument.
What you're showing me is a compressed air tank against a compressed air external environment.

It doesn't marry up. Get your act together.
My act's already together, thanks.

As far as any stresses on a container are concerned it makes not the slightest difference whether
  1) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth, ie 7 Bar absolute (103 psia) or
  2) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above zero pressure in space, ie 6 Bar absolute (87 psia).

The stress on a tank, a tyre or the ISS depends only on the difference in pressure.

If you disagree please give logical reason and show how you would calculate the stress.
If you cannot calculate the stress on a simple cylinder your ideas are worthless because real engineers have to do just that!
The logical reasons have been given.
I've seen none! All you ever do is say "The logical reasons have been given" but you appear to have none.

Quote from: sceptimatic
The tank is a good enough reason to whos what happens with close to 15 psi placed upon it from it's own internal pressure.
No, the tank collapsed because the pressure outside (about 15 psia) was too much more than the pressure inside so the sides buckled.

But if the pressure inside were greater than the pressure outside the stresses would have tensile and the sides could not buckle.

A standard rail tanker car like this can "operate at pressures up to 600 PSI":

Quote
GATX offers capacities ranging from 17,000 to 33,500 gallons and operating pressures up to 600 PSI.
But you saw what happened with only 14.7 psia outside and far from a vacuum inside.

Quote from: sceptimatic
You can't comprehend a vacuum or internal to external pressures because your space is fantasy and you can only go on total made up nonsense handed to you of which you swallow with gusto.
I can "comprehend a vacuum or internal to external pressures" just fine and I can "calculate the stress on a simple cylinder" but apparently you can't.

Yours is the "made up nonsense" based on nothing more than you daydreams.
The accepted gas theories are based on real experiments with real gases.

Dream on!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2616 on: December 30, 2019, 03:56:11 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2617 on: December 30, 2019, 04:09:16 AM »
Dream on!
And you.
I try to answer what you write rationally but you can never say why I am wrong.
All you seem able to do is ridicule!  Sorry, but that's not good enough.

So, as usual you admit that you have have no answers even to my simply design type question.
And that sort of problem is eminently practical. For the designers of pressure vessels and tanks it's their "bread and butter".

But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2618 on: December 30, 2019, 04:13:00 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2619 on: December 30, 2019, 04:15:49 AM »
Dream on!
And you.
I try to answer what you write rationally but you can never say why I am wrong.
All you seem able to do is ridicule!  Sorry, but that's not good enough.

So, as usual you admit that you have have no answers even to my simply design type question.
And that sort of problem is eminently practical. For the designers of pressure vessels and tanks it's their "bread and butter".

But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.
It appears you simply follow protocol.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2620 on: December 30, 2019, 04:31:58 AM »

But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.
But you show no evidence of "knowing better"! You could do the simple calculation I requested.
If you cannot do calculations using your ideas they are useless.

And you can never show why you claim I'm wrong in my claims - you just fall back on ridicule when you can't explain something.

The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2621 on: December 30, 2019, 07:54:33 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.





*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2622 on: December 30, 2019, 08:14:21 AM »

But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.
But you show no evidence of "knowing better"! You could do the simple calculation I requested.
If you cannot do calculations using your ideas they are useless.

And you can never show why you claim I'm wrong in my claims - you just fall back on ridicule when you can't explain something.

The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2623 on: December 30, 2019, 08:15:00 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.





Not sure what you're getting at with this. Care to elaborate?

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2624 on: December 30, 2019, 09:51:04 AM »

Not sure what you're getting at with this. Care to elaborate?

nope

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2625 on: December 30, 2019, 11:31:04 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2626 on: December 30, 2019, 11:31:42 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.

In reality this is not observed in any way.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2627 on: December 30, 2019, 01:24:30 PM »
What do you think would happen to that tank if pressurised and placed in an extreme low pressure environment and punctured?
It would vent, over a considerable time depending on how large the hole is and how much gas is in there. As this gas has changed velocity it would necessitate a force to act upon it and thus a reactionary force and thus it would also move the tank.

What do you think would happen?
According to you, motion requires the atmosphere and something to push off. You also claim that isn't there in the vacuum of space. So according to you, all the gas needs to remain inside as it can't leave the tank as it has nothing to push off and there is no atmosphere around it.

Repeatedly asserting your fantasy as fact will not help you.

Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.

There is also a simple way you can test this.
Try getting a tank of compressed gas, placed in a very large pressure container (such that the release of gas from the tank wont significantly change the pressure) where you can change the pressure.
Then go and try different combinations of pressures inside the tank and container, and see what effect it has on the release of the gas.
If you do you will find the pressure differential is what is important as that determines how much gas needs to flow, and also how the gas will accelerate.

Also, do you not notice the hypocrisy? You object to the high flow rates of fuel for rocket engines, yet you are fine pretending that the gas should leave almost instantly?

Tanks like that can hold 26000 l, yet you claim it all leaves extremely quickly, where if we assume it takes 1 second, that would be a flowrate of 26000 l/s, all through a tiny pinprick.

Your rejection of space will remain a fantasy.

Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.
No, you are. You are acting like this shows a massive problem for the ISS because it is exposed to a vacuum. The only way for it to be a problem is if you are suggesting the vacuum will cause it to fail, as the vacuum inside the tank did in the video.
But unless you are claiming the vacuum will crush it that means the gas inside will cause it to be broken from the inside.
So unless the video is just irrelevant garbage, you are asking for it to be broken from the inside.

Pay close attention to it.

Still no arrow of force acting on the rocket or balloon to push it forward.
It was a very simple request.
Draw a green arrow clearly indicating where the force is being transferred to the rocket and balloon to move it to the left.
Note:
This must be an arrow which touches the rocket.

If you don't like it just observe and say nothing.
No, I will continue to call out your BS, even if you continually ignore me. It just shows that you really have no case, and that you know you are here lying to everyone. You know your claims are pure garbage which cannot withstand any form of rational scrutiny, yet you continue to spout them, knowingly lying to everyone here.

You people need to sort out your own because none of yours makes any sense of reality.
If none of it makes any sense, why is it capable of explaining so many observations?
Why are you completely unable to show any problem with it?
All you seem to be able to do is dismiss it as false and assert fantasy instead, fantasy which is easily contradicted by actual experiments?

It is your nonsense which makes no sense at all.
You repeatedly contradict yourself.
You claim that motion requires something to push against and the atmosphere, yet you then go straight out and reject that and claim that things can still move without that.
You try to have motion with no force acting on the object, yet pretend there is no problem.

Try to actually come up with a coherent model which can actually explain things and which doesn't contradict itself.

Again, try telling us what happens to a tube, open at one end, filled with compressed gas, in a vacuum.
Does the gas stay put?
If so, then by your own claims it will be exerting pressure against the tube and thus push the tube away.
If not, then how does it leave when you claim such motion would require the atmosphere and something to use as leverage? The only thing available to use as leverage is the tube, meaning the tube would move.
Either way, it clearly shows rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

If you wish to disagree come up with an idea of what happens with a clear and simple explanation which does not contradict itself and clearly explains why the gas can leave but the tube can't move, or how the gas stays trapped in an open container and how that doesn't then push the rocket away.

Until you have such an explanation, you have literally nothing to back up your insane claims and nothing to challenge the reality of rockets working in space.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2628 on: December 31, 2019, 07:45:05 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz
So I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.
You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.

If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).

If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.

If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Let me make this abundantly clear.



Is that clear enough?

It is to me.
Looks like it is not to you.

The tank shown in your video can be pumped back to the shape.
The material is still whole, only bent.
To break it from inside you need much higher pressure difference.

So: do you really don't understand it?
Or you already understand but hope we can be deceived so easily?
Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.
The argument is the puncture hole and release of internal pressure to supposed space of zero resistance to it.

You're arguing it without knowing what you're arguing against.

So, to illustrate the higher internal pressure case and a puncture,
you use the video where internal pressure is "extremely low" and there is no puncture?

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

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2629 on: December 31, 2019, 04:27:52 PM »
The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.

And competent aeronautical engineers design new plane types and build simulators accurate for test pilots to learn most of the flight characteristics before even sitting in the plane.

If your ideas don't allow that sort of thing those ideas are useless.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2630 on: January 01, 2020, 11:31:02 PM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)
You can clearly see it.
The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2631 on: January 01, 2020, 11:46:40 PM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.

In reality this is not observed in any way.
The rocket burn, which you call exhaust, which is not exhaust at that point, compresses the atmosphere below that burn by massively expanding into it.
This creates a massive resistance and spring back against that burn every nano second, kind of thing. The rocket rests on this gas fight and is pushed up.

If you want to use your imagination then picture atmospheric warping or basically making a dent in the stack through massive expansion of gas burning, compressing that stack and making a delve through direct action into that area.

To make this easier to visualise just picture what happens on water when gases expand into it. It creates a delve. A cup because the water is pushed away leaving that delve which crushes right back.

The only difference here is, it's atmosphere being pushed away and compressed.

The rocket you people adhere to has no rational explanation for how it works.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2632 on: January 01, 2020, 11:52:07 PM »
Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.

You need to pay attention.
The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2633 on: January 02, 2020, 12:00:18 AM »


So, to illustrate the higher internal pressure case and a puncture,
you use the video where internal pressure is "extremely low" and there is no puncture?

LOL
Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.

From this point on I'm also arguing that a puncture in this scenario would decompress the so called ISS is super short order, killing all onboard who would have zero chance to plug the hole nor get into any such suit to survive.

The only thing that wouldn't happen is explosive decompression because there would be zero external reaction to the internal decompressive action. meaning the container would almost empty until the remaining gases/air simply had zero compressive force and became dormant or ice.

Put basically, it would not have the ability to further decompress meaning, theoretically you'd have a large continuous line of ice extending from the hole due to immediate ceasing of expansion external to it due to zero resistance to it.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2634 on: January 02, 2020, 12:02:23 AM »
The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.

And competent aeronautical engineers design new plane types and build simulators accurate for test pilots to learn most of the flight characteristics before even sitting in the plane.

If your ideas don't allow that sort of thing those ideas are useless.
Calculations are fine if reality is being dealt with.
The stuff you're going with is absolutely not a reality. It's fictional, so calculations are certainly not required.

What is required is for people to take some time to understand just how the dupe works and understand why it is not reality.

I think I'm showing that.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2635 on: January 02, 2020, 12:46:45 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)
You can clearly see it.
The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.

clearly see what?
the arrow
phsycially contacting the rocket body
where is it?
i see no arrow ON the rocket, POINTING left
maybe colour the ONE arrow, ON the rocket, POINT left, Blue or something
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 12:56:35 AM by Themightykabool »

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2636 on: January 02, 2020, 02:34:22 AM »
Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.

Apparently the 15 PSI can collapse the tank, and still can't damage the material.
(And can't do anything to the tank when presses from inside - hehe)

Now tell us why much higher pressure (say, 100 PSI) can't pop a bicycle tire?
The 100 PSI from inside is 85 PSI more than the 15 PSI from outside.

Quote
Proper tire pressure lets your bike roll quickly, ride smoothly, and avoid flats.
Narrow tires need more air pressure than wide ones:
Road tires typically require 80 to 130 psi (pounds per square inch)

And when you evacuate air from the tire and make vacuum it gets squeezed inwards. :)

~~~~~~~

EDIT: 250 PSI

"Coca-cola bottle high pressure test -- 17 bar, 250Psi"
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 02:52:09 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2637 on: January 02, 2020, 02:42:27 AM »
You can clearly see it.
No, we can't.
You do not have any arrow of force acting on the balloon or rocket to move it forwards.

This was a very simple request which you completely failed to do.

The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.
Did you mean can't?
Because you were provided with plenty of diagrams showing the transfer of force. The "problem" was that it showed that your claims were nonsense.
The real problem is that you are rejecting reality and trying to replace it with pure nonsense and thus need to avoid extremely simple requests like this and simple questions/issues which destroy your claims.

This creates a massive resistance and spring back against that burn every nano second, kind of thing.
As has been said by me and others plenty of times. If that was the case, you would see the exhaust being pushed forwards of the rocket or at the very least blowing straight out to the sides, not backwards.

Also like I had said, if that were true, MOTION THROUGH THE AIR WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE!
Any time you tried to move through the air you would compress it which would cause it to spring back and push you backwards.

This is never observed. So that clearly isn't the case at all.

The rocket you people adhere to has no rational explanation for how it works.
If that was true you would have been able to show a problem with the explanation rather than just repeatedly dismissing it.

You need to pay attention.
No, you need to come up with a coherent model and actually address the numerous issues you have been avoiding rather than just repeatedly spouting the same refuted garbage.

The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.
No, it is the fact that gas has mass and, like everything with a mass, thus resists changes in its motion. This is needed in order for the air to be able to provide resistance. If it didn't, then you would be freely able to move through the air with no resistance at all, and that means the gas pushing out wouldn't create any resistance.

But I understand, you need to do whatever you can to avoid this fact of reality, as admitting it means admitting that almost everything you have said in this thread has been a blatant lie.

Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.
And as already pointed out, YOU FAILED!
That is showing what a 15 PSI differential, with a greater pressure on the outside can do, i.e. cause steel to buckle.
It in no way indicates any problem with 15 PSI on the inside.

From this point on I'm also arguing that a puncture in this scenario would decompress the so called ISS is super short order, killing all onboard who would have zero chance to plug the hole nor get into any such suit to survive.
No, you aren't. You are baselessly asserting it.
You have absolutely no basis for that assertion at all.
To argue it you would need an argument, i.e. a line of reasoning to reach the conclusion.

What is required is for people to take some time to understand just how the dupe works and understand why it is not reality.
I think I'm showing that.
Only if by "showing that" you mean showing that what you are providing is the dupe, not reality.
You aren't demonstrating any problem with reality, nor are you presenting a viable alternative. Meanwhile we are all doing quite well and showing problems with your dupe.

Now care to address the issue you have been avoiding from the start?

How does the gas leave the tube? Again, you have declared that such motion is impossible.
You need to explain how the gas can leave the tube, while the rocket can't move.

Until you do, you have nothing.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2638 on: January 02, 2020, 03:10:46 AM »
The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.

And competent aeronautical engineers design new plane types and build simulators accurate for test pilots to learn most of the flight characteristics before even sitting in the plane.

If your ideas don't allow that sort of thing those ideas are useless.
Calculations are fine if reality is being dealt with.
The stuff you're going with is absolutely not a reality. It's fictional, so calculations are certainly not required.

What is required is for people to take some time to understand just how the dupe works and understand why it is not reality.

I think I'm showing that.
No you're not! All you are showing is that you haven't the slightest understanding of reality.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2639 on: January 02, 2020, 03:28:45 AM »



Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
Pay close attention to it.



Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like  hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.

Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.

If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.

In reality this is not observed in any way.
The rocket burn, which you call exhaust, which is not exhaust at that point, compresses the atmosphere below that burn by massively expanding into it.
This creates a massive resistance and spring back against that burn every nano second, kind of thing. The rocket rests on this gas fight and is pushed up.

If you want to use your imagination then picture atmospheric warping or basically making a dent in the stack through massive expansion of gas burning, compressing that stack and making a delve through direct action into that area.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the the rocket.
The area travelling much faster than the speed of sound in that gas so no influence can flow upstream. If you don't understand that then you don't know the very first thing about supersonic aerodynamics.

So all your mish-mash is black arrows is just so much graffiti.

Here is one way to look at it. All you need are these two arrows:

A force to the right is needed to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exhaust velocity.
The reaction to that force, a force to the left, is the thrust pushing the rocket and note that the air outside never came into it.

It's so simple a child could understand but a "smart person", like you, with a "narrative" (you cannot allow rockets to work in space) can never accept it.