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

Quote from: JackBlack on December 30, 2019, 01:24:30 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.

So the compressed gas (exhaust), which has a higher pressure then uncompressed gas, is decompressing.  During that decompression, the high pressure gas is interacting with the atmosphere (uncompressed/low pressure gas), which is then providing enough resistance for the high pressure exhaust to move the rocket.

Is that accurate?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 01, 2020, 11:31:02 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 30, 2019, 11:31:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 30, 2019, 04:13:00 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 30, 2019, 03:56:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 30, 2019, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 29, 2019, 02:18:51 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.

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

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

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.

What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 01, 2020, 11:52:07 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 30, 2019, 01:24:30 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.

So the compressed gas (exhaust), which has a higher pressure then uncompressed gas, is decompressing.  During that decompression, the high pressure gas is interacting with the atmosphere (uncompressed/low pressure gas), which is then providing enough resistance for the high pressure exhaust to move the rocket.

Is that accurate?

No, it's totally inaccurate.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 02, 2020, 06:59:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 01, 2020, 11:52:07 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 30, 2019, 01:24:30 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.

So the compressed gas (exhaust), which has a higher pressure then uncompressed gas, is decompressing.  During that decompression, the high pressure gas is interacting with the atmosphere (uncompressed/low pressure gas), which is then providing enough resistance for the high pressure exhaust to move the rocket.

Is that accurate?

No, it's totally inaccurate.

What is inaccurate?  That's what you said above.  I just added additional wordage for clarification.

The decompressing gas is pushing against the atmosphere.

Clearly the exhaust gas is a high pressure gas as it is decompressing.  The atmosphere is clearly at a lower pressure (You can't decompress into a higher pressure).  The higher pressure gas (exhaust) is meeting resistance from the lower pressure gas (atmosphere).

As you said, the rocket sits on top of the gas.  If the gas stacks and moves upward, the rocket which sits on top of it thus moves upward. 

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

Yes
Theres a picture
Which you drew.
That shows nothing pushing on the rocket/ balloon.
Yet we know the rocket/ balloon moves.
So what arrow in your picutre reflects "reality" of the gas on gas pushing on the rocket?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2020, 03:28:45 AM

Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on 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.

What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.

Now, you pay close attention!
If what you put is correct then why do rockets have a higher thrust in a vacuum because whatever YOU say they DO?

Read this and learn:
That makes all you gas-on-gas so much fiction.

Have YOU ever done any real experiments to demonstrate that your ideas are correct.

If not your thoughts are just unsupported hypotheses.

Those that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

Try paying attention yourself.
The only person clinging to gas on gas is you.

We want to know WHAT IS PUSHING THE ROCKET!
You are yet to demonstrate that at all.
So far all your arrow is doing is pushing the gas to the left, not the rocket.

Draw in an arrow indicating where the rocket is being pushed to the left.

See how in the earlier version of the picture that was provided to you before you doctored it, the picture provided by Rab, and the picture provided by me there is an arrow of force acting on the rocket, pushing it to the left?

You need something akin to that, an arrow pushing the rocket to the left.

But don't worry, we all understand why you refuse to do this, or even admit there is a problem.
The only thing available to provide that force is the gas.
That means if you do show the arrow you would be admitting that the gas is applying a force to the rocket, even though it is leaving the rocket. That is effectively admitting that the gas can apply a force to the rocket, even while it is leaving the rocket, and thus effectively admitting that rockets do work in a vacuum, and you can't have that.

What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.

If that was the case we wouldn't be so easily able to destroy your claims by asking such simple questions like "where is the arrow of force that is accelerating the rocket to the left?" and you would easily be able to point out problems with what we are saying rather than dismissing it as hogwash.
You would also be able to address very simple questions, like in a vacuum, how does the gas leave the tube when you have clearly indicated that such motion is impossible as you claim there is nothing to push off.

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

So, no rocket, just gasses?

What is inaccurate?  That's what you said above.  I just added additional wordage for clarification.

Using exhaust wrong.

The decompressing gas is pushing against the atmosphere.

Yep. It's crashing into it.
 

Clearly the exhaust gas is a high pressure gas as it is decompressing.

Nope.
You need to understand thrust and exhaust. Both different.

 The atmosphere is clearly at a lower pressure (You can't decompress into a higher pressure).

Yes the atmosphere is at a lower pressure initially in the area that's directly in line with the thrust/super decompression from the rocket gas BURN. Not exhaust.

  The higher pressure gas (exhaust) is meeting resistance from the lower pressure gas (atmosphere).

Nope.

As you said, the rocket sits on top of the gas.  If the gas stacks and moves upward, the rocket which sits on top of it thus moves upward.

Start thinking back to the trampoline. The delve and the spring back against the energy applied to that trampoline.
Simply use that train of thought when thinking about the atmospheric stack against the thrust of the burning gas.


Let's see you marry it all up and come back to me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:04:21 AM

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

Yes
Theres a picture
Which you drew.
That shows nothing pushing on the rocket/ balloon.
Yet we know the rocket/ balloon moves.
So what arrow in your picutre reflects "reality" of the gas on gas pushing on the rocket?

Pay attention.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:07:30 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2020, 03:28:45 AM

Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on 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.

What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.

Now, you pay close attention!
If what you put is correct then why do rockets have a higher thrust in a vacuum because whatever YOU say they DO?

They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.
It's a near one way street which creates next to zero reaction to the action. Basically pointless, yet is a great fictional story for those willing to accept the sci-fi as sci-fa.

Read this and learn:

Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.

That makes all you gas-on-gas so much fiction.

There's a massive difference in what you say and it has to be addressed so people understand the difference between a rocket thrusting it's compressive gases into a BURN and the exhaust immediately after that BURN.

Just so people do understand. The Burn is the effort. It's the super expansion of gases already expanding from the rocket. It's just clearing a bigger path or making sure there's a much lower pressure to allow that decompression into to quickly compress it in order to create a massive reaction to that overall action from that rocket.

That reaction becomes the fight in that area.
The exhaust is the plume from the burn, which serves no forceful purpose of its own.

Take some time to absorb this.
Not you Rab, I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.

Have YOU ever done any real experiments to demonstrate that your ideas are correct.
If not your thoughts are just unsupported hypotheses.

Yep. Small but effective.
Clearly you have not and do rely on appeal to what you accept as, authority.

Those that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.

Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.

The only person clinging to gas on gas is you.

Maybe others but it's me against you lot on here, so yes.
And that's what really happens.

The rocket is just the holder of one set of gases against the atmosphere.
As long as that rocket can allow extreme expansion against the atmosphere to extremely compress it for that atmosphere to extremely push back, you get the gas on gas fight and that pushes the rocket up.
All the rocket does is sit ion that fight. Just sits there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:04:21 AM

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

So, no rocket, just gasses?

Wow. Is this all you have left.
 

Quote from: Macarios on January 02, 2020, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:04:21 AM

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

So, no rocket, just gasses?

Wow. Is this all you have left.
 

What more do you need?

It all boils down to the one simplest thing:
Is there any force by rocket, or on rocket?
Or just gasses push on each other without it?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2020, 12:13:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:07:30 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2020, 03:28:45 AM

Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on 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.

What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.

Now, you pay close attention!
If what you put is correct then why do rockets have a higher thrust in a vacuum because whatever YOU say they DO?

They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.
It's a near one way street which creates next to zero reaction to the action. Basically pointless, yet is a great fictional story for those willing to accept the sci-fi as sci-fa.

So YOU say but you have never even built a rocket engine.

Quote from: rabinoz

Read this and learn:

Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.

That makes all you gas-on-gas so much fiction.

There's a massive difference in what you say and it has to be addressed so people understand the difference between a rocket thrusting it's compressive gases into a BURN and the exhaust immediately after that BURN.

Just so people do understand. The Burn is the effort. It's the super expansion of gases already expanding from the rocket.

No, YOU haven't been paying attention! The expansion of gases while IN the rocket engine is all that matters.
Once those gases have left the rocket they can have no further effect on the rocket. If you claim otherwise you are simply proving that you have no understanding of supersonic flow.

It's just clearing a bigger path or making sure there's a much lower pressure to allow that decompression into to quickly compress it in order to create a massive reaction to that overall action from that rocket.

That reaction becomes the fight in that area.

SO YOU say but, as I've said, if there's any fight it can have no effect on the rocket - it's gone!

The exhaust is the plume from the burn, which serves no forceful purpose of its own.
Take some time to absorb this.

Absorbing what you say is easy but believing it is another matter. You only write what you imagine happens and imagination is not enough.
The exhaust is the gas as soon as it has left the rocket engine bell. After that, it serves no forceful purpose.

Not you Rab, I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.

I'm certainly after reality and in the basics of how a rocket I'm certain that I have it and what I have explains what happens in reality.
But you have to deny observed reality because it does not fit the narrative that you have dreamed up about reality.

Reality is under not obligation to follow your dreams. Reality is there to be discovered by observation and experiment.

Get used to it!

Quote from: rabinoz

Have YOU ever done any real experiments to demonstrate that your ideas are correct.
If not your thoughts are just unsupported hypotheses.

Yep. Small but effective.
Clearly you have not and do rely on appeal to what you accept as, authority.

Would you care to list these experiments, with links to where they are described, so that others can repeat and check the results?

But I fail to see why believing you is any better than believing the experimental done on rocket engines dating back to at least the 1920's right through to the present time.

Way back in 1903 Konstantin Tsiolkovsky developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation based that same basic idea that I've been presenting.

Then in 1926 Robert H. Goddard started build liquid fueled rockets as described in  Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES".
And he had great trouble convincing some that rockets did not need air to push on.

Quote from: rabinoz

Those that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.

Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.

So YOU say! It can easily be observed that those rockets continue to where the atmospheric pressure to help your ideas and there is no reason not to believe that those rockets keep climbing as claimed on the data read-outs.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 02, 2020, 08:39:39 AM

What is inaccurate?  That's what you said above.  I just added additional wordage for clarification.

Using exhaust wrong.

How am I using exhaust wrong?  Propellant is burned in a combustion chamber.  Once it begins to leave the chamber it is exhaust.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

Clearly the exhaust gas is a high pressure gas as it is decompressing.

Nope.
You need to understand thrust and exhaust. Both different.

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2020, 01:43:59 PM

The only person clinging to gas on gas is you.

Maybe others but it's me against you lot on here, so yes.
And that's what really happens.

The rocket is just the holder of one set of gases against the atmosphere.
As long as that rocket can allow extreme expansion against the atmosphere to extremely compress it for that atmosphere to extremely push back, you get the gas on gas fight and that pushes the rocket up.
All the rocket does is sit ion that fight. Just sits there.

By your words, the rocket would then be pushed by the green bar you drew.
There would be an arrow from thw green bar, psuhing on the rocket.
You dont show this.

If you sat on a swing and totallackless pushed the swing, a fforce line would show him pushing the swing, and the swing pushing on your butt.

You need to adjust your drawing.

Start thinking back to the trampoline.

Sure, think back to a trampoline and compare how that works with what is observed for the rocket.
According to you, the rocket is like your head and torso and the exhaust is like your legs.
Your legs push into the trampoline, stretching it out, putting it under tension, until it stops you and then pushes you (entirely) back up. Technically it pushes your legs upwards, which in turn push your body upwards. This applies from the moment you land on the trampoline until the moment you leave it.
According to you, it shouldn't do that, instead your legs should pass through the trampoline while your torso is pushed up. This makes no sense at all and is contradicted by simple observation.
Noting the real life observation of your entire body being pushed up, this would lead any sane, rational person to conclude that if the same principle was at work with a rocket, with the exhaust taking the place of your legs, then the exhaust should be pushed up, towards the rocket, and it is still the exhaust that is pushing the rocket up.

They are really the 2 key parts:
It is still the exhaust gas pushing the rocket up, and more importantly, if this was actually what was happening, the exhaust would be thrown up with the rocket, not flying out behind it.

Pay attention.

Again, FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE!
You were clearly asked for something very simple, something which is needed if you want any hope of your ideas about rocket motion to be correct.
Ultimately something needs to be pushing the rocket. In order for your ideas to be correct you need to be able to show and explain what that is. You need to be able to draw on that diagram and arrow of force indicating what is pushing the rocket.

This is a very simple request. If you actually cared about the truth and having a model that works, you would either provide it or tell people that you have no idea at all and that you cannot explain how rockets work.
Instead you just insult people and tell them to pay attention.

They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.

Yes, there is little resistance to that thrust, so what? Once it is thrust they have already gotten what they can out of it.
It is the generation of that that thrust, the expelling of the gas at a high velocity, which causes the rocket to move.

It's a near one way street which creates next to zero reaction to the action.

This is literally impossible.
All action must have an equal and opposite reaction.
The only way for the gas to accelerate is by pushing off the rocket, which causes the rocket to accelerate as well.
To say otherwise you would need to say that you don't action and reaction to move, that things can just accelerate, without pushing against anything, which would mean all your objections to rockets working in space amount to nothing at all.

The Burn is the effort. It's the super expansion of gases already expanding from the rocket.

No, the expansion primarily occurs in the rocket, rapidly accelerating the gas with it then leaving at a very high velocity.

The action and reaction occurs inside the nozzle.
Once it has left the nozzle it is no longer capable of interacting with the rocket and pushing it forwards. That is why you have been repeatedly to draw where the rocket is being pushed forwards.

I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.

It is quite clear from your actions that you are the one adhering to fiction here.

And that's what really happens.

It happening or not is irrelevant to the question at hand and irrelevant to the discussion.

The rocket is just the holder of one set of gases against the atmosphere.
As long as that rocket can allow extreme expansion against the atmosphere to extremely compress it for that atmosphere to extremely push back, you get the gas on gas fight and that pushes the rocket up.
All the rocket does is sit ion that fight. Just sits there.

HOW?
How does the rocket get pushed up?
That is what you have repeatedly failed to address.
You just assert the same nonsense of "gas on gas fight"
Well guess what? The rocket isn't involved in that and thus can't be pushed up by it.
If it is just gas-on-gas, that means there is no force on the rocket, and the rocket will not move.

In order to have the rocket move you need to have something other than that gas on gas fight, you need to have a force act on the rocket. That is what you are repeatedly refusing to show, and like I have already pointed out, it is quite clear why. The only thing available to provide that force is the gas inside the rocket, but that would mean admitting all your prior claims are pure garbage and accepting that gas will continue to push outwards in all directions, even when leaving a container, which would then mean accepting that rockets do work in space, which then destroys the main argument you have against photos from space which is just a step away from accepting Earth isn't flat, and you can't handle that.

And of course, yet again, you ignore the very simple issue that shows your entire argument is nothing more than infantile nonsense.
Again, how does the gas magically leave the tube in a vacuum, without allowing the rocket to move?

Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
 Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?

In the atmosphere the external pressure means that the burnt propellant cannot expand as much as it can in a vacuum.

This reduces the exit velocity of the burnt propellant at sea-level and hence the thrust.

Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

Sure, there is "a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums".

As explained above rocket engines produce quite a deal more thrust in a vacuum than at sea-level.

I hope you can follow this line of reasoning.

Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
 Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

That "big" difference is about 15 PSI, which is 1 bar.

Internal pressure of F-1 engine is 70 bar.
In vacuum the difference is 70 bar.
At sea level the difference is 69 bar.

Obviously, the pressure difference in vacuum is about 1.5% higher, with higher exhaust exit velocity which gives more engine thrust.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 03:35:29 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 02, 2020, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:04:21 AM

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

So, no rocket, just gasses?

Wow. Is this all you have left.
 

What more do you need?

It all boils down to the one simplest thing:
Is there any force by rocket, or on rocket?
Or just gasses push on each other without it?

Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.
The rocket is being pushed up on that continuous gas fight.
All the rocket is doing is decompressing fuel in order for the reaction of external atmosphere to do it's job.

No, YOU haven't been paying attention! The expansion of gases while IN the rocket engine is all that matters.
Once those gases have left the rocket they can have no further effect on the rocket. If you claim otherwise you are simply proving that you have no understanding of supersonic flow.

Once the gases have burned, I agree they have no more use. The point is, they burn external to the rocket and work against atmosphere.
It's pretty simple to understand why this is needed but it is not pretty simple to accept the nonsense you adhere to about not needing atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic

It's just clearing a bigger path or making sure there's a much lower pressure to allow that decompression into to quickly compress it in order to create a massive reaction to that overall action from that rocket.

That reaction becomes the fight in that area.

SO YOU say but, as I've said, if there's any fight it can have no effect on the rocket - it's gone!

Nope.

Quote from: sceptimatic

The exhaust is the plume from the burn, which serves no forceful purpose of its own.
Take some time to absorb this.

Absorbing what you say is easy but believing it is another matter. You only write what you imagine happens and imagination is not enough.
The exhaust is the gas as soon as it has left the rocket engine bell. After that, it serves no forceful purpose.

Once the exhaust becomes smoke, its served its purpose and not until.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Not you Rab, I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.

I'm certainly after reality and in the basics of how a rocket I'm certain that I have it and what I have explains what happens in reality.
But you have to deny observed reality because it does not fit the narrative that you have dreamed up about reality.

Reality is under not obligation to follow your dreams. Reality is there to be discovered by observation and experiment.

Get used to it!

I will not get used to anything other than getting used to knowing rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.
The stuff you put forward from your mainstream books, is basically fiction.

But I fail to see why believing you is any better than believing the experimental done on rocket engines dating back to at least the 1920's right through to the present time.

Nobody's asking you to believe me. I'm simply saying I don;t believe what you adhere to and I have my reasons, which I'm stating.
Feel free to discard anything I say.

Way back in 1903 Konstantin Tsiolkovsky developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation based that same basic idea that I've been presenting.

Then in 1926 Robert H. Goddard started build liquid fueled rockets as described in  Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES".
And he had great trouble convincing some that rockets did not need air to push on.

Of course because people weren't so indoctrinated as to be brainwashed into believing the nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: rabinoz

Those that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.

Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.

So YOU say! It can easily be observed that those rockets continue to where the atmospheric pressure to help your ideas and there is no reason not to believe that those rockets keep climbing as claimed on the data read-outs.

What data readouts?
Your data readouts or the one's you accept as being legitimate?

How am I using exhaust wrong?  Propellant is burned in a combustion chamber.  Once it begins to leave the chamber it is exhaust.

No, not at all.
Once it leaves the nozzle as smoke/cloud then it is exhaust and not until.

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

By your words, the rocket would then be pushed by the green bar you drew.
There would be an arrow from the green bar, pushing on the rocket.
You don't show this.

The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.
The green bar is merely a reference point for a stack.

If you sat on a swing and totallackey pushed the swing, a force line would show him pushing the swing, and the swing pushing on your butt.

Yep, my resistance to his push.
He's using his internal energy to push me externally and my mass is creating a resistance to that push.

You need to adjust your drawing.

I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.
The reason you can't is because you do not accept anything other than the mainstream explanation, so on that note I could use as much detail and what not and you would still come out with the same stuff.

I still await the drawing from your side that shows what happens to a rocket in propulsion but all I ever see is one arrow pointing up into the rocket and it makes no sense.

Nobody can explain it because it's nonsense and cannot be rationally explained to work as told.

I'm correct.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 03, 2020, 07:15:13 AM

By your words, the rocket would then be pushed by the green bar you drew.
There would be an arrow from the green bar, pushing on the rocket.
You don't show this.

The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.
The green bar is merely a reference point for a stack.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If you sat on a swing and totallackey pushed the swing, a force line would show him pushing the swing, and the swing pushing on your butt.

Yep, my resistance to his push.
He's using his internal energy to push me externally and my mass is creating a resistance to that push.

Quote from: Themightykabool

You need to adjust your drawing.

I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.
The reason you can't is because you do not accept anything other than the mainstream explanation, so on that note I could use as much detail and what not and you would still come out with the same stuff.

I still await the drawing from your side that shows what happens to a rocket in propulsion but all I ever see is one arrow pointing up into the rocket and it makes no sense.

Nobody can explain it because it's nonsense and cannot be rationally explained to work as told.

I'm correct.

quit dodging
if you could make it clear to everyone, then everyone would be enlightened and no longer support the duped notion of rockets in space.
so have at it.
make it clear.

so far you have two opposing arrows pushing against a green bar and NOTHIGN pushing on the rocket.
if the green bar is moving left, the rocket would also move, and there would be a force arrow on the rocket showing it to also be moving.

why do you refuse to prove yourself correct?

Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

In the atmosphere, there is atmospheric drag. This reduces the effective thrust of the rocket.
Also, in the atmosphere, the exhaust cannot expand as much and thus the velocity will be less and thus the thrust will be lesser in the atmosphere.

Now, perhaps you can answer the question/address the issue that has been plaguing Jamas, Tom and Skepti?
You have a tube, with one end open and pressurised gas in it.
What happens?
Does the gas magically remain inside? If so how?
If not, doesn't this mean that the gas is accelerating and thus needs a force applied to it? (If not, why should a rocket need a force applied to move?)
Doesn't that then mean that it needs to interact with some other object and apply a force to it? (If not, again, why should a rocket need to?)
Isn't the only thing available the rocket? (If not, then why can't the rocket push off whatever else is available)?
Doesn't that then mean that the rocket will be pushed and thus accelerate as well?

Simple logical reasoning shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum, or gas need to magically remain trapped in an open container.

Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.
The rocket is being pushed up on that continuous gas fight.
All the rocket is doing is decompressing fuel in order for the reaction of external atmosphere to do it's job.

Then draw in the arrow to show where it is getting pushed. That shouldn't be hard.

The point is, they burn external to the rocket and work against atmosphere.

The point is, THEY DON'T!
They burn inside the rocket, being ejected as plasma (i.e. hot, ionised gas, also known as fire).
They work against the rocket to leave the rocket, or else they would be trapped inside.

It's pretty simple to understand why this is needed but it is not pretty simple to accept the nonsense you adhere to about not needing atmosphere.

The one spouting nonsense here is you, as shown by you avoiding simple issues yet again and still refusing to put a simple arrow on your diagram because you know it refutes you.

There is no reason for it to need the atmosphere. Again, if that was the case then gas could be magically contained inside a tube that is open, just by having it in a vacuum.

I will not get used to anything other than getting used to knowing rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.

Then PROVE IT!
Address the massive issues plaguing your nonsense.
So far all the evidence and rational argument indicate that they do not require an atmosphere to work.

I'm simply saying I don;t believe what you adhere to and I have my reasons, which I'm stating.

No, you aren't stating your reasons. The only reason you have to dismiss rockets working in reality is because they show your fantasy to be wrong.
If you want to state the reason, then do so honestly.
You are yet to present any reason for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Like I have said before, if this pile of garbage was true, you would see the exhaust being thrown in front of the rocket by the atmosphere.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

No, what is pretty basic is that the gas itself will provide that resistance. In order to have it so rapidly leave the rocket it will require a significant force and thus generate a significant reactionary force.

The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.

And it in no way shows any force on the rocket.

Yep, my resistance to his push.
He's using his internal energy to push me externally and my mass is creating a resistance to that push.

Just like the mass of the gas creates a resistance to that push, which pushes the rocket, without any need for the atmosphere.

I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.

No, we can easily see what's what.
The gas inside the rocket/nozzle is pushing on the rocket to move it forwards, because gas will always push outwards in all directions.
This means there is no need for the atmosphere.

An intelligent person would have made a diagram similar to the initial one before you decided to remove the truth from it and put fantasy there instead.

I still await the drawing from your side that shows what happens to a rocket in propulsion

You have been provided it plenty of times, with plenty of explanations. You are yet to demonstrate a single problem with it, and instead you just repeatedly dismiss it because you cannot accept rockets being real.

You are not correct in the slightest.

If you were correct, you would easily draw in the arrow showing where the force on the rocket is applied, but that would refute you.
If you were correct, you would easily explain what happens to the tube in the vacuum, and why, but that would refute you.
If you were correct, you would easily explain what is wrong with the diagrams that had been presented to you and the explanations which had been presented to you rather than dismissing them as hogwash.

No matter how much you lie and pretend, you will not magically be correct.

Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
 Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

Exactly but they cannot explain it except to place one arrow going up a nozzle into the rocket. It literally makes zero sense and is a cop out of explanations.