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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 393397 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2790 on: January 08, 2020, 07:27:56 AM »


https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg

see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.

No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
And neither is your rocket.

The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.

Dafuq?
See the frist image for example.
See the black part labeled "skirt"?
See the arrows pushing up on the bottom of the hovercraft?

Thats what you need to show.
I've explained what's happening, what do I need to show?

The skirt stops the downflow of air from escaping so it compresses the air under that skirt and the hovercraft sits atop of that compression.

So what's the issue?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2791 on: January 08, 2020, 07:29:42 AM »
Scepti quote:

The rocket merely sits atop this.





Then your green line gasfigght will be pushing the rocket up.
So there should be arrows from this, pushing on the rocket/ balloon.
The green line is merely to show one side to the other side, meaning thrust to atmospheric resistance to that thrust.


?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2792 on: January 08, 2020, 08:47:01 AM »

No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.
The air to air missile will only ever have a horizontal flight path if it has wings.
Otherwise it will simply, slowly descend.
You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2793 on: January 08, 2020, 09:33:25 AM »

You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.
So you've never seen an air to air missile without wings.
So what exactly have you seen and tell me how it worked.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2794 on: January 08, 2020, 09:46:49 AM »
Don't all air-to-air missiles need wings/fins for guidance*? Rockets might not, as they are dumbfire munition, right?

*"guidance" is, most likely, the wrong word. Manoeuvring I guess would be better.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 09:53:37 AM by rvlvr »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2795 on: January 08, 2020, 09:53:48 AM »


Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Burned fuel is exhaust.

Two entirely different things.
Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.
If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.
Internal  combustion is not relevant.
Did you miss this?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2796 on: January 08, 2020, 10:01:40 AM »

This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.
Internal  combustion is not relevant.
Quote from: MouseWalker
Did you miss this?
Nope. I answered it.


?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2797 on: January 08, 2020, 11:40:40 AM »

You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.
So you've never seen an air to air missile without wings.
So what exactly have you seen and tell me how it worked.
Again, I was not speaking to you. I'm not going to get drawn into your games again. Thanks for the humor.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2798 on: January 08, 2020, 12:36:34 PM »


https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg

see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.

No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
And neither is your rocket.

The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.

Dafuq?
See the frist image for example.
See the black part labeled "skirt"?
See the arrows pushing up on the bottom of the hovercraft?

Thats what you need to show.
I've explained what's happening, what do I need to show?

The skirt stops the downflow of air from escaping so it compresses the air under that skirt and the hovercraft sits atop of that compression.

So what's the issue?

There is no issue with hovercrafts.
Tge issue is your diagram you edited with force arrows pushing on a green bar doesnt show force arrows hitting the bottom of the balloon to lift it up.

Say it out loud:
Arrows
Directly
Touching
The balloon.

Fix your drawing

« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 12:41:57 PM by Themightykabool »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2799 on: January 08, 2020, 02:15:47 PM »

There is no issue with hovercrafts.
Tge issue is your diagram you edited with force arrows pushing on a green bar doesnt show force arrows hitting the bottom of the balloon to lift it up.

Say it out loud:
Arrows
Directly
Touching
The balloon.

Fix your drawing


My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2800 on: January 08, 2020, 02:31:45 PM »
You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.
No, we have told you repeatedly and you just repeatedly ignore it and dismiss it as hogwash or nonsense.
Meanwhile, you actually haven't explained anything.

Why don't you tell us how the gas accelerates.
What is the gas pushing on to accelerate? Or is the gas magic which can just accelerate all by itself?

Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.
Not until you have provided what you said you would.
Provide us a diagram showing how a rocket works, with a force acting on the rocket.
Tell us how the gas will accelerate, especially in my example where you have pressurised gas in a tube in a vacuum with one end of the tube open.

According to you, any motion (or change in motion) in such an environment is impossible as there is nothing to push off and no atmosphere. Yet you claim the gas will leave. HOW? How does the gas leave the tube? How does it accelerate? What is it pushing off?

It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.
You mean because in your narrative they don't work in space.
i.e. it doesn't fit your narrative because it doesn't fit your narrative.

All this time and you still don't grasp ,it. Surely you must be playing games.
No, all this time and I still grasp it. I still understand you are spouting whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting reality.

I don't care what semantics you want to play.
The gas, when it leaves the rocket, goes massively below the rocket, often many times the size of the rocket.

It is clearly not compressing the atmosphere and getting pushed back up.
Instead, it is going straight through.

If the nonsense you were spouting was true the gas would not fly down like that. Instead it would stay with the rocket, either being pushed out to the side or upwards in front of the rocket. But that would then cause more compression and force and so on. In fact, motion would be impossible.

Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.

However the thrust does not propel it any faster
It will accelerate it more. If it didn't, it wouldn't be greater thrust.

The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own mass
No, higher thrust means more force acting on the rocket, meaning more acceleration (and even more when you note that the mass has decreased).

Pretty simple when you understand the basics without being coaxed into nonsense territory
Yes, rockets are pretty simple when you actually understand the basics without any of your foolish nonsense.
Even a basic understanding based upon conservation of momentum is enough to understand the FACT that rockets work in a vacuum.

But rather than even attempt to understand these basics you just reject it all and cling to nonsense that you have coaxed yourself into believing.

The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.
This makes no sense at all.
You objected to the rocket pushing itself but now you are asserting the gas is pushing itself.
This is pure nonsense and an extremely dishonest double standard.

The only time gas "pushes itself" is when the gas can go in multiple directions and the different parts of the gas push each other, effectively splitting it in 2.

This is why you have been repeatedly asked to draw a simple diagram and to actually explain what the gas is pushing against; because you are appealing to pure nonsense and directly contradicting yourself.

Literally the only thing available for the gas to push on to leave the rocket, is the rocket.

So like you have been repeatedly asked, draw a diagram, showing the forces, making sure you show the action-reaction pair.
Noting that this is the gas inside the rocket, being accelerated out of the rocket.

The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.
No, that is an entirely separate force.

The action is the force accelerating the gas out of the rocket, acting downwards. The reaction needs to be a force on something else pushing it upwards.
Again, the only thing this can act on is the rocket.

As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
Why is a medium needed?
Just what do you think would happen if there is no medium and these 2 non-anchored objects push against each other? Do they just sit there, doing nothing?

It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.

That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.

Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pump
There is a requirement, because unlike in your fantasy where compressed gases just move by magic instantly, back in reality the flow rate is based upon the pressure differential and a pump will allow you to pump the gas much faster. A pump also allows you to pump it into a higher pressure region, such as the combustion chamber.

to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.
No argument needed. It simply would.
No, an argument is most certainly needed. Otherwise you have nothing more than a pathetic baseless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that it would blow up the rocket.
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting a standard combustion engine in a car is impossible as when the fuel-air mixture is ignited it would blow up the engine.

Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.
Again, try to actually explain it. You are yet to even attempt it.
Explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket. What force is acting on it? What is the reaction to this force?
Then explain what is forcing the rocket forwards or upwards?
Draw a simple diagram with these arrows of force.

Oh wait, you refuse to because that shows you are spouting pure garbage and that real physics is correct.

If it has wings the engines are genuine and generally work as told.
The wings are irrelevant and have no bearing on how the rocket works.
If you are happy accepting real rocket engines when there are wings, what do you think would happen if the wings are removed?
That suddenly the engine, which was working perfectly fine until the wings were removed, suddenly blows up for no reason at all, just because you say it will?
That suddenly, the laws of physics drastically change to make the rocket function in a completely different way?

It's only essential to have a background knowledge of something that is entirely physically real.
You mean like space rockets?
Yes, it is very important to have background knowledge of them, especially when you repeatedly they are fiction, yet can mount no rational argument against them.

In fact, if you wish to assert anything is fictional, you will need a decent background knowledge on it, or else you have no basis to assert it is fictional.

You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.
Stop lying. We have repeatedly given you explanations.
Explanations which actually provide an origin for the force on the rocket.
Explanations which you are completely unable to refute in any way.

Meanwhile, you provide us with nothing.
You are yet to explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket.
You are yet to provide any diagram which shows a force on the rocket.
You have literally nothing except your pathetic, baseless dismissals of reality and pathetic, baseless assertions of pure nonsense.

My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
It works fine because you are just a pathetic troll with no interest in the truth at all and weren't trying to make a diagram to describe reality?

Because if you were going for a diagram to describe reality it completely fails as you have no force acting on the rocket or balloon to move them to the left, and you have completely unbalanced forces, where you have an action without a reaction.

The initial diagram, which actually had them was fine, but you had to reject it because it meant rockets work in space.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2801 on: January 08, 2020, 02:37:18 PM »
Fix your drawing


My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.

Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket.
Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.

Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.

Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:

See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.

But it neither case is there the slightest sign of the exhaust gas hitting any barrier.

Fix your drawing!

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2802 on: January 08, 2020, 02:45:37 PM »
Quote from: Macarios
2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?
The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.

Are you trying to say that the expanding gas will decompress in one direction only?
It will press backwards, and for some reason refuse to press forward? :)
What would stop it?

Quote from: Macarios
3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?
The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.

Gas exits from the rocket pressed by gass itself and not the rocket?
And when the atmosphere slows it down the rocket suddenly receives some force?
So, 70 bar of the engine pressure will not move the rocket, but 1 bar of the atmosphere will?
Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that the same atmosphere presses the nose of the rocket, not only the tail?
It presses with 1 bar on both ends.

Quote from: Macarios
Two non-anchored things with mass
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.

As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.

So, two springs in vacuum will not move away from each other because there is no medium?
Don't be silly. Not even mid school students would believe you that. :)

Quote from: Macarios
All that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.

Let me repeat: the same atmosphere presses the rocket from both ends, not only from the tail.
(It also equally presses from all sides.)
As much as it gets compressed by the exhaust moving backward,
that much gets compressed by the rocket itself moving forward.
This is where happens the cancelation you were talking about before.

The mentioned "positive effect of the air drag" may occur on airplane wings,
as the force that keeps airplane in air. Also on flaps when slowing down is desired effect.

But you already know that airplanes don't use rocket engines.
They use either propellers, or jet engines.
And, unlike rockets, they do lean on air.
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.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2803 on: January 08, 2020, 03:14:28 PM »

There is no issue with hovercrafts.
Tge issue is your diagram you edited with force arrows pushing on a green bar doesnt show force arrows hitting the bottom of the balloon to lift it up.

Say it out loud:
Arrows
Directly
Touching
The balloon.

Fix your drawing


My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.

See them side by side.
Seriously.
Note the difference?
You missing force linss ON the rocket.
Maybe we can try another approach.
Why do you feel arrows dont need to be pudhing on thebrocket - when you claim the rocket sits on the barrier.
If the barriee ia pushing the rocket, dosa it not mean there ahould be a force line?

[/url]
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png[/img][/url]

]
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg[/img][/url]
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 03:26:41 PM by Themightykabool »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2804 on: January 08, 2020, 11:08:34 PM »
Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
No....no...no....no.
The atmosphere is far from a hindrance and you should know fine well this is the real case.
The atmosphere enables EVERYTHING  to work and provides the equal and opposite reaction to the action.
As simple as that.
Anything different to this is simply fictional......including your space rockets.

This more thrust in a vacuum stuff is really more thrust in lower pressure, which is true because there is less atmospheric pressure resistance to the exiting decompression of gas from the rocket, meaning the gas can decompress much easier, allowing much more immediate expansion into a wider area due to less atmospheric crush back.


It's needed to balance out the force aided by the ever decreasing mass of the actual rocket due to fuel mass loss.
It works like a treat and keeps a nice fine line of action and reaction in many different stages.

Quote from: JackBlack

However the thrust does not propel it any faster
It will accelerate it more. If it didn't, it wouldn't be greater thrust.
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.

More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.

Quote from: JackBlack

The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own mass
No, higher thrust means more force acting on the rocket, meaning more acceleration (and even more when you note that the mass has decreased).
There is no more force. It's all a case of equalling out based on stacking atmosphere the rocket is thrusting against, which is (like I said) ever lowering pressure resistance to the thrust, meaning more thrust is allowed by ever changing air pressures as a weaker resistance to the exiting gas burn.

Quote from: JackBlack

As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
Why is a medium needed?
Just what do you think would happen if there is no medium and these 2 non-anchored objects push against each other? Do they just sit there, doing nothing?
If they were pushed against each other then the gases inside would create their own medium between the objects and push them apart by means of stacking that gas.
To make this easier to understand, just imagine two plungers facing each other and allowing those two plungers to push each other apart by the gases stored inside of them.
All they would do is push each other to the extent of their lever and stop dead.

Anything in a so called vacuum would immediately go dormant upon release and act like a big pushed out ice pop from a tube, then stop.
It's all about putting your mind to work.

Quote from: JackBlack

It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.

That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.
The skirt is the air trap. It stops the air from above pushing out the curtain to quickly giving the chance to pressurise and the hovercraft sits on that.

A rocket manages it due to massive depressurisation by burn, which super compresses the air and creates the delve in the stack required for compressed resistance to mass expansion, which the rocket sits atop of at each nano second of thrust.
Go and get a bicycle pump and seal off the end then stand it up like a rocket and push the plunger down.
Now leave loose.
What happens?

Exactly, the plunger springs up due to compressed air being allowed to decompress.

Now think about what's happening from rocket nozzle into atmosphere in the delve into stack scenario I've mentioned, time and time again.


Quote from: JackBlack

Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pump
There is a requirement, because unlike in your fantasy where compressed gases just move by magic instantly, back in reality the flow rate is based upon the pressure differential and a pump will allow you to pump the gas much faster. A pump also allows you to pump it into a higher pressure region, such as the combustion chamber.
The pump is pointless.
It's like saying you need a pump on a firework to make it go higher when you know the solid fuel burn does a perfect job of pushing against the atmosphere in a burn.

Adding engines to enable so called kerosene and hydrogen and oxygen to make a faster burn is clear and utter nonsense. It's fiction. It's a dupe of the minds of the public.



Quote from: JackBlack

to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.
No argument needed. It simply would.
No, an argument is most certainly needed. Otherwise you have nothing more than a pathetic baseless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that it would blow up the rocket.
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting a standard combustion engine in a car is impossible as when the fuel-air mixture is ignited it would blow up the engine.
There is every reason.
A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.

The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added m,ass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it  for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.

We are filled full of garbage and treated to diagrams as a pass off of so called legitimacy...which , when looked at, make zero sense.

Quote from: JackBlack

Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.
Again, try to actually explain it. You are yet to even attempt it.
Explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket. What force is acting on it? What is the reaction to this force?
Then explain what is forcing the rocket forwards or upwards?
Draw a simple diagram with these arrows of force.
Already done. Refusal to accept it is not my issue, it's your issue.



Quote from: JackBlack

In fact, if you wish to assert anything is fictional, you will need a decent background knowledge on it, or else you have no basis to assert it is fictional.
I may not be able to put it out as any official story of fiction but I can certainly believe it to be fiction from my own point of view....which is all I'm doing.
Nobody is telling you to accept it as that. I'm simply counteracting your stance on your belief of official stories told to you or what you read and accepted as fact, based on zero physical knowledge.

Quote from: JackBlack

You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.
Stop lying. We have repeatedly given you explanations.
Explanations which actually provide an origin for the force on the rocket.
Explanations which you are completely unable to refute in any way.
I think I've refuted them quite easily but then I'm biased for myself, just as you are for yourself and the WE you keep mentioning.

Quote from: JackBlack

Meanwhile, you provide us with nothing.
You are yet to explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket.
You are yet to provide any diagram which shows a force on the rocket.
You have literally nothing except your pathetic, baseless dismissals of reality and pathetic, baseless assertions of pure nonsense.
I explained it well enough for anyone who wished to try to understand it.
Does it require further explanation?
Yes, most likely but only for those who will take the time to actually try to genuinely understand it without using schooled so called science to create a shield at every available opportunity.
That would be counterintuitive..

Quote from: JackBlack

My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
It works fine because you are just a pathetic troll with no interest in the truth at all and weren't trying to make a diagram to describe reality?
A pathetic troll. Hmmmmm.
You seem to be getting mad. Why?
You're losing the argument by doing this. You need to sit back and give yourself some breathing space.

Quote from: JackBlack

Because if you were going for a diagram to describe reality it completely fails as you have no force acting on the rocket or balloon to move them to the left, and you have completely unbalanced forces, where you have an action without a reaction.

The initial diagram, which actually had them was fine, but you had to reject it because it meant rockets work in space.
The diagram I gave is fine. It shows exactly what's happening in reality.
Your balloon diagram is fictional. It cannot work and any rational person should see that.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2805 on: January 08, 2020, 11:23:20 PM »
Fix your drawing


My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.

Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket.
Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.

Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.

Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:

See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.

But it neither case is there the slightest sign of the exhaust gas hitting any barrier.

Fix your drawing!
Your rockets are fictional.
But even so...regardless of them being fictional...what you are arguing, I've just answered, above.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2806 on: January 08, 2020, 11:48:54 PM »
Quote from: Macarios
2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?
The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.

Are you trying to say that the expanding gas will decompress in one direction only?
It will press backwards, and for some reason refuse to press forward? :)
What would stop it?
Expanding gas will only expand if it hits a resistance it can push into, at first. Once that resistance builds up against that expanding gas, that gas starts to be compressed and the following expanding gas also becomes more compressed in a chain reaction, until a barrier is created to build that gas and leave anything on top of is as a passenger riding on that gas....including the rocket.


Quote from: Macarios
Quote from: Macarios
3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?
The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.

Gas exits from the rocket pressed by gass itself and not the rocket?
And when the atmosphere slows it down the rocket suddenly receives some force?
So, 70 bar of the engine pressure will not move the rocket, but 1 bar of the atmosphere will?
Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that the same atmosphere presses the nose of the rocket, not only the tail?
It presses with 1 bar on both ends.

It's all about thrust and how much of it can create a massive compressive reaction to it.
If you don't apply enough thrust you do not compress the atmosphere enough to create the stacked compressive build up.
This is why you have to get a thrust to mass ratio to ensure your rocket rides atop the gas fight or ride the compressive kick back of atmosphere at each nano second of full on thrust to mass ideal.

Quote from: Macarios
Quote from: Macarios
Two non-anchored things with mass
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.

As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
So, two springs in vacuum will not move away from each other because there is no medium?
Don't be silly. Not even mid school students would believe you that. :)
Assuming you could do it in a vacuum then yes they would move away from each other but only by the amount of energy placed into them in the first place by uncoiling, but then they would stop dead in their uncoiled position and still attached, only moving by the length of their uncoiled state.

Quote from: Macarios
Quote from: Macarios
All that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.

Let me repeat: the same atmosphere presses the rocket from both ends, not only from the tail.
(It also equally presses from all sides.)
As much as it gets compressed by the exhaust moving backward,
that much gets compressed by the rocket itself moving forward.
This is where happens the cancelation you were talking about before.
The rocket thrusts and compresses the air under it and around the area of thrust. The atmosphere compresses massively and crushed back like a big spring barrier.
Your rocket rides atop this gas fight.
The rocket stays stable because it;s pushed through the upper atmosphere and its pointed end creates that friction grip down the sides, ensuring the rocket is stable in flight.

Quote from: Macarios
The mentioned "positive effect of the air drag" may occur on airplane wings,
as the force that keeps airplane in air. Also on flaps when slowing down is desired effect.
Same principles apply only different ways of setting up.


Quote from: Macarios
But you already know that airplanes don't use rocket engines.
They use either propellers, or jet engines.
And, unlike rockets, they do lean on air.
A propeller or jet engine or rocket engine. They all perform the exact same function of burning fuel to gain lift/movement by using atmospheric pressure as their compressive ally to negotiate the very same atmosphere for movement within it.

Just like swimmers have to drag back the water behind them to create a higher pressure to push back against then, so does any other vehicle in atmosphere or water....etc.

There's no difference in terms of requirement, on ly in energy needed to aid in the function of moving mass in all directions.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2807 on: January 09, 2020, 12:01:54 AM »
Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
No....no...no....no.
The atmosphere is far from a hindrance and you should know fine well this is the real case.
That directly contradicts everything observed in reality and what you said.
If the atmosphere was not a hindrance then you would have more thrust with higher atmospheric pressure, the exact opposite of what you just said.

Stop just asserting nonsense and actually deal with what has been said.

The atmosphere enables EVERYTHING  to work and provides the equal and opposite reaction to the action.
Again, that makes no sense. You have the gas in the rocket, in a vacuum, how does it accelerate out? There is no atmosphere and thus no possibility for the action-reaction to be met with the atmosphere.

Even in the atmosphere it still doesn't work. You have the gas in the rocket, it needs a force to move it out. The atmosphere is on the wrong side.

The only thing that it can use for the reaction is the rocket.

The action-reaction is the rocket moving forwards and the gas moving back, as simple as that.

Again, stop just asserting pathetic nonsense and actually deal with what has been said.

That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this
Again, stop just repeating the same baseless garbage.
You have absolutely no basis for that at all.


There is no more force.
Then there is no more thrust.


If they were pushed against each other then the gases inside would create their own medium between the objects and push them apart by means of stacking that gas.
Right, so a rocket works by the gas inside making a medium and stacking that gas?
So rockets do work in a vacuum.

Good job refuting yourself yet again.
It also makes your earlier statement entirely meaningless.

But what about cases where there is no gas?

All they would do is push each other to the extent of their lever and stop dead.
Why?
Why would they magically stop dead? What is there to stop them?

It's all about putting your mind to work.
Again, you should really try it some time.
If you do, you will realise so much of what you have said is pure nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack

It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.

That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.
The skirt is the air trap. It stops the air from above pushing out the curtain to quickly giving the chance to pressurise and the hovercraft sits on that.
And of course yet again you completely ignore what has been said.
The hovercraft has the air below push it up. That is missing from your diagram of a rocket. How does the rocket move when it has no force acting on it?

Go and get a bicycle pump and seal off the end then stand it up like a rocket and push the plunger down.
Now leave loose.
What happens?
Exactly, the plunger springs up due to compressed air being allowed to decompress.
Notice no need for the atmosphere?
The compressed air pushes the plunger up, just like the compressed gas from the burning fuel would push the rocket up.

The pump is pointless.
Again, repeating the same BS and ignoring what has been said won't help your case.
Actually read and respond to what has been said.

There is every reason.
Then why don't you try providing them?

A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
You mean like the rocket with it's fuel and oxidiser pumps?

It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber.
It is effectively the same, with the car having fuel and air injected into the chamber.

You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it  for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.
Again, PROVE IT!
Again, that is just like saying you cannot regulate air and petrol into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it for an internal push. It would blow the engine to smithereens.

You have no basis for your claim that a rocket should explode.

Already done. Refusal to accept it is not my issue, it's your issue.
Stop lying.
You are yet to present a diagram which has an arrow of force on the rocket.
You are yet to present a diagram which has action and reaction pairs.

Until you present such a diagram, you have not done it.
Lying by saying you have done it won't magically mean you have.

I may not be able to put it out as any official story of fiction but I can certainly believe it to be fiction from my own point of view....which is all I'm doing.
No, you are asserting things as facts.
Like I have told you before, if you want it to just be saying what you believe from your own point of view, then clearly say that and stop saying rockets are fake.

Nobody is telling you to accept it as that. I'm simply counteracting your stance on your belief of official stories told to you or what you read and accepted as fact, based on zero physical knowledge.
And that is the problem, what you are spouting is based upon zero physical knowledge. What you are dismissing is based upon plenty of physical knowledge.

I think I've refuted them quite easily
Dismissing them as hogwash is not refuting them.
You are yet to even attempt to refute them.

I explained it well enough for anyone who wished to try to understand it.
You mean you have "explained" it well enough for anyone wanting to just accept the BS.
You haven't even begun to explain it as you are still yet to explain what is pushing the rocket up, nor how the gas can leave the tube without pushing the rocket.

Again, try to genuinely explain it.

You're losing the argument by doing this.
No, the argument was lost for your side before you even joined, by the same simple issue you are still avoiding.
Until you actually deal with that issue, you have lost.

The diagram I gave is fine. It shows exactly what's happening in reality.
So in reality there is no force acting on the rocket? So the rocket just sits there.
Sorry, simple observations show that to be pure BS.

Your diagram doesn't match reality at all.

Your balloon diagram is fictional. It cannot work and any rational person should see that.
If it can't work, then explain what is wrong with it. Don't just assert a bunch of garbage or dismiss it, actually explain what is wrong with it.

Now again, cut the BS and try to provide a genuine explanation.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2808 on: January 09, 2020, 12:02:03 AM »
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.

More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.

This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?



A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.

Wow, you're really starting to make stuff up. Ever hear of a supercharger?

A supercharger is an air compressor that increases the pressure or density of air supplied to an internal combustion engine. This gives each intake cycle of the engine more oxygen, letting it burn more fuel and do more work, thus increasing power.

"Max, look at the blower..."

My 2006 Cooper has a supercharger. Hasn't blown up...yet.

The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it  for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.

How so? I regulate the gas flow and air intake into my barbecue and it hasn't blown up...yet. For crying out loud.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2809 on: January 09, 2020, 12:45:36 AM »

Maybe we can try another approach.
Why do you feel arrows don't need to be pushing on the rocket - when you claim the rocket sits on the barrier.
If the barrier is pushing the rocket, does it not mean there should be a force line?

[/url]
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png[/img][/url]

]
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg[/img][/url]
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line. It's a case of mass expansion to mass compression in a chain reaction scenario.

It's like allowing a compressed spring (rocket gas to burn) to be released from above so it expands (uncoils) towards the ground. BUT..........BUT..... imagine directly under that uncoiling spring you have a uncoiled spring (atmosphere) which absorbs the expansion of the above spring (rocket gas/burn) and is then compressed itself, until that strength of uncoiling from above cannot compress it any more.
It's at this exact point where the rocket is at a stage of being able to be held, or ride atop of that spring uncoiling from it whilst balancing on that spring below.


Now all you have to understand from this point ion is the rocket thrusting continuously or to get back to the spring, the spring from above (rocket/gas/burn) continuously uncoiling at that strength and the below spring (atmosphere) compressing and holding to enable that ride on that spring.


Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gave with the direct push into a delve in the trampoline and you see how it's directly contained for only the specific time required at each thrust.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2810 on: January 09, 2020, 12:53:04 AM »
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line.
Then draw multiple pictures showing how the forces change over time to manage to push the rocket.
Or show lines which are an average.

Either way, YOU NEED AN ARROW OF FORCE ON THE ROCKET!

Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gave
Or pay attention to what I have already said about it.
Your nonsense requires that when we bounce on a trampoline, our feet go through the trampoline while our torso goes up by magic, with no force acting on it.

Again, a simple trampoline shows your nonsense to be wrong, as the gas doesn't go up with the rocket.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2811 on: January 09, 2020, 01:03:08 AM »

The only thing that it can use for the reaction is the rocket.
The rocket is merely a container for the gases to be released against the atmosphere and the rocket rides atop of that fight.

There's no push inside of the rocket. It's all done externally.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2812 on: January 09, 2020, 01:10:41 AM »
Fix your drawing


My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.

Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket.
Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.

Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.

Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:

See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.

But it neither case is there the slightest sign of the exhaust gas hitting any barrier.

Fix your drawing!
Your rockets are fictional.
Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.

I imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.
But you wouldn't dare because it might destroy you whole house of cards.

Quote from: sceptimatic
But even so...regardless of them being fictional...what you are arguing, I've just answered, above.
No, you haven't answered it!

You claim that there is a "gas fight" immediately behind the rocket; see your own diagram above.
But there is no sign of such a "gas fight" behind the real rocket; see my photos above.

Please present evidence for your claims or admit that they simply come from your imagination.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2813 on: January 09, 2020, 01:17:26 AM »
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.

More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.

This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?


::)


Quote from: Stash
A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.

Wow, you're really starting to make stuff up. Ever hear of a supercharger?

A supercharger is an air compressor that increases the pressure or density of air supplied to an internal combustion engine. This gives each intake cycle of the engine more oxygen, letting it burn more fuel and do more work, thus increasing power.

"Max, look at the blower..."

My 2006 Cooper has a supercharger. Hasn't blown up...yet.
I've bolded the pertinent part.

Just in case you're scratching your head, your super charger is compressing the atmospheric air.
Your rocket is carrying compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It does not need and cannot be super charged by compression....it already is and when released under it's own expansion, you would need to control the flow, not add to it, so a pump is about as much needed as a chocolate fireguard on a cold winters fire warming evening.

Let's hark back to the saturn V nonsense.
Show me the combustion chamber and show me the pumps, then explain to me how each chamber manages to not only fill with gas and kerosene but also be ignited and burned at the mammoth amounts we're told about.

Let's see you sort this old mess out.
By all means use as much info as you can get to try and back yourself up.
Nobody has managed it yet.....let's see you do it.





Quote from: Stash
The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it  for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.

How so? I regulate the gas flow and air intake into my barbecue and it hasn't blown up...yet. For crying out loud.
Yep you regulate it to cook.
If you want your rocket to lift off at full thrust you are regulating nothing after that. It's a burn at full thrust for the atmosphere it is in at each point.
There's no regulation and none required unless you were to shut it down or starve it, which would kill it, so it's pointless.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2814 on: January 09, 2020, 01:22:31 AM »
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line.
Then draw multiple pictures showing how the forces change over time to manage to push the rocket.
Or show lines which are an average.

Either way, YOU NEED AN ARROW OF FORCE ON THE ROCKET!

Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gave
Or pay attention to what I have already said about it.
Your nonsense requires that when we bounce on a trampoline, our feet go through the trampoline while our torso goes up by magic, with no force acting on it.

Again, a simple trampoline shows your nonsense to be wrong, as the gas doesn't go up with the rocket.
When you show me exactly how your space rocket works by simple and basic explanation of a clear and simple to see diagram, I'll be happy to go through varying stages on the rocket.
In fact I'm in the middle of putting such a thing together to explain it in as basic a way as possible, using many rocket diagrams (crude drawings in paint) to show stages both in atmosphere and what low pressure would do to a rocket.

In the meantime, you get to work showing why they work in your vacuum, because you still haven't explained anything other than one arrow going one way into the rocket and another going the other way into that rocket nozzle, so explain what's happening and why.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2815 on: January 09, 2020, 01:32:24 AM »
There's no push inside of the rocket. It's all done externally.
Again, what is pushing on the rocket? Can you explain that at all.
Stop just saying it sits on crap. Actually explain what provide the force to the rocket to push it up and where this is happening.

Again, until you do you have not even attempted to explain how rockets work.

I've bolded the pertinent part.
No, just like always you have completely ignored the pertinent part.
The part you have ignored is that it pumps air.

Your rocket is carrying compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It does not need and cannot be super charged by compression
Again, pure nonsense.
If that was the case the same would apply to the piston.
The piston is at a very low pressure when the air is injected in. It is just like a rocket. You have an absolutely massive tank of pressurised air, yet to get the most power out of the engine, the car is driving forwards at a high rate of speed to force more air in and a supercharger pumps even more in.

According to you, all that isn't needed at all and the pressure of the atmosphere alone should be enough.

But even that isn't the main point.
You claimed that pumping the fuel and air in causes a rocket to explode, yet it doesn't make a car explode, so why should it make a rocket explode?

If you want your rocket to lift off at full thrust you are regulating nothing after that.
Again, pure nonsense.

You have a massively circular argument which refutes itself.
You say if it isn't regulated it would blow up and that you shouldn't regulate it (as if you want it to blow up).

If instead you had a brain and were trying to design a rocket to fly instead of blow up, then you do regulate it.
Regulation is useful if you don't want it to blow up and if you want to be able to control it.

When you show me exactly how your space rocket works by simple and basic explanation of a clear and simple to see diagram, I'll be happy to go through varying stages on the rocket.
Stop lying. You have made plenty of promises like that before, yet every time I meet my end you just skip out on yours.
What is even more dishonest, is that that explanation has been provided to you countless times, and you have just dismissed it as nonsense each time with no rational objection to it.

Again, the most basic way is simple conservation of momentum. The gas forces the rocket forwards and the rocket forces the gas backwards.
Nice and simple action-reaction.

Another simple way is just focusing on the pressure, that high pressure gas is not balanced on the rocket and as such produces a net force.

This has already been provided to you, complete with diagrams.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2816 on: January 09, 2020, 01:34:34 AM »
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.

More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.

This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?


::)

Ummm, evidence that a rocket speeds up. Your evidence that they can't or don't...crickets. Seriously?

Quote from: Stash
A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.

Wow, you're really starting to make stuff up. Ever hear of a supercharger?

A supercharger is an air compressor that increases the pressure or density of air supplied to an internal combustion engine. This gives each intake cycle of the engine more oxygen, letting it burn more fuel and do more work, thus increasing power.

"Max, look at the blower..."

My 2006 Cooper has a supercharger. Hasn't blown up...yet.
I've bolded the pertinent part.

Just in case you're scratching your head, your super charger is compressing the atmospheric air.
Your rocket is carrying compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It does not need and cannot be super charged by compression....it already is and when released under it's own expansion, you would need to control the flow, not add to it, so a pump is about as much needed as a chocolate fireguard on a cold winters fire warming evening.

Let's hark back to the saturn V nonsense.
Show me the combustion chamber and show me the pumps, then explain to me how each chamber manages to not only fill with gas and kerosene but also be ignited and burned at the mammoth amounts we're told about.

Let's see you sort this old mess out.
By all means use as much info as you can get to try and back yourself up.
Nobody has managed it yet.....let's see you do it.

Ummm, why would I waste my time showing you diagrams, schematics, and such of the Saturn 5 rocket when you'll just instantly dismiss all as "just what we are told through books..." or some such?

Anyway, you missed the point, your piston engine analogy explanation has been debunked.

Quote from: Stash
The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it  for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.

How so? I regulate the gas flow and air intake into my barbecue and it hasn't blown up...yet. For crying out loud.
Yep you regulate it to cook.
If you want your rocket to lift off at full thrust you are regulating nothing after that. It's a burn at full thrust for the atmosphere it is in at each point.

There's no regulation and none required unless you were to shut it down or starve it, which would kill it, so it's pointless.

Give me a hit of whatever you're smoking. Of course rockets can be governed/regulated toward max acceleration or less if designed to be operated in such a way. So can my BBQ. Who told you they can't snd why?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2817 on: January 09, 2020, 01:35:40 AM »

Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.
I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?
By all means pretend they're real but don't expect me to swallow it.

Quote from: rabinoz
I imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.
Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?


Quote from: rabinoz
But you wouldn't dare because it might destroy you whole house of cards.
It's not really about daring. It's more to the point of, it wouldn't happen.
You're spouting it all off without the faintest knowledge of whether it's all real or not. You simply accept it as being real because.....well.....it's in books and videos and they tell us daily on the news channels....right?
It doesn't matter that they tell us all kinds of bull, they don't lie when it comes to space.....right?
Right?
How about admitting that.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
But even so...regardless of them being fictional...what you are arguing, I've just answered, above.
No, you haven't answered it!

You claim that there is a "gas fight" immediately behind the rocket; see your own diagram above.
But there is no sign of such a "gas fight" behind the real rocket; see my photos above.
There's plenty of signs of a gas fight.You can view it every day with everything.
All you need to do is to use a small bit of logical understanding of the simplicity of it.
You see, simplicity kills off the fantasy and people want to adhere to fantasy, so you get it all in abundance.

You're hanging onto what's given out by the fantasists.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullcrap.
That's all that's happening with this space nonsense.

Quote from: rabinoz
Please present evidence for your claims or admit that they simply come from your imagination.
When you present your evidence I'll be happy to counter it as I do.

I've seen zero evidence but I have seen plenty of duping.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2818 on: January 09, 2020, 01:39:52 AM »
I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?
And can you go watch that yourself? No!
Meanwhile, you can go watch the launch of these rockets.

You may as well be rejecting that grass is green.

It's not really about daring. It's more to the point of, it wouldn't happen.
So now you are going to the extreme of saying all these rocket launches which have been observed by countless people, are just pure fiction?

Good job going down the path of complete insanity and claiming basically everyone on Earth is in on the conspiracy.

You're spouting it all off without the faintest knowledge of whether it's all real or not.
No. Simple physics dictates rockets MUST work. And there is plenty of evidence, evidence which you cannot refute at all. This includes evidence you can obtain yourself, such as using GPS.

You see, simplicity kills off the fantasy and people want to adhere to fantasy
Yes, simplicity kills your fantasy and shows that rockets must work in a vacuum.
The problem is that you are clinging to your fantasy.

When you present your evidence I'll be happy to counter it as I do.
You clearly don't understand what countering is. It isn't just dismissing it as hogwash. It is showing a problem with it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2819 on: January 09, 2020, 01:40:07 AM »
There's no push inside of the rocket. It's all done externally.
Again, what is pushing on the rocket? Can you explain that at all.
Stop just saying it sits on crap. Actually explain what provide the force to the rocket to push it up and where this is happening.

Again, until you do you have not even attempted to explain how rockets work.

I didn't say it sits on crap.

I fully explained it all but you chose to put your blinkers on.
I asked you to pay attention and carefully understand what I was saying and you chose to ignore it and then claim I never explained it.

The only thing in your favour is, nobody is willing to back me up to say that I did explain it, so on that note you people have the edge to keep ranting on that I'm not explaining.


However, I know I have explained and that's good enough for me.
Having said that, I will further explain with the diagrams I'm on to.

In the meantime show me how your space rockets work.