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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 134122 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40541
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2910 on: January 13, 2020, 02:59:47 PM »

Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years.  It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.

This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
Who cares what causes inertia?  I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car.  Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2911 on: January 13, 2020, 10:24:22 PM »
Newtonís laws satisfied in all cases.

Yes. Itís very simple.  The rocket case is the simplest.  Why donít you get it?  Is it because you donít want get it?
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
Incorrect!
It has explained carefully numerous times that by the time the burnt propellant has left the rocket its work is done!
Once the rocket is even a little above any solid object that could deflect the exhaust stream back onto the rocket[1] what happens to the exhaust stream is totally irrelevant.

You obviously know nothing about supersonic and hypersonic motion in gases - go and learn something.

[1] Launch pads are designed so that as little as possible of the exhaust stream is deflected back onto the rocket
     because of the damage it would cause to the rocket.
     Go and learn something and stop pretending that YOU know better than all the specialists in the field - you do not!

Start at 35 seconds.

Seriously?  ;D

 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2912 on: January 13, 2020, 10:25:34 PM »


It gets the force when it throws mass out the back. 

I know this because I studied it.  Iíve derived the basic fluid flow equations (although that was a while ago, not sure I could do it now).  Iíve used the equations to design, build and test gas systems and vacuum systems.  Just like millions of other physicists and engineers have done to create the technology that you use to deny basic science.

You havenít studied this.  You havenít tested your ideas.  You havenít even bothered to learn how the rest of the world understands it, which should be the absolute first step before claiming they are wrong.

You just dream it up and spout your fantasy version on the internet.  Thatís fine.  Believe what you want.

The part I have a problem is you telling everyone else they donít understand, or are indoctrinated or whatever.  They do understand.  They are right, you are wrong.
The dreamers are you people adhering to the fantasy set out for you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2913 on: January 13, 2020, 10:28:01 PM »

Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years.  It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.

This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
Who cares what causes inertia?  I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car.  Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.
Newton's so called laws do not amply describe anything to mean something.
It describes something that means nothing when looked at logically and simply.

It relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.

*

Stash

  • 6339
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2914 on: January 13, 2020, 11:05:00 PM »
It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.

What scenarios do you speak of?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2915 on: January 13, 2020, 11:23:50 PM »
fix your drawing
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.

because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon

*

rvlvr

  • 2004
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2916 on: January 13, 2020, 11:29:28 PM »
The drawing is the Rosetta Stone, here.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2917 on: January 13, 2020, 11:36:02 PM »
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
Incorrect!
It has explained carefully numerous times that by the time the burnt propellant has left the rocket its work is done!
Once the rocket is even a little above any solid object that could deflect the exhaust stream back onto the rocket[1] what happens to the exhaust stream is totally irrelevant.

You obviously know nothing about supersonic and hypersonic motion in gases - go and learn something.

Launch pads are designed so that as little as possible of the exhaust stream is deflected back onto the rocket
     because of the damage it would cause to the rocket.
     Go and learn something and stop pretending that YOU know better than all the specialists in the field - you do not!

Start at 35 seconds.

Seriously?  ;D
Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:
Quote from: Michel Mephit

LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011

The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench.  This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch.  The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.

And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected too:

STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01





*

Stash

  • 6339
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2918 on: January 13, 2020, 11:38:19 PM »
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2919 on: January 14, 2020, 01:45:45 AM »
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
Again, HOW?
How does somethign external to the rocket magically accelerate the gas inside the rocket? How does that then magically accelerate the rocket, with no connection to the rocket?

Trying to have it all happen externally to cling to fantasy of requiring an atmosphere, all so you can dismiss the reality of rockets working in space and having plenty of pictures of the clearly round Earth, all so you can cling to your FE fantasy is not simple at all.

It requires so much convoluted nonsense and self-contradictions it isn't funny.

What is simple is reality. You have the gas inside the rocket. This is accelerated to a very high speed. This requires a force and a reactionary force which can only apply to the rocket, which means the rocket will accelerate, even without the atmosphere.
i.e. rockets work in space
This is very simple.

If you wish to disagree, then stop with the pathetic BS and actually start explaining.
Address the issues that have been plaguing your side since before you joined this thread.
Tell us what is accelerating the gas?
What force is acting on it? Where is it coming from? What is the gas pushing against in order to accelerate to leave the rocket at such a high velocity?

And then tell us what force is acting on the rocket to accelerate it? Were is it coming from? What is it actually pushing against?

Again, the only sane option is that the gas is pushing on the rocket and the rocket is pushing on the gas.
This is because the only available thing for the gas to push on IS THE ROCKET!
Everything else is in the wrong direction.
Likewise the only thing that is touching the rocket from the right direction is the gas.

There is no other option.

That is why you have repeatedly failed or outright avoided even attempting to provide an explanation; because the only possibly explanations require the gas to push against the rocket, meaning rockets work in a vacuum.

Now like I said, stop with all the BS and address this very simple issue.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2920 on: January 14, 2020, 02:48:38 AM »
The drawing is the Rosetta Stone, here.
I think future historians will view it as of greater importance.

And common guys, nearly there.  One last push into the 100!
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2921 on: January 14, 2020, 04:27:08 AM »
It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.

What scenarios do you speak of?
The if scenario.

Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2922 on: January 14, 2020, 04:28:31 AM »
fix your drawing
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.

because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
There is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2923 on: January 14, 2020, 04:31:06 AM »

Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:
Quote from: Michel Mephit

LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011

The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench.  This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch.  The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.

And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected too:

STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01

That's no example, either.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2924 on: January 14, 2020, 04:32:08 AM »
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.
As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2925 on: January 14, 2020, 04:59:24 AM »

How does somethign external to the rocket magically accelerate the gas inside the rocket?
It allows the gas to expand into the much less resistant external atmosphere until that expanding rocket gas compresses that weaker atmosphere to now react in equal terms to that expansion.
From this point on the expanded gas moves the rocket because the compressive force back from atmosphere creates a consistent barrier against that thrust/expansion/burn.




Quote from: JackBlack

 How does that then magically accelerate the rocket, with no connection to the rocket?
By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
Quote from: JackBlack

Trying to have it all happen externally to cling to fantasy of requiring an atmosphere, all so you can dismiss the reality of rockets working in space and having plenty of pictures of the clearly round Earth, all so you can cling to your FE fantasy is not simple at all.
No.
I'm giving you a reality in order for you to have a word with yourself and see the fantasy you adhere to.
What you actually do is up to you.

Quote from: JackBlack

It requires so much convoluted nonsense and self-contradictions it isn't funny.
There's no self contradictions, at all.
You merely saying it means nothing.

Quote from: JackBlack

What is simple is reality. You have the gas inside the rocket. This is accelerated to a very high speed.

Yep. But the question is, how?
What accelerates it?
How does it accelerate.
Give me a simple analogy of what's happening at this point.

Quote from: JackBlack

 This requires a force and a reactionary force which can only apply to the rocket, which means the rocket will accelerate, even without the atmosphere.
i.e. rockets work in space
This is very simple.


So give me the force and reactionary force inside the rocket.
Just explain how this can work.


I'll make this simple for you.
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.

Tell me what happens to the gas and give an analogy to what is happening as you lose the gas to your space in order to move your rocket forward as the gas goes the opposite way.

Let's see what you've got because nobody has ever explained what happens, except to simply mention action and reaction, which means nothing unless you show what it is.


Over to you.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2926 on: January 14, 2020, 05:59:22 AM »
fix your drawing
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.

because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
There is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.

We can grasp a chain reaction.
One thing, pushing on another, which pushes one another, which pushes on another.
You, are dodging once again by crying nonexistent foul.

https://images.app.goo.gl/6NmxHA4FqSJCHnbt6

Draw the damn lines.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2927 on: January 14, 2020, 06:00:41 AM »
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.
As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.

No one can.
You refuse to speak english.
Try drawing it.
A picture is worth a1,000 words.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2928 on: January 14, 2020, 06:08:42 AM »

How does somethign external to the rocket magically accelerate the gas inside the rocket?
It allows the gas to expand into the much less resistant external atmosphere until that expanding rocket gas compresses that weaker atmosphere to now react in equal terms to that expansion.
From this point on the expanded gas moves the rocket because the compressive force back from atmosphere creates a consistent barrier against that thrust/expansion/burn.




Quote from: JackBlack

 How does that then magically accelerate the rocket, with no connection to the rocket?
By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
Quote from: JackBlack

Trying to have it all happen externally to cling to fantasy of requiring an atmosphere, all so you can dismiss the reality of rockets working in space and having plenty of pictures of the clearly round Earth, all so you can cling to your FE fantasy is not simple at all.
No.
I'm giving you a reality in order for you to have a word with yourself and see the fantasy you adhere to.
What you actually do is up to you.

Quote from: JackBlack

It requires so much convoluted nonsense and self-contradictions it isn't funny.
There's no self contradictions, at all.
You merely saying it means nothing.

Quote from: JackBlack

What is simple is reality. You have the gas inside the rocket. This is accelerated to a very high speed.

Yep. But the question is, how?
What accelerates it?
How does it accelerate.
Give me a simple analogy of what's happening at this point.

Quote from: JackBlack

This requires a force and a reactionary force which can only apply to the rocket, which means the rocket will accelerate, even without the atmosphere.
i.e. rockets work in space
This is very simple.


So give me the force and reactionary force inside the rocket.
Just explain how this can work.


I'll make this simple for you.
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.

Tell me what happens to the gas and give an analogy to what is happening as you lose the gas to your space in order to move your rocket forward as the gas goes the opposite way.

Let's see what you've got because nobody has ever explained what happens, except to simply mention action and reaction, which means nothing unless you show what it is.


Over to you.

Applies TO the rocket/ balooon.
draw it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40541
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2929 on: January 14, 2020, 07:40:28 AM »

Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years.  It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.

This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
Who cares what causes inertia?  I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car.  Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.
Newton's so called laws do not amply describe anything to mean something.
It describes something that means nothing when looked at logically and simply.

It relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40541
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2930 on: January 14, 2020, 07:44:09 AM »
It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.

What scenarios do you speak of?
The if scenario.

Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2931 on: January 14, 2020, 08:03:31 AM »
fix your drawing
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.

because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
There is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.

We can grasp a chain reaction.
One thing, pushing on another, which pushes one another, which pushes on another.
You, are dodging once again by crying nonexistent foul.

https://images.app.goo.gl/6NmxHA4FqSJCHnbt6

Draw the damn lines.
You draw where your action and reaction is occuring to get your rocket moving.
Tell me what's happening.

Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2932 on: January 14, 2020, 08:04:22 AM »
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.
As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.

No one can.
You refuse to speak english.
Try drawing it.
A picture is worth a1,000 words.
You people refuse to follow what's being said. You create your own issue....or maybe you deliberately do it. Who knows?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24772
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2933 on: January 14, 2020, 08:05:27 AM »

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2934 on: January 14, 2020, 10:08:05 AM »
fix your drawing
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.

because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
There is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.

We can grasp a chain reaction.
One thing, pushing on another, which pushes one another, which pushes on another.
You, are dodging once again by crying nonexistent foul.

https://images.app.goo.gl/6NmxHA4FqSJCHnbt6

Draw the damn lines.
You draw where your action and reaction is occuring to get your rocket moving.
Tell me what's happening.

Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.

Quit dodging.
You were given the drawing.
You dusmissed it.
We asked you to correct it.
Your correction was insufficient to show a force arrow acting on the vballoon casuing it to move.
What part of this request is not being understiod?

Your response was the balllooon sits on the green bar gasgasfight.
If it sits, then the bar should push on the ballloon.
Draw it.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2935 on: January 14, 2020, 10:08:59 AM »
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.
As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.

No one can.
You refuse to speak english.
Try drawing it.
A picture is worth a1,000 words.
You people refuse to follow what's being said. You create your own issue....or maybe you deliberately do it. Who knows?

Prove us all wrong then.
Draw the damn picture.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2936 on: January 14, 2020, 01:56:51 PM »
Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.
That has been done, and then you fled, because you know you cannot rationally refute these laws of motion.

But why bother, regardless of if you accept them or reject them, you end up with rockets working in space.
You have accepted the key point regardless. In order for an object to accelerate it needs something to use as leverage, i.e. something to push off, which it pushes.

That is effectively the key law of motion explaining how rockets work.
That is what you have been repeatedly avoiding because it destroys your fantasy of rockets not working in space.

There is but it's overlooked
No, there isn't, as there is clearly no arrow on the rocket at all.

You just need to repeatedly lie and say there is because if you admit the truth, that will mean admitting you have no explanation for how rockets work, other than the mainstream one of the gas pushing on the rocket.

If you wish to disagree, clearly highlight a single arrow which you claim is acting on the rocket to provide a force to move it forwards.

If you can't do that then it is quite clear that you are lying.

It allows the gas to expand
Allowing something to happen is not providing a force.
Try again.
You need to tell us what magical object external to the rocket is somehow accelerating the gas TOWARDS it.

We have been over this repeatedly, with you repeatedly failing to address the actual issue and instead doing whatever you can to avoid it.

By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
No, as pointed out plenty of times, THIS EXPLAINS NOTHING!
Tell us what is actually providing the force on the rocket.
Is it the atmosphere pushing it up? Or is it the gas leaving the rocket which is?
Where is this force being applied? To the nose cone of the rocket? Inside the bell of the rocket nozzle? Along the side of the rocket? Where?

I'm giving you a reality
Your complete inability to provide an explanation which actually addresses the issues shows you are clearly not giving us reality.
You are the one adhering to fantasy here.

Like I said, if you wish to refute that, you need to provide an actual explanation for the issues raised, rather than repeatedly avoiding them or just lying and saying you have.

There's no self contradictions, at all.
You merely saying it means nothing.
Good thing I'm not just merely saying it and instead have provided examples of these contradictions repeatedly.

For example, in this thread, you can't even make up your mind if something needs to push against something else to move or not, or if something can push against itself to move. Nor can you decide if an atmosphere is required for motion.
You repeatedly switch back and forth. You claim that an atmosphere is needed for motion and that you need to have something external to push against to try and dismiss the reality of rockets working in space, yet go and directly contradict that by claiming the gas can magically accelerate out of the rocket by pushing on nothing or just by pushing on itself.

As pointed out plenty of times with my example, in order to be consistent (i.e. not contradict yourself), either the rocket works in space because both the gas and the rocket can accelerate in opposite directions (for one of several reasons depending upon which choice you make), or neither can move and the gas will remain magically trapped inside an open container exposed to the vacuum.

If you have one being able to move but not the other then you have a direct contradiction.

And that is ignoring all the other contradictions raised by your nonsense which are irrelevant to this thread.

You merely lying and saying there are no contradictions means nothing except you have no integrity and no interest for the truth.

Again, if you wish to disagree and instead claim there are no contradictions then you have to very clearly and specifically address this issue, telling us what the gas is pushing against which allows it to move which doesn't work equally well for the rocket.
You are yet to even attempt that, likely because you know you can't.
Until you do, all you have is a pile of self-contradictory garbage.


I'll make this simple for you.
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.
There is no perfect analogy, and why bother with pathetic analogies when there are much better explanations?

I have already given a very clear explanation which you were unable to find a single fault with.
If you don't like it, go back and deal with it.

Over to you.
How about over to you?
You have repeatedly had it explained to you.
You then just completely ignore these explanations or just dismiss them out of hand.

All you are doing is trying to get out of explaining it yourself. This is because you know you cannot explain it without having rockets work in space.
Now quit with the pathetic BS.
Quit with the pathetic distractions.

Either provide an explanation to these issues that have been plaguing your side since before you joined this thread or admit that rockets do work in space, or just leave.

Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.
Cut the BS.
You have been provided plenty of diagrams. Your idea of "amending" it, is to completely strip out all the forces acting on the rocket and make it completely unbalanced with no reactionary forces.

You already have plenty of diagrams to work with.
Why not try to correctly amend one of them.
Make sure you have a force on the rocket if you are trying to show how the rocket works in the atmosphere.
Regardless, make sure you have action-reaction pairs. This means you can't just have an arrow sitting by itself pushing in one direction with no reactionary force.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2937 on: January 14, 2020, 02:42:06 PM »

Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:
Quote from: Michel Mephit

LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011

The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench.  This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch.  The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.

And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected too:

STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01

That's no example, either.
Open you eyes! The exhaust stream is deflected to either side to minimise the blast reflected back on the rocket.

But what does it matter? Once the rocket has lifted to a few hundred metres nothing from the ground can affect it.

This is especially true when you realise that the exhaust velocity of those rockets around 2500 m/s and far above the velocity of sound.
And the velocity of sound is the velocity that any disturbance to the exhaust stream would propagate back to the rocket.
So, your claims are totally impossible with rockets like that!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2938 on: January 14, 2020, 02:44:22 PM »
You people refuse to follow what's being said.
No, we don't!

We simply refuse to believe your ideas that are based on nothing more than your imagination.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40541
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2939 on: January 15, 2020, 06:47:13 AM »

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.
An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.  What part of that is so hard to understand?  If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes.  That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.