*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2020, 05:53:03 PM »
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.

How can the displaced air affect either the exhaust gases, or the craft from which they are being expelled? Once the air that was adjacent to the nozzle has been pushed (say) 500m away, it's merely being carried along as a passenger by a combination of rocket exhaust and ancillary air currents generated by the exhaust displacing first that air, then further rocket exhaust displacing the first emissions.

It seems to me that;

Displacement = gasses from the rocket    (into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane or into vacuum).
Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

works in both atmosphere and vacuum.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2020, 12:47:04 PM »
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.

How can the displaced air affect either the exhaust gases, or the craft from which they are being expelled?

It affects the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.
Once the air that was adjacent to the nozzle has been pushed (say) 500m away, it's merely being carried along as a passenger by a combination of rocket exhaust and ancillary air currents generated by the exhaust displacing first that air, then further rocket exhaust displacing the first emissions.
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.
It seems to me that;

Displacement = gasses from the rocket    (into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane or into vacuum).
Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

works in both atmosphere and vacuum.
2 possible reasons for this are:

A)  you do not understand the science of free expansion, stating that a vacuum holds nothing that can be displaced; or,
B)  you do not understand a rocket is essentially a container of fuel, that once it is launched, is dispensing its fuel contents in the form of a gas, until it runs out of its contents.

Free expansion states gas dispensed into a vacuum ZERO work.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 01:25:55 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2020, 01:26:21 PM »
It isn't "freely expanding." There's a rocket on one side.

The gas doesn’t do work on the vacuum, but it still does work on the rocket. The exhaust gas has mass and is being thrown out with some speed, therefore it has momentum. Since momentum must be conserved, the rocket must accelerate in the opposite direction.

EDIT: Another video of a rocket working in a vacuum

« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 01:32:43 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2020, 01:48:32 PM »
It isn't "freely expanding." There's a rocket on one side.

The gas doesn’t do work on the vacuum, but it still does work on the rocket.
No, it doesn't.
The exhaust gas has mass
Yes.
... and is being thrown out with some speed...
Once it reaches a vacuum, it is merely in free expansion.
...therefore it has momentum. Since momentum must be conserved, the rocket must accelerate in the opposite direction.
Once gas is released into a vacuum, it freely expands.

EDIT: Another video of a rocket working in a vacuum


AATW : "Allow me to post a video of a rocket working in an environment other than a vacuum as evidence that rockets work in a vacuum."

Work done by Free expansion of a gas in a vacuum = 0
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 04:28:12 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2020, 02:20:37 PM »
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.

Where is the displaced air, if not way, way behind the rocket, having been displaced by the exhaust?



I see air being pushed far away from the rocket. I see air being dragged down from above the engine by this, but that air cannot be provided resistance to the exhaust, since it's coming in from ABOVE the exhaust.

What do you actually see here? Do you see a wall of air, providing something for the rocket to push against?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2020, 04:28:58 PM »
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.

Where is the displaced air, if not way, way behind the rocket, having been displaced by the exhaust?



I see air being pushed far away from the rocket. I see air being dragged down from above the engine by this, but that air cannot be provided resistance to the exhaust, since it's coming in from ABOVE the exhaust.

What do you actually see here? Do you see a wall of air, providing something for the rocket to push against?
I see a rocket operating normally in a pressurized environment.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2020, 05:30:36 PM »
I see a rocket operating normally in a pressurized environment.

Do you see air being driven away from the engine, and failing to provide resistance to the rocket exhaust?

Do you see the airflow being dragged from above the engine, and down the side?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2020, 06:22:52 PM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.




*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2020, 07:22:56 PM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum

Maybe none.

Why would one need to?

Once you know that they work at low, medium and high altitudes, with the corresponding high, medium and low air pressures, the next stage surely is to send one above that high altitude. If the engine works, the craft goes higher, if not, it falls.

Observation tells you what results. In all that I've read on the subject, I've never encountered mention of someone doing this prior to the advent of space flight in the 1950s.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2020, 07:28:00 PM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.

The fact that there are over 21,000 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbit proves all we need to know.  The fact many are visible with the naked eye is just icing on the cake.

Question...  When Space X puts thousands more visible objects into orbit what will your reaction be when you can't look at the night sky and not see them?

« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 07:32:49 PM by TomInAustin »
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #70 on: February 11, 2020, 10:12:34 PM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.
Can you find an article by a credible scientist which claims that Joule's free expansion result means that a rocket won't work in a vacuum.
You and lackey are claiming this but you'll find the whole of rocket science disagrees.
The gas propelled out of the rocket has momentum. It has mass, the mass is in motion, that's what momentum is.
Another law of physics is conservation of momentum.
As momentum in one direction is given to the rocket's exhaust gases, momentum in the other direction is given to the rocket.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #71 on: February 11, 2020, 10:15:31 PM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

AFIK, nobody did a "repeatable controlled scientific experiment" that Concorde would fly at supersonic speed without falling apart. They made models, ran simulations, then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it

Likewise with the first jet to go to Mach 1 - Yeager, was it? Again, model it, run the theory, but the only way to test a full-size aircraft at Mach 1 was for a test pilot to get in and give it a go.

All manner of other "discoveries" went the same way.

If I find anything that suggests that "repeatable controlled scientific experiments" were done on rockets in vacuum before heading to space, I'll be the first to let you know.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #72 on: February 11, 2020, 10:20:31 PM »
Frankly, if the engine could talk, and you asked it "Does it make a difference to you whether there's air under you or not?", I think the engine would reply "I don't give a flying f*** what's back there."

That exhaust is coming out at the back, and if the rocket and engine aren't fastened down, the rocket it's attached to is going in the opposite direction, pronto, regardless of whether there's anything under the engine or not.

I think that's clear from the engine test footage, and the massive amounts of air that are almost casually pushed far, far away, thus failing to provide any resistance to the rocket exhaust.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2020, 04:14:47 AM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

AFIK, nobody did a "repeatable controlled scientific experiment" that Concorde would fly at supersonic speed without falling apart. They made models, ran simulations, then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it

Likewise with the first jet to go to Mach 1 - Yeager, was it? Again, model it, run the theory, but the only way to test a full-size aircraft at Mach 1 was for a test pilot to get in and give it a go.

"Get in and give it a go".... That's not how supersonic aircraft are designed and tested at all.

Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels, which have existed since before jet engines. The first ones were propeller driven.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2020, 06:49:33 AM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

If I find anything that suggests that "repeatable controlled scientific experiments" were done on rockets in vacuum before heading to space, I'll be the first to let you know.

I'm sure there's a bunch of data on rocket/vacuum testing that could be dug up from this facility:


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2020, 08:50:28 AM »
Tumeni  said "They made models, ran simulations[/b], then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it"

"Get in and give it a go".... That's not how supersonic aircraft are designed and tested at all.

Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels, which have existed since before jet engines. The first ones were propeller driven.

You're actually agreeing with me, Tom. Read what I wrote.

There is no way to scientifically test the actual aircraft at Mach 1 other than building the aircraft and going to Mach 1.  You're actually agreeing with this when you say "Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels". Read what I wrote in the quote.

But at the end of the day, the only way to see how the hardware behaves in flight is to build it and let a test pilot loose on it. You cannot fly it for real in a laboratory. This is true of so many craft and vehicles. It's why ships have sea trials, why car manufacturers have test tracks, etc.

Want to send a rocket up beyond the Karman line? The only sure way to see the full-size craft operating in space is to launch it into space and fire up the engine whilst there. 

Edited to correct quote mishap
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 10:37:43 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2020, 10:29:05 AM »
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.
Can you find an article by a credible scientist which claims that Joule's free expansion result means that a rocket won't work in a vacuum.
You and lackey are claiming this but you'll find the whole of rocket science disagrees.
The gas propelled out of the rocket has momentum. It has mass, the mass is in motion, that's what momentum is.
Another law of physics is conservation of momentum.
As momentum in one direction is given to the rocket's exhaust gases, momentum in the other direction is given to the rocket.

James Joule not credible for you ? hohoho. This law derived from a scientific experiment .

You are unable to find the repeatable controlled experiment that shows that rockets can work in a vacuum . No surprise since there is none . The laws of physics show that .
How is momentum in one direction given to the rockets's exhaust gas ? By magic I suppose . What about Newton's 1st ? You really need to read up on those laws.

If rocket's work in what we are told is a vacuum then Joules law of expansion wouldn't be a law of physics . The fact there is no experiment to show a rocket works in a vacuum shows all you need to know.

A far more creditable debate would be to say that there isn't a vacuum up there hence rockets would work . Or nasa lies . Or maybe those thousands of satellites are much closer to earth. Or gravity is schmavity .Or all of those .





*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2020, 10:42:10 AM »
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't.

The SGF in the UK spent five years laser-ranging the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to determine where it was in relation to Moon and Earth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103516303657?via%3Dihub

Were they mistaken?
Were they "in on the hoax"

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2020, 11:41:04 AM »
Amateur observes exit burn which takes SpaceX's Falcon Heavy test payload out of Earth orbit.



"Could have been .... " is the likely protest from disbelievers.

It happened at exactly the time that SpaceX had predicted in advance, in exactly the right part of the sky and of the world according to the flight plan - what else could it be?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2020, 01:13:55 PM »
James Joule not credible for you ? hohoho. This law derived from a scientific experiment .

James Joule is perfectly credible and I am not disputing the result.
What I dispute is the link you are making between that result and rockets not working in a vacuum. You are claiming this result demonstrates that rockets won’t work in a vacuum, can you provide a credible source which agrees with you.

Quote
You are unable to find the repeatable controlled experiment that shows that rockets can work in a vacuum

I have posted videos of two which show this.

Quote
How is momentum in one direction given to the rockets's exhaust gas ? By magic I suppose.

No, by the combustion which propels it out of the rocket.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"