61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 07:08:06 PM »

Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.

No, it wasn't the only expedition, that's my exact point.
It's cherry picking exactly because of that. Someone in the middle of the 19th century found he couldn't get past the outer ice wall of Antarctica.
This is held up as evidence that the Ice Wall encircles the earth and cannot be penetrated.
Why is all the evidence from subsequent expeditions considered?

Similarly, and back to the topic at hand, an account from a book in the middle of the 19th century is used to make a point.
Why are all the subsequent developments in laying these cables being ignored?

If your belief is against the mainstream view and you have to resort to cherry picked quotes from books written in the middle of the 19th century and have to ignore everything that has happened since then I'd suggest you're on shaky ground.

Can you show us the cable route topography which needs the 818mls distance to require a 949mls cable?
If you think it fits exactly to globe theory it would fitting to provide evidence for that .

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 03:41:57 PM »

Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 12:49:38 PM »

Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .

Actually, they are in this case. Expeditions take place all the time. Why cherry pick from one which says that they found an impenetrable barrier beyond which they couldn't proceed and ignore the subsequent 150 years of exploration when others found a way to proceed and explore further?
I can find you quotes from 100 years ago from doctors claiming that running a 4 minute mile is humanly impossible. Can I use that as evidence that Roger Bannister is full of shit? That's the logical equivalent of what you're doing.

Doctors claiming is theoretical - Bannister experimented and proved that that theory is full of shit (you can claim that) and doesn't compare to reality.
       Those numerous expeditions which couldn't penetrate the ice barrier were reporting the fact of the matter. Perhaps you should research the early expeditions . All points in history are random taking it to the extreme but some are relevant to the debate.
      You are also theorising  that undersea topography accounts for the discrepancy between expected 818 mls actual and 949mls .

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 10:36:26 AM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.

You do this sort of thing a lot Tom and it's really quite disingenuous.
You're taking a book from 1855 when they didn't have anywhere as good maps or ways to navigate or GPS, noting that at that time their measurements were off and going "Aha! See?" as if that's a smoking gun of anything.
It's like the bit on the page about the ice wall page where you quote James Ross whose explorations were in the middle of the 19th century, you ignore the century and a half of exploration which has been done since to the point where there's literally a base at the South Pole now which you can visit (not cheap, mind, but the fabled Antarctic Treaty isn't stopping you, these trips was publicly advertised.)

Time doesn't stop at some point where you can find evidence which backs up your claim. Cherry picking from random points in history and ignoring everything which has happened since does you know favours.

Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 10, 2020, 04:21:57 PM »

1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases.

Well, you source isn't very up to date either ("Jim Clark 2002 (last modified May 2017)") and no longer seriously maintained ("As of July 2016, I am unlikely to add anything new to Chemguide, ...").
But "physical chemistry" probably hasn't changed much since Jim Clark retired.

Nicely explained herehttps://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html

Nicely explained, but not stating what you claim it does.
Where does it say on that page, that the chemical reaction rate decrease to zero in a vacuum? It could also just be slower. 

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .

No, it is not. As the nozzle restricts the flow of the gas, there will be pressure inside the combustion chamber (the chamber is filled faster than gas can escape to the vacuum), i.e. where the chemical reaction takes place.
Even if that where not the case, increased pressure mostly increases the amount of reactant per volume.
It is not required for the reaction, it simply supports it.
And finally, that would not apply to solid fuel rockets.

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .

Indeed you already have, and I have already pointed out, that Cody actually succedes:

If ( and that's a big one)you could start the control burn of fuel ( chemical reaction) in a vacuum you could produce heat .

It's not a big one. Cody has done it in the video you linked to, explicitly saying so himself at 11:20.

At 11:20 he states: "so there you have it. It is very difficult, but possible to burn something in a vacuum" @https://youtu.be/8Cx9mNnky2U?t=680
As you quote Cody as reference, I would hope you accept his findings: It possible to burn something in a vacuum.

2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket .

A force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle.
Also, like totallackey, you would have to explain, where the force, that is present in an atmosphere, disappears to - when everything else si identical in a vacuum.
Apart from the fact, that "free expansion => no work" does not apply, even if did apply, where does the energy created by the exothermic chemical reaction go?

iC

Do yourself a favour and watch the video. Start from 11.20 where you musta left off watching . Listen to him talk about the fire triangle needing to be a fire square because of the need for pressure.

By the way ,his follow up video concentrates on trying to prove that a rocket engine with it's own oxidizer will work in a vacuum . Watch the laws of physics in action . It's already linked in this thread .

The rules of physics predict rocket engines trying to produce force in a vacuum will fail - shown amply in all these videos.

" a force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle" - what a statement .

Go to the updated site if you think the chemistry page is out of date -do some research . Learn stuff.

66

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 09, 2020, 06:48:09 PM »

Hi Somerled. Just saw your reply (the posts after came fast) and so wanted to respond.

Isn’t the fuel in the rockets under pressure though? That’s my understanding. But it sounds like you disagree that deflagration could happen in a vacuum?

So when you say the principle of Momentum cannot produce a force, do you mean in general or just in a rocket-vacuum situation?

Because I see two topics here for discussion:

1) deflagration cannot proceed in a vacuum.

2) momentum cannot produce forces.

Both are required to happen for a rocket to work, and so maybe it would be useful to address these separately?

That is, of course, if I understand you right. Do let me know!
[/quote]

Hello BRollin,
1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases. Nicely explained here

 https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .



It's not a long video - 15mins - but it shows the principle . Listen carefully to what he says.
 
2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket . 
 

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aristotle's most famous proof for the rotundity of the Earth

« on: May 09, 2020, 03:32:36 PM »

Doubt whether Aristotle stated anything that is attributed him. Only fragments of his work survive - parts of about 30 manuscripts. Most of what we are told we know of his works comes from medieval manuscript transmission - Corpus Aristotelicum - and from Bekkers interpretations of these interpretations.

 A bit like the Eratosthenes crap , none of whose work survived, whose main source is a book published by a Greek astronomer who we know nothing about but may have lived anytime from 200bc to 2 or300ad if I remember correctly. .

Funny how all the globey bits of lost manuscripts survive.

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 08, 2020, 05:28:23 PM »

Nasa can no longer put man above low earth orbit apparently. I suppose that is classed as an advance in a reverse direction .

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 08, 2020, 03:52:31 PM »

Let's repost the claptrap source and see what it defines as being isentropic at the nozzle:

""Isentropic flows occur when the change in flow variables is small and gradual, such as the ideal flow through the nozzle shown above. The generation of sound waves is an isentropic process. A supersonic flow that is turned while the flow area increases is also isentropic. We call this an isentropic expansion because of the area increase."

The paragraph you quote is not a "definition of what is isentropic at the nozzle"; it is only elaborating on what (some) isentropic flows are.
If you follow the embedded link in "the generation of sound waves is an isentropic process.", it explains the isentropic nature of sound waves in more detail.

Yeah, which is what is isentropic at the nozzle.

Period.

Now, knowing that gas released to the confines of a vacuum does 0 work, and knowing the entirety of the nozzle (both the outside of the bell and the inside of the bell) are exposed to vacuum, neither of the conditions for "isentropic process, " are met.

The gas is not released, it is expelled. => "does 0 work" does not apply.

All gas, when released from its container, is expelled.

Take a CO₂cartridge and pop a hole in it.

When you do that, the gas is expelled under great force.

The gas goes one way, the cartridge goes the other...INSTANTLY!!!

Now do the same thing when the CO₂cartridge is in a vacuum...nothing, nada, zilch, bupkus...

You are wrong, as usual...

Gas released or expelled to a vacuum does 0 work.

Once the rocket is operating, the inside of the "bell" will be filled with gas. => no vacuum.

Wrong...the bell has an opening and when, as claimed by mystical outer space rocket engineers, it is in outer space...that opening is in a vacuum...and gas, when coming from one container through an opening to the presence of a vacuum, freely disperses...and does 0 work...

Even after leaving the bell there will not (immediately) be exposed to vacuum as the dispersing exhaust is still there.

You're really trying, but sorry...you got this all wrong...

The video evidence is clear and the science is clear.

You're wrong.

Give it up.

Imagine a container with a barrier cutting it in half. In one half is a gas, and the other is a vacuum. If we suddenly remove the barrier, the. The gas expands into the vacuum, and zero work is involved.

I think this is the idea that you are talking about. And I absolutely agree with you.

The difference between this thought experiment and a rocket is that the gas is propelled from the rocket with a velocity. Since the rocket fuel is burned (a deflagration) which converts stored chemical potential energy into kinetic energy.

Since the rocket + fuel starts off with no initial momentum, as the fuel leaves in one direction with a velocity, there must be a corresponding momentum of the rocket in the other direction to cancel it.

Once the fuel leaves, it freely expands into the vacuum and does no work.

So in my opinion, you are both correct - you’re just looking at different parts of the process.

This "thought experiment" was carried out ,in reality , by James Joule . It's how science knows that a rocket engine won't produce thrust in a vacuum. It's a physical law , Joules law , amply demonstrated in all videos attempting to show rocket engines working in a vacuum.

In these videos the rocket fuel will not sustain a chemical reaction in a vacuum - even with it's own oxidizer . Pressure is required for combustion which is why we see these  rocket engines being sealed under pressure of air -turned into bombs - in order for the fuel burn to occur , or explode.

The principle of conservation of momentum will never produce a force and will never accelerate a rocket in a vacuum .

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 06, 2020, 03:25:31 PM »

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .


Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is actually such a law and it's one of the three fundamental laws of conservation in physics. Momentum, energy, and angular momentum. I'll give you a link explaining it for you to look at if you are unfamiliar with it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

You link is piece about "Conservation of Momentum" , which is dealt with in Newton's 1st .

This theory (theories are not laws)

 https://www.brighthubengineering.com/thermodynamics/111344-understanding-the-conservation-of-momentum-principle/
 
is required by Nasa to enable its pretence that rockets can change velocity without application of a force .

It's silly wocket equation misses out altogether the need for a force to be applied , in direct contravention of the known laws of physics , by deriving a nonsense equation . Must be nonsense since you can't have any change in momentum until a force is applied.
 
Momentum is dealt with in fkn Newton's 1st law .

An object shall remain at rest or in constant motion blah blah blah etc ,

Newton's 2nd - until a force is applied.

Your question is a different scenario , but nothing will happen until a force is applied , will it?
- I'll have to apply a force.
I wont be able to throw the fkn ball by quoting a theoretical equation at it

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 06, 2020, 12:44:51 PM »

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

Oh I see. You think that momentum conservations requires an additional interaction. Where is that interaction then in the equations? It’s not there bro.

Do you want to modify the equations to describe what you are proposing? Be my guest.

Go on, propose your own equation for momentum conservations that requires a “plume containment.”

Or show us Joule’s equation for plume containment.

Actually, let’s make this easier for you: find any scientific article that has the words “plume containment.”

You just made that term up. You pulled it out of your fart plume sphincter.

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .


 

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 21, 2020, 02:41:33 PM »

On your take of things and relating to your sophistry

 https://sites.google.com/a/jeffcoschools.us/physics-digital-portfolio--cara-jacobs/home/journal/cara-physicsexplorewhatistherelationshipbetweenforceworkanddisplacement

Read the fourth sentence , it states unequivocally that work and force are directly proportional to each other . Now that means in plain language that when one of those is zero then so is the other. What proportion of force could be different if work = 0 and vice versa. You cant have half of zero or three times zero.

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 21, 2020, 01:49:44 PM »

Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions

• I do not need to provide an experiment to prove the scientific formula, you yourself have provided as proof. W = F x d. Enter an arbitrary value (other than 0) for F when d=0 => W=0, F<>0, formula is correct
• In contrast, it is up to you to prove, why 0=F x 0 (W=0, d=0) would be wrong for f<>0. That is at least (as pointed out before) a gap in your reasoning.
• Holding the mug stationary is still a valid experiment. d=0, so (by the formula you used yourself) W=0; F<>0, because if it were, your arm wouldn't tire. But it does, as you confirmed yourself.

So why are you refusing to address the flaws in your reasoning?
Why do you instead keep asking for an experiment (that has been provided) to prove a proven law?

Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .

I couldn't say, as there is no lack in my knowledge of the laws of physic (at least not concerning the basic stuff we are discussing).

iC

Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.

You erroneously equate "your take on things"- your words not mine - with  knowledge of the laws of physics yet you consistently are unable to provide any scientific experimental data to back up your gobshoite .

The laws of physics  are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in  a vacuum.

 Give the evasion and gobshoite sophistry a rest - just provide the scientific experiment that contradicts the Joules law which states that thermal energy does no work in a vacuum.

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 21, 2020, 11:03:23 AM »

Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

Also the rest of your psuedoscience - thermal energy is not a force ,no matter how much you produce - that's basic physics . Mechanical  conversion required to produce a force (kinetic energy). Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .

Very adept at sophistry and posting the old wall of gobshoite though

75

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 21, 2020, 07:19:19 AM »

The debate is no longer Tumeni . iCare has shown a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics . As you do too if you think that holding an object aloft requires no work , there is no contradiction . When W = 0 then F=0 .

In the case of the pint glass - work done to hold to hold the pint steady is equal and opposite to the work done by gravity acting in the opposite direction.

Sophistry will not alter the laws of physics.

76

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 20, 2020, 11:52:12 PM »

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".

Clarify this statement please iCare .

Sure, no problem. I have already done so in response to one of your previous posts:

Joules law of free expansion of gas into a vacuum . No work is done therefore no force therefore no reaction therefore no acceleration .

Again, as explained before:

• No work is not the same as no force applied. If you hold a weight stationary with your arm extended (for fun, imagine a mug of beer), no work is done, as the object doesn't move; however upward and downward forces are applied - in this case they cancel each other out.
• Joule's law of free expansion does not apply, because it describes a completely different process.

 

I also referred to it in one of my recent posts:

"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.

To expand on this:
Depending on the temperature of a gas it's molecules will have a certain kinetic energy that has them "bouncing around randomly".
They bounce against (and reflect) each other, but they also bounce against the walls of a container that is enclosing them => manifesting as "pressure".
Heat the gas => more kinetic energy => more pressure (for cooling it's the other way round).
Enlarge the size of the container => less hits on the enclosure => less pressure (for reducing the size of the container it's the other way round).
Now, here it gets a bit tricky, as compressing/decompressing gas can actually change its temperature, but let's ignore that and look at Free Expansion only:
Forces are constantly being applied between molecules-molecules and molecules-enclosure due to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Everything is in balance and the gas molecules are pushing against all sides of the container equally.
Now the container is enlarged by opening the partition that contains "nothing" (a vacuum).
No work done, as the heat/kinetic energy of the gas/molecules does not change, but the same kinetic energy will still distribute them evenly throughout the enlarged volume (moving into the vacuum implies, there must be a force that is responsible for it to happen).
Simply because there is no resistance from the vacuum and consequently random movement will go on until a balanced state ("equilibrium") is reached.
The forces on the enclosing container and between molecules then balance each other out again. No work done (comparing initial and end state; in between things are "in a flow").
The only difference being, that the pressure is reduced proportionally to the enlarging of the volume. 
That would be how Free Expansion works.

If, however, you open the container, that balance is destroyed.
There will still be forces on the enclosure, but the balancing force is missing where the container is open.
(And that is not even taking into account, that in the case of a rocket engine the effect is amplified by the exothermic reaction as it generates heat and additional hot gas.)
=> Gas molecules will "leave" the container without exerting force on it. At the same time, gas molecules will still be "pushing" at the opposite side of the container.
=> Newton's Third Law. The container experiences a force in the opposite direction of the opening, equivalent to the force, that's expelling the gas molecules through the opening (strictly speaking, it's equivalent to the energy the expelled gas molecules take with them instead of counter-balancing the remaining forces).
=> Now the balance of forces is no longer internal to the container, but it is between the container (rocket) going one way and gas molecules going the other way.
This is, why you cannot ignore the effect of the enclosure/container. Expanding into a vacuum within the same container is not the same as "expanding" into any vacuum.
This is why Joule's Law of Free Expansion describes something different than what's happening to create thrust in a rocket.

This is also, why a rocket will work regardless of what is (or isn't) outside. The balance of forces (active-reactive) is not happening outside.

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.
No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

The active-reactive force cannot be created by outer pressure.
Outer pressure could push a rocket forward, like wind pushes a sailboat forward, but that would be regardless of the sails providing additional against the wind or simply being there.
If the rocket wasn't ignited yet, that outer pressure would still be there, applying force to the back of the rocket ... so why doesn't it move the rocket?
Because there is equal pressure from the environment all around the rocket; the effects of "outer pressure" cancel each out.
As to Joule's Law ... see above.

Did that clarify my statement?
I'll be happy to answer any remaining questions.

iC

Where to start .
Holding a pint of beer up involves work - that's why your arm tires after a while . Work is being done - upwards and downwards forces are opposing vector forces , They don't cancel each other out but are added together - opposite vectors are equal and you can hold the glass in a steady position but work is done.

In mechanics ( a rocket engine is a machine ) work is directly proportional to force as shown in the equation    W(work) = F(force) x d(distance object moves)

So when W = 0 in the equation W = F x d then F must be zero also since solving for F = W/d = 0/d = zero . Always .

You can use W = F x d x cos theta for forces at an angle to each other but that makes no difference to the result

This renders your statement that "no work does not mean no force" is not true and is meaningless . Simple basics.

Heating gas is addition of thermal energy not kinetic energy .

Joules in his experiment heated his gas adding thermal energy- released his thermal energy through a hole/vent /throttle and no work was done . That's a law.

No work done = no force = no acceleration .

What you have made clear is that you don't understand basic physics . W = F x d .

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 20, 2020, 03:09:38 PM »

It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.

No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

78

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 20, 2020, 02:57:29 PM »

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".


iC
[/quote]

Clarify this statement please iCare .

79

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 20, 2020, 12:40:55 PM »

Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle.

Do the teach engineering differently these days?

As an engineer you know that thermal energy,however it is produced , must be converted to kinetic energy by mechanical means - be it piston ,drive shaft ,steam or air pressure , in order to produce a force and thrust .
         A choke is just an opening in a chamber of whatever size you make it . You know that being an engineer .  Have a look at Joules experiment . His experiment found that no work is done by free expansion of thermal energy through a hole or choke as you call it. Because there is no way to convert thermal energy to provide a force and its reactive force of thrust. It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .
 
Thinking about it I can't recall being told about Joules experiment at college or uni .
     
     Equating a chamber at 2psi and it's interaction with another at 10psi to interaction , with a chamber at 0psi (rocket combustion chamber in a vacuum) and the vacuum of space at 0psi is a silly analogy.

    I was also taught that the rocket is the most inefficient of all heat exchange engines . Wastes alot of energy sounding powerful and looking good .

80

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: March 19, 2020, 04:22:47 PM »

The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).

Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?

I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am referring to the experiments, that led to e.g. Newton's Law.
Why would I need to point to experiments to support a law that is already accepted as a Law of Physics/Nature.

iC

No one is questioning Newton's laws .

Provide details of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law (the one that relates to work in a vacuum) . Straight forward enough.