1
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: May 10, 2020, 05:59:13 PM »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.I did watch the whole video and I'm quite impressed. Especially considering that Cody was quite obviously speaking off the top of his head most of the time, he did a great job.
It would be interesting to know, what his conclusion were after evaluating his experiments with more time and in more detail.
In any case, he has my respect for the effort he put into researching the issue.
In contrast your interpretation of the video sounds a lot like you only halfheartedly listened to the parts (seemingly) in your favor and ignored the rest.
- He doesn't say, that the chemical reactions would be impossible without pressure, just slower.
So pressure is not not the fourth corner of the fire triangle. Heat, fuel and an oxidizing agent are required; pressure is just an optional influence. - Also at 11:38 "... what you really need is a case around it ... ": Doesn't that sound like exactly what a combustion chamber would be?
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 .
Indeed it and just like in the previous video Cody's conclusion is opposite to what you're claiming (as was pointed out at the time).
At 7:18 he says: "So there you go, rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little more in a vacuum as they can in air ..."
Cody used a rocket motor not designed for vacuum and made it work in his back yard to prove that rockets work in a vacuum.
I think it is a safe bet, that a rocket motor professionally designed for space will do much better.
So again, as you introduced those videos up as proof, will you accept their outcome? Rockets do work in a vacuum, as shown by the source you provided.
The rules of physics predict rocket engines trying to produce force in a vacuum will fail - shown amply in all these videos.You keep repeating that like a mantra, but it is still wrong.
The laws of physics (Newton's Laws, Laws of Thermodynamics, ...), if understood and applied correctly, predict that rockets must work in a vacuum. And those videos (while I wouldn't consider them perfect proof) strongly indicate the same.
So what "rules" are you talking about? Joule's Law of Free Expansion?
As explained many times, it does not apply to rocket propulsion, because the exhaust is being expelled through a nozzle and not expanding freely.
The exhaust is expelled at a higher speed than it would have expanding (only) freely: Newton's Law requires the rocket to accelerate accordingly in the opposite direction.
Your claims violate Newton's Laws. Can you prove them wrong?
" a force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle" - what a statement .It is, indeed, a statement.
What's your point?
do some research . Learn stuff.Looking at your posts - which keep repeating the same superficial arguments or non-arguments ("what a statement") - and my posts - which actually go into details on counterarguments to your claims -, it seems pretty obvious, that I have either done a lot more research than you have or have learned much more from it or (likely) both.
Your advice is good advice, but aimed at the wrong person. I'd suggest, you take a look in the mirror (or your posts) and take it yourself.
iC