41

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

« on: March 18, 2020, 03:39:35 PM »

Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.

Are you sure?
If you're sitting on a swing and swing your feet forward, it will result in movement.
I've seen kids do it, I've done it myself.
(Also works on a swivel chair.  )

Pushing the mass of your feet forward (at speed) will push your body back.
And not because you're "pushing against air", but because one mass (feet) accelerates one way so the other mass (rest of body) most accelerate the other way.

The effect is of course limited due to relatively light feet and short legs.

iC

42

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

« on: March 16, 2020, 05:11:30 PM »

All gas has a specified pressure achieved by the size of the container and by the type of throttling.
And it is fixed.

If that gas is heated/cooled, the pressure will change.
If the size of the container is changed, the pressure will change.
If the amount of gas is changed, the pressure will change.
A throttle would indirectly change the amount of gas by throttling the inflow or outflow of gas.
How do you conclude, that all gas would have a specified and unchangeable pressure?

And a throttle is FIXED at a certain amount.

A throttle is most certainly not fixed at a certain amount; the very idea of a throttle is to variably restrain the flow of e.g. fuel.
At least that is the throttle I know from planes, cars, motrocycles, ...
Do you refer to a different kind of throttle?

When the vacuum is supposedly infinite, there is no chance for the gas to equalize the pressure.

You really should take a closer look at Joule's experiment on Free Expansion.
It specifically compares at a stable initial state and a stable end state.
If the pressure cannot equalize, there will be no end state.
And why would equalization of pressure be relevant in any case? It is not a significant factor for a rocket working in a vacuum.

Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?

1) Who said there is a requirement for constant temperature?
2) The amount of gas released from a rocket is constant (i.e., the throttle).

• Joule's Law/Experiment. His conclusion was, as the temperature does not change, no work is done. So if the temperature changes, it is not Joules Law of Free Expansion. 
• No, it is not. The whole idea of a throttle is to control the thrust of jet engines and rockets, see above.

And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.

Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.

I can tell...
They base their conclusions on SCIENCE!

So how can you tell?
Is there any verifiable scientific description how they reached their conclusions?
In the article there isn't, it's just a pretty generic description that obviously is more focused on giving a general idea than specifics. (Which is not a bad thing at all.)
Are you aware, that science itself is not static and that laws/theories/... have often been corrected, specified in more detail or improved by later studies/experiments?

You have no "currently respected science."
You have a bunch of loonies from Quora writing crap...

Actually I have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
Applied in a scientifically correct way, they prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

iC

43

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

« on: March 16, 2020, 01:47:35 PM »

Pressure, whether or not it is throttled, is fixed at a rate by the type of gas.

What do you mean by that?
Pressure depends on several variables, not just on the type of gas.

It is fixed by the very definition of the word - THROTTLE!

We are clearly talking about different things.
"A throttle is the mechanism by which flow is managed by constriction or obstruction."

• It has nothing to do with the amount of gas it throttles.
• It manages flow, i.e. it is not fixed.

P_start*V_start=P_end*V_end will not work very well for V_end=∞.

LOL!
All the more reason it will work!

Care to explain, why that would be?

ROCKETS DO NOT WORK IN A VACUUM!

Capitals only make it "louder", not truer.

It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.

Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.

No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.

When it comes to a container of gas being opened up to (or within) the confines of a vacuum, then yes it does.

Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?

Well, it does claim the exact opposite of what you just wrote:"The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas."
The article is clear: "This backward push produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.

Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.

I prefer to believe currently respected science (=> rockets do work in a vacuum) rather than an historic periodical.
It is the backward push exerted on the exhausted gas, not on the atmosphere that produces the equivalent in forward thrust (=>Newton's Laws).

iC

44

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

« on: March 16, 2020, 12:10:14 PM »

The amount of gas available is fixed and throttled.

Yes, it is usually throttled.
That raises the question, how do you explain, that in free expansion, there is no throttle and what about the Joule–Thomson effect (describing the temperature change of a real gas when it is forced through a valve), if there were a throttle?

Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.

So how can the amount of gas be fixed?
The total volume of gas created by the chemical reaction can be calculated, but the amount over time (start to and of burn) is not fixed - it is increasing.

The vacuum is supposedly endless.

Supposedly ist is.
As explained before, this is one reason for Joule's Law not being applicable:
P_start*V_start=P_end*V_end will not work very well for V_end=∞.

They all failed to work initially.

Initially.
It is pretty normal for experiments to fail initially, e.g. due to mistakes in setup.
If they can be made to work reproducible, that's what counts.

It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.

Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.

No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.

The rockets do not move until there is adequate presence of pressure in the container.

Indeed, they do not move until they are started.
When the fuel burns, it creates hot gas, pressure rises, rocket starts moving.
Doesn't matter, if there's a vacuum or not.

I think you left something out...
What do you think of this quote?
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”

I think, it sounds rather colloquial (in contrast to scientific), so I can't really tell if this is a scientifically audited and verified statement or just a simplified description for a general audience.
Regardless ... so what?
If there is an atmosphere, the gas expelled from a jet engine or a rocket will obviously push against it.
The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas.
I didn't mention the exhausted gas pushing against the atmosphere, because it is not what creates thrust.

iC

45

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

« on: March 14, 2020, 10:47:13 PM »

Newtons laws relate to where ever and whenever forces are involved and changes in motion occur .

Exactly. Well known examples are combustion engines in general and rockets in specific.

According to your sophistry Joules law only applies to his experiment .  Applies to vacuum at all times . That's why it's a law.

Not only to his experiment, but only to situations, that are actually described by Joule's Law.
Joule's Law describes how a constant amount of gas, that is kept at a constant temperature freely expands from a compartment of a closed volume to the complete volume.
It does not describe, how an increasing amount of gas, that is being heated up, expands under pressure into a large, open volume.
I'm staying true to Jule's Law, while you use it out of context.
Neither sophistry nor struggling with laws of physics on my side of this discussion ...

Newton's Laws apply whenever forces are involved and changes in motion => regardless of vacuum or no vacuum.
So if Newton's Laws apply to rockets in an atmosphere (which they seem to do - rockets work in an atmosphere), they also apply to rockets in a vacuum.

Why don't you look at the Boyle's law , Charles law , Gay-Lussac's Law . Look at the relationship between temperature and pressure and this relationships effect on chemical reactions. You'll realise then why chemical reactions cant sustain themselves in a vacuum .

Boyle's law requires temperature and amount of gas to remain unchanged.
Charles law requires the pressure to be constant.
Gay-Lussac's Law requires the pressure to be constant.
=> None of that is the case for rockets.
Why would any of those laws prevent chemical reactions from sustaining themselves in a vacuum?

Why don't you provide a defense of the idiotically named "law of conservation of momentum" . Laws are derived from repeatable experiment not derived from assumption .

Why would I?
It's basically common sense, that when each force has an equivalent opposing force, the change to momentum those forces create, will also equivalent. => conservation of momentum.

iC

46

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

« on: March 14, 2020, 03:58:20 PM »

As if a rocket doesn't have a fixed amount of gas available...

I would think it obvious from watching any rocket, that the amount of gas increases.
Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.

All these videos here show all types of rockets, placed in an environment close to that of a vacuum,and they fail to work.
The reason they fail to work is Joules Law.

I don't recall a video, where the rockets actually failed. Do you have a specific one in mind, we could look at in detail?
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.

Now, back to how jets move...you never answered the question.

Not much to answer there.
Burning fuel creates gas and heat. => pressure => mass expelled => plane accelerates the other way.
The process is of course more complex and depending on the specific type of jet engine, there will be some difference in how that is achieved.

iC

47

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

« on: March 13, 2020, 06:35:58 PM »

All laws of physics are derived from repeatable scientific experiment

covered by the real laws derived from Joules real experiment

I have said so before, I say so again:
Joule's experiment specifically requires constant temperature and a fixed amount of gas.
Both is not the case for rocket engines; Joules's experiment ist different from what creates thrust in a rocket.
=> Joule's Law is correct, validly derived from experiments. Your application of it is not, as you do not stay within the requirements set forth by Joule's experiment.
Or can you prove (by a repeatable scientific experiment?) that it is also true for increasing temperature and/or increasing amount of gas?

iC

48

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

« on: March 13, 2020, 05:22:44 PM »

Combustion will not occur in a vacuum.

I'm still waiting for a valid explanation, why this should be the case.
When all required elements for fire/combustion are present (heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent) are present, combustion will occur.

Expanding gas in a vacuum does no work.

Gas freely expanding into a vacuum (as described by Joule's Law) does not "work".
Gas being expelled "with force" does "work". No conflict with Joule's Law.

Imagine dropping a bouncing ball in a ideal environment (no friction, etc.); just let it go, no force applied - it will return to the same height. ("No work done" ... the energy at the beginning is equal to the energy at the end.)
Now push that ball down; force applied - it will return to the same height plus the additional height equivalent to the energy you provided by pushing it down.
This is a simile; it's not to be taken literally and an it is not perfect. It does however illustrate the point.

There is no "explosive force of combustion" - flowery language but not scientific. A fuel burn is an exothermic chemical reaction producing thermal energy which is not a force .

As repeatedly stated, burning fuel does not only produce heat.
And while that thermal energy may not be a force by itself, it can create force, e.g. by heating gas (e.g. the gas created together with heat) and thereby pressure, which is a force.
That is the basic principle of internal combustion engines. Like Wikipedia or not, but it's described nicely there:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine
"An internal combustion engine (ICE) is a heat engine in which the combustion of a fuel occurs with an oxidizer (usually air) in a combustion chamber that is an integral part of the working fluid flow circuit. In an internal combustion engine, the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases produced by combustion applies direct force to some component of the engine. The force is applied typically to pistons, turbine blades, rotor or a nozzle. This force moves the component over a distance, transforming chemical energy into useful work."

iC

49

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

« on: March 13, 2020, 12:49:48 PM »

I have never doubted Joule's Law. I'm simply pointing out, that it does not apply to the way rockets work. Specifically it does not prevent them from working in a vacuum.
For the detailed explanation, see my previous posts.

Forgive me, I have reviewed your previous posts.
They do not provide a detailed explanation.
Neither are they based on science.

I think they do and they are, but let me sum it up (again):
Joule's Law describes that a constant amount of gas, freely expanding - at constant temperature - into a larger volume that previously contained a vacuum. Freely expanding,  does 0 work.
Makes sense.
In a rocket, the amount of gas and its temperature are both increasing, hence increasing pressure inside the rocket. => there is force (pressure), it is not freely expanding => does actual work
Should also make sense.

My conclusion from the source I provided is that it still somehow lacks a force pair.

From your source "The force on the spacecraft is equal to the rate of change of the momentum of the fuel."
The fuel (formerly in the rocket) is visibly ejected as exhaust (which has a mass) => it changes momentum (being ejected), that requires a force to be at work.
This requires a equal, opposing force, which accelerates the rocket.
=> There's you force pair.

iC

50

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

« on: March 12, 2020, 05:38:21 PM »

In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".

You just admitted Joule's Law.

I have never doubted Joule's Law. I'm simply pointing out, that it does not apply to the way rockets work. Specifically it does not prevent them from working in a vacuum.
For the detailed explanation, see my previous posts.

When are you going to admit a rocket is a closed system, as depicted in the source I provided?

I have already answered that:

This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
It claims that "rocket + fuel" (to be more precise "rocket + fuel + exhaust") can be defined as a closed system as far as forces are concerned.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.

I don't have an issue with the definition as depicted in the source you provided.
For calculating acceleration the assumption of a closed system as described seems to be a valid approach leading to the conclusion, that a rocket will work in a vacuum.
My problem was - and still is - that you are not specific about what you define as "rocket"?
Is it the same as in the source  (with/without fuel/exhaust/...?) and what conclusions you draw from that?

Do you agree that a jet engine and a rocket engine are essentially the same thing, performing the same functions, the exception being the rocket carries its own oxidizers, requiring no intakes?

This sounds like one of those directional/suggestive questions that try to (mis-)lead you on a specific path ... but let's see where you want to take us. Live's a journey.

It isn't as simple as that, but on a basic level I do agree.
Both are internal combustion engines; burning fuel to create heat and gas (and/or other products of the chemical reaction) thereby creating thrust from the chemical energy stored in the fuel.
Rockets generally require no intake (generally, as rockets can be air-augmented). On the other hand, let me point out, that the oxidizer is only part of why jet engines require an intake.
So the requirement of an intake is by far not the only and not necessarily the most signifikant difference between rockets and jet engines (as used e.g. for airplanes).
The details of the process are quite different for both.

iC

51

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

« on: March 12, 2020, 02:46:48 PM »

How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

As explained before, just like you "throw" into anything else.
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
Basically the same process for vacuum and atmosphere.

One difference would be, that it is easier to do in a vacuum, as one wouldn't have to overcome external pressure to exit the reaction chamber.

iC

52

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

« on: March 12, 2020, 12:07:58 PM »

A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

As explained, that statement was in the specific context of thrust being created by expelling mass and the fact, that there are other ways than combustion (conversion of thermal energy) to power rocket engines .
I'm sorry, if my focusing on the creation of thrust itself (i.e. expelling mass) gave the impression that thermal energy couldn't be involved in the  overall process for a combustion powered rocket.

Regardless of this misunderstanding ... how would that have any impact on rockets working in a vacuum or not?

iC

53

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

« on: March 12, 2020, 11:40:17 AM »

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

Unsurprisingly all of Newton's Laws apply to a cold gas thruster; including the 3rd law, which requires the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction the gas is accelerating.
Which leads to the same conflict you haven't been able to solve: Newton requires the rocket to work in a vacuum, your (faulty) interpretation of Joule's Law suggests they don't.
So, what is your point?

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force .

And - for the inverse process - when a gas "uncompresses" it cools down, releasing the stored energy.
How does that matsch with Joule's Law of Free Expansion - as that claims gas expanding into a vacuum would not change its temperature (aka "no work done")?

That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

No, it is not.
Free expansion requires a fixed amount of gas in a closed container.
A thruster - by definition - is not closed.

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.

Joule: fixed amount of gas, closed/mesurable volume, no change in temperature, isolated container, gas released
=> His law does not describe what you are trying to apply it to.

Somehow you believe the same pressurized gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Rocket: changing amount of gas, open/unlimited volume, change in temperature, open container, gas ejected
=> It is not "the same" pressurized gas.

iC

54

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

« on: March 12, 2020, 11:21:42 AM »

A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.

Right here, you contradict yourself.

It's only a contraction if you take it out of context and if don't understand the process as a whole.
So let me reiterate:

Rocket fuel undergoes a exothermic chemical reaction producing (among other things) gas and heat.
That produced gas requires a significantly larger volume than the fuel did. => increased pressure in the reaction chamber.
Also the gas is a lot hotter than the fuel was, intensifying the effect . => even more increase of pressure in the reaction chamber.
The pressure inside the rocket is much higher than outside the rocket. => gas (which has mass) gets expelled at high speed.
=> the rocket accordingly accelerates in the opposite direction.

My original point was, that Newton's Laws make a rocket work in any environment; Newton's Laws aren't about thermal energy (but they work side by side).
Thrust is created by expelling mass; the energy to power this process is created as described above.
But you could also accelerate a rocket by ejecting bricks or firing a "Gatling gun" mounted on it ... or anything that accelerates mass away from the rocket, regardless of thermal energy being part of it or not.

Newton is happy, Joule is happy, the rocket happily speeds away ...

Explain how a rocket converts its fuel to gas, if not by thermal energy conversion.

Like any other chemical process of burning fuel?
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all. As we are talking about exothermic reactions and "hot gas" (see above) it obviously is.
Still thrust is created by expelling mass. Thermal energy is simply part of what's powering that process.

iC

55

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

« on: March 11, 2020, 05:18:44 PM »

In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

Just for giggles, I can imagine two fun ways to create gas:

• Eating a large serving of Indian Curry.
• Posting a RE comment and waiting for FE response (often hot air).

The process for (1) is quite enjoyable, but the product (gas) has as a certain ... odor.
The process for (2) is rather tedious and the product (responses) is often somewhat tasteless.

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

What exactly are you asking? How about thors_evil_twin's answer, as he was quicker to respond?

Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.

If you google "rocket propellant" or fuels in general, there are plenty of detailed descriptions, which fuels can be used and how efficient they are.
Efficiency is, however, not an issue here. An inefficient rocket will still work.

iC

56

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

« on: March 11, 2020, 04:18:28 PM »

Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?

If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.

Actually I was thinking of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dense 2a:  "slow to understand"
I'm still waiting for a "specific and to the point" reaction to most of my arguments.

You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.

In what way? Please be specific ...

What does a car have to do with rockets?
Answer - nothing...

Correct answer: It was a simile for how systems can be defined.

A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.

Well ... so what, if it gets the air from a container inside the car?

So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?

I posted my source.

You posted your source, but what you are posting is in conflict with that source.

Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.

Source:  "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel"
You: "A rocket is all a rocket is."
Please stop doubting my understanding without substantiating that claim (which is a cheap trick, shame on you), when you're obviously misquoting your own source at the same time.

Of course you didn't...
...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...
...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...
...because of...
...reasons...

Please reread my postes, it would seem you have misunderstood them.
I didn't say the videos prove rockets would work in a vacuum: I said, they show that rockets work in very low pressure and that indicates, they would work in a vacuum as well.
I have given "specific and to the point" reasons in the respective posts.

Defining  he system IS science.

It is. And systems can be defined in different - valid - ways. Same science, different perspective/approach.

Of which you need further education.

I do embrace livelong learning, that's why I enjoy this discussion despite your aggressive and impolite manner.
I have substantiated my claims, you haven't - once again, I recommend you take your own advice.

Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.

"Whatever" could be exactly the actual definition. So, care to share, what you perceive as the "actual definition"?
This would be a great opportunity to be "specific and to the point".

Case closed...next victim...

If it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that you closed the case and you were in the right.

The rockets won't care, they'll just keep working.
By name iCare, because it is sad to see you clinging to misinterpretation and error in judgement, when several people are going above and beyond to explain things in a sensible manner. 

iC

Edited to remove potentially offensive quote/wording

57

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

« on: March 11, 2020, 03:21:23 PM »

Propulsion of rocket engine according to the laws of physics , step by step , under atmos pressure and then in a vacuum .

Thank you for the detailed description. It is, however, what has been described before and still shows the the same faults, which I have pointed out repeatedly and which you keep ignoring.

1 . Exothermic chemical reaction - burn of rocket fuel - produces thermal energy . At this stage I will point out that thermal energy , heat , is NOT a force .Thermodynamics .

Thrust is produced by resistance to this active force . Thermal energy converts to kinetic energy .

Thrust is produced by accelerating/expelling the gas. Resistance of the environment is not important, because thrust has been created before resistance even becomes relevant.
Thermal energy can be part of the process, but a rocket would function as well, if no heat (thermal energy) was produced.
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)

At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

Regardless, let me address some of your arguments in detail:

2. Production of force - occurs when thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy ( all heat exchange engines work on this principle ) as expansion of hot gas encounters resistance of air pressure . Once the internal chamber pressure exceeds outer pressure then gas forces out into the atmos layer. Newtons 2nd law . We have a force .

What exactly are you referring to as a heat exchange engine?
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

Under vacuum conditions

There is still no reason, why the process should be any different in a vacuum. What you claim to be different (no conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy) is not a relevant aspect to a rocket engine.
The gas is expelled, because it simply becomes more, not because it expands due to getting hotter.
And even if it became hotter, that would disallow the use of Joule's Law, as Joule's Law requires constant temperature.

2. Step two does not occur . No force produced since thermal energy will expand freely into the vacuum Joules second law of thermodynamics. Thermal energy remains as thermal energy and does not convert to kinetic energy and hence no force manifests .

Joules proved in his vacuum experiment that thermal energy is not a force , no work can be done since a vacuum provides no method of conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy.

Joule's Law still doesn't apply, as the amount of gas is dramatically increased, whereas Joule's Law requires a constant amount of gas.
As the kinetic energy isn't created by converting heat in the first place (see above), your reasoning is built on wrong assumptions and therefore void.


iC

58

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

« on: March 11, 2020, 11:20:47 AM »

This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.

Yes, it does.
A rocket is all a rocket is.

Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?

The source says, as you quoted: "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system."
The system is explicitly defined as "rocket + fuel" and "this" system is then considered closed for the purpose of calculating momentum/acceleration.
It does not say, that the rocket itself is a closed system.
It also doesn't say, that the defined system "rocket + fuel" can be considered closed under any circumstance - that is only true for the assumptions made.

Would you also say, that fuel or passengers are part of a car?
So when you're running on empty or someone gets out, your car is missing parts?
There are different valid definitions for systems in a given setting; however, some are more useful (or expedient) than others.
In that sense a car is not necessarily a car and a rocket is not a rocket. It depends what has been defined and once defined, you have to stick with that definition for the time being.
So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?

Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?

I am not the one left to explain videos, clearly proving a rocket will not work in a vacuum, somehow do prove a rocket will work in a vacuum.

Did I reference videos? I don't think so.
I was referring to the explanations, how conservation of energy and momentum would require rockets to work in a vacuum.
Are you bringing up videos again to deflect from your inability to construct a fault in the open/closed system discussion?

Changing the scope of the system doesn't change the fact, that rockets work in a vacuum, it simply changes your view of the problem.

Perhaps explain to thor's evil twin, because it is apparent he doesn't.

Actually it's quite apparent, that you do not understand how systems can be defined, what the theory behind different types of systems is and how that can be applied in science.
Where do you get the idea, that thors_evil_twin doesn't understand?
He appears to have a much better grasp of the issue than you do.
Please point to where you think he's wrong?

Well, it is apparent you do not even know how how to define the word," exchange."

Obviously appearances are deceiving ... what do you think is my definition of the word "exchange" and why would it be wrong?

A rocket is a closed system.

Kind of depends on your definition of "rocket". As defined by the source you quoted, it is only a closed system, when you include the fuel (inside the rocket and after being expelled) and only under the circumstances given.

In any case, this does not affect if a rocket works in a vacuum or not.
So what is your point, except being contradictory without providing substantiating facts or reason?

iC

59

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

« on: March 10, 2020, 08:43:10 PM »

"If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system (since the rocket is in deep space, there are no external forces acting on this system)..."
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion
A rocket is a closed system.

Let me highlight some relevant words:
"If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system (since the rocket is in deep space, there are no external forces acting on this system)..."

Illustration from the book you linked:


This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
It claims that "rocket + fuel" (to be more precise "rocket + fuel + exhaust") can be defined as a closed system as far as forces are concerned.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.
Pretty much what has been stated before to prove that rockets will work in a vacuum.

Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?

On a side note: the requirements for Joule Expansion are still not met.

Do you know what an open system is?

Yes, I do.

An open system is one where energy and matter are exchanged.
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

A rocket does not derive energy/matter from outside, but it expels energy/matter to the outside -  in or out, it's still an exchange.

A rocket is a closed system.

A rocket itself is an open system as it expels hot gas (mass and energy).
If you want to treat "rocket + fuel" as a closed system in a vacuum in other respects than force, you would need to address energy/heat and volume ... how would you do that?

iC

60

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

« on: March 09, 2020, 06:34:21 PM »

The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

• Your point being ...?
• You claim, you prove ...

An explanation would be nice, supporting references even better.
Which scientists claimed it and what did they actually say?

Last time I looked (at the theory of it), rockets in space were pretty much open to a whole lot of "nothing", aka vacuum.

And as long as the rocket and all of space aren't one closed container (not the rocket enclosed in space, but both forming one container) Joule's Law will still not apply.
And even then:

Joule's Law - as repeatedly explained - is based on a specific situation/setup/requirements: fixed amount of gas, no heat exchange, closed container
All three are different for rockets.
If you want to apply Joule's Law to rockets you have to show - for each of them - that Joule's Law still applies, despite you changing its parameters.

As explained, you don't meet the "closed container" criterion and even if you would, you haven't addressed the other two requirements.

iC