*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #340 on: March 16, 2020, 06:34:15 PM »
"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"

No you haven't, which is why Nasa and it's apologists have to use the imaginary "law of conservation of momentum" despite having no scientific evidence which would allow it to be classed as such.

Where do you find it to be 'imaginary'?


Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #341 on: March 17, 2020, 09:16:12 AM »
Theory = imagination = "law of conservation of momentum" as already linked .
 
Notice his use use of the words "conservation of energy" - real natural laws deduced from real experiments like these .


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #342 on: March 17, 2020, 09:31:52 AM »
The reason the publication is called "Popular" Science, and not "Applied Science", "Complex Science" or "Advanced Science" is specifically that it is targeted at the General Populace. The man in the street. The average citizen.

It's not a research paper, it's not a comprehensive text on the topic, it's a broad-brush summary, where complex matters are simplified, and set out in terms that are understandable to that audience.

With simplification comes lack of precision with regard to descriptive terms.

This has to be borne in mind when quoting from it and claiming absolute certaintly with regard to isolated phrases pulled from it.
=============================
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 #343 on: March 17, 2020, 09:56:16 AM »
Further quotes from popular science sources;

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

"In brief, you can see that each main part of the engine does a different thing to the air or fuel mixture passing through:

- Compressor: Dramatically increases the pressure of the air (and, to a lesser extent) its temperature.
- Combustion chamber: Dramatically increases the temperature of the air-fuel mixture by releasing heat energy from the fuel.
- Exhaust nozzle: Dramatically increases the velocity of the exhaust gases, so powering the plane."



"When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward. It's exactly like a skateboarder kicking back on the pavement to go forward; in a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". In everyday words, the action (the force of the exhaust gas shooting backward) is equal and opposite to the reaction (the force of the plane moving forward); the action moves the exhaust gas, while the reaction moves the plane."
=============================
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 #344 on: March 17, 2020, 10:42:01 AM »
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.
Correct.

A rocket does change the temperature of the gas, as shown here in the videos.

Does it work in a vacuum?

Answer - NO, as shown here in the videos.
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?
What do you think a throttle is for?

It is used to SET the amount of gas being released.
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?
Nope...

Much like these throttles, the amount is set.

Can it be varied?

Yes.

But a throttle governs the amount of gas released.
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.
And you really should look at these videos because they clearly contradict what you are writing here.
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. 
His conclusion was that gas, regardless of temperature, released to a vacuum does no work.

These videos show exactly that.

Rocket engines, placed inside a vacuum, changing the temperature of gas, and they still do no work.
  • No, it is not. The whole idea of a throttle is to control the thrust of jet engines and rockets, see above.
i.e., limit the amount amount of gas released in the aft direction, as I have been writing all along.
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?
Yeah.

Newton's Third...
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.)
Nope.

Pretty specific in what it states.

The jet releases burnt fuel out the back of the engine in the form of hot gas and that hot gas pushes off the atmosphere, thrusting the plane forward.

Everybody knows this how jets work.
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
Funny, we seem to have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics...you got nothing to show as evidence...you could rely on the video evidence here, except for the fact the videos show you are clearly wrong.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 12:41:49 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #345 on: March 17, 2020, 10:45:11 AM »
The reason the publication is called "Popular" Science, and not "Applied Science", "Complex Science" or "Advanced Science" is specifically that it is targeted at the General Populace. The man in the street. The average citizen.

It's not a research paper, it's not a comprehensive text on the topic, it's a broad-brush summary, where complex matters are simplified, and set out in terms that are understandable to that audience.

With simplification comes lack of precision with regard to descriptive terms.

This has to be borne in mind when quoting from it and claiming absolute certaintly(sic) with regard to isolated phrases pulled from it.
It also has to be borne in mind when writing on a whole.

Everybody knows that jets work exactly as described in the article.

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #346 on: March 17, 2020, 10:47:24 AM »
Further quotes from popular science sources;

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

"In brief, you can see that each main part of the engine does a different thing to the air or fuel mixture passing through:

- Compressor: Dramatically increases the pressure of the air (and, to a lesser extent) its temperature.
- Combustion chamber: Dramatically increases the temperature of the air-fuel mixture by releasing heat energy from the fuel.
- Exhaust nozzle: Dramatically increases the velocity of the exhaust gases, so powering the plane."



"When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward. It's exactly like a skateboarder kicking back on the pavement to go forward; in a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". In everyday words, the action (the force of the exhaust gas shooting backward) is equal and opposite to the reaction (the force of the plane moving forward); the action moves the exhaust gas, while the reaction moves the plane."
All taking place within the confines of an environment having PRESSURE.

All proven to require a pressurized environment as demonstrated by these videos.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #347 on: March 17, 2020, 12:04:21 PM »
Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

No. Like the rocket, the jet exhaust pushes the atmosphere away from the engine. Large quantities of exhaust move large quantities of air, with the associated high volume of sound that goes with it. There's a lot of sound because there's a lot of movement of the air, away from the craft.

If the atmosphere resisted, this would not occur.

=============================
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 #348 on: March 17, 2020, 12:16:50 PM »
Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

No. Like the rocket, the jet exhaust pushes the atmosphere away from the engine. Large quantities of exhaust move large quantities of air, with the associated high volume of sound that goes with it. There's a lot of sound because there's a lot of movement of the air, away from the craft.

If the atmosphere resisted, this would not occur.
Good god man, it is the fact the atmoplane is present that allows everyone to HEAR the sound!

The stronger the air is moving against the atmoplane, the more force that is generated.

Similar to me vs Arnold pushing against the wall.

I can push against the wall and go back the opposite way, but Arnold will go back further.

Look, aside from the fact Popular Science clearly disagrees with you, find one scientific journal of any kind that states what you are writing.

Cause there isn't.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #349 on: March 17, 2020, 01:36:47 PM »
No, you've misunderstood the intent of my bolding, so I shall re-do this

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.

To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #350 on: March 17, 2020, 11:21:58 PM »
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music). 

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #351 on: March 18, 2020, 10:44:06 AM »
No, you've misunderstood the intent of my bolding, so I shall re-do this

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

I know I am...
To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

The atmoplane provides resistance to the gas being expelled.

That is the ONLY REASON why jets and rockets work.

As evidenced by all these wondrous videos provided by the proponents of rockets working in a vacuum.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #352 on: March 18, 2020, 10:47:09 AM »
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music).
Sorry, but you need a force pair.

And you didn't provide one.

This:
clearly states otherwise.
“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.”

That's your force pair.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #353 on: March 18, 2020, 11:03:01 AM »
If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

It cannot be getting an opposite reaction from air that has been pushed away from the craft.

Exhaust leaves engine, pushes surrounding air back and outward away from the rear of the engine, in the case of a typical passenger jet, hundreds of metres away .... how can the air at this distance be providing any 'push' to the airframe of the craft?


To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

No, because it's an ANALOGY, one that you introduced. Have you ever seen an atmosphere that stays in one place, the way that a wall does? I never have.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 11:19:51 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?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #354 on: March 18, 2020, 11:42:56 AM »
If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

It cannot be getting an opposite reaction from air that has been pushed away from the craft.
Yes, it can.

We have already addressed this.

If the atmoplane provided no resistance to the exhaust, then ALL of the atmoplane would be blown away.

Is it?

Answer = NO.

So, the atmoplane provides resistance.

As evidenced in these videos here.

Rockets are ignited in these chambers.

Only when there is a pressure inside the chamber is the rocket able to move within the chamber.
Exhaust leaves engine, pushes surrounding air back and outward away from the rear of the engine, in the case of a typical passenger jet, hundreds of metres away .... how can the air at this distance be providing any 'push' to the airframe of the craft?
If I had arms hundreds of meters long I would still be able to push against a wall hundreds of meters away.
To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

No, because it's an ANALOGY, one that you introduced. Have you ever seen an atmosphere that stays in one place, the way that a wall does? I never have.
A poor analogy and a strawman.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #355 on: March 18, 2020, 12:54:54 PM »
A poor analogy and a strawman.

... which YOU introduced to start with... nobody mentioned a wall before you did.


Exhaust leaves the engine at high speed, pushing air backward and outward. In the area surrounding the rear of the engine, the air is merely a passenger, pushed, pulled and dragged along by the exhaust.

In the same way that ripples on a pond eventually dissipate with distance from centre, the effect of the exhaust dissipates with distance and time. This is clearly due the presence of the air, and the atmospheric pressure of the air.

But that cannot transfer energy to the body of the craft. By the time the surrounding air has slowed the exhaust to stop, or by the time it has had any significant influence on its speed, the exhaust and the air are far away from the craft.

So how can they influence the craft at this stage? 
=============================
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 #356 on: March 18, 2020, 03:07:21 PM »
A poor analogy and a strawman.

... which YOU introduced to start with... nobody mentioned a wall before you did.
The frictionless casters is the poor analogy and the strawman.
Exhaust leaves the engine at high speed, pushing air backward and outward. In the area surrounding the rear of the engine, the air is merely a passenger, pushed, pulled and dragged along by the exhaust.
Wrong, it acts as a wall.
In the same way that ripples on a pond eventually dissipate with distance from centre, the effect of the exhaust dissipates with distance and time. This is clearly due the presence of the air, and the atmospheric pressure of the air.
The air provides resistance, as you admit.

Just as a wall provides the resistance to my arms pushing against it, forcing me the opposite direction.
But that cannot transfer energy to the body of the craft. By the time the surrounding air has slowed the exhaust to stop, or by the time it has had any significant influence on its speed, the exhaust and the air are far away from the craft.

So how can they influence the craft at this stage?
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

The exhaust is built up behind the craft.

And continues to accumulate in a pressurized fashion.

Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 03:33:06 PM by totallackey »

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #357 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.  ;D)

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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6535
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #358 on: March 18, 2020, 03:51:38 PM »
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

No, you don't. The fact you don't understand that doesn't make you right.
Do you really think that when you fire a gun the recoil is because of the bullet pushing off the air?!
(HINT: It isn't)
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 #359 on: March 18, 2020, 03:57:43 PM »
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

No, you don't. The fact you don't understand that doesn't make you right.
Do you really think that when you fire a gun the recoil is because of the bullet pushing off the air?!
(HINT: It isn't)
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

The same way the piston in rings expand to fill the cylinder.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Which gasses, pushing off the bullet, cause the gun to recoil.

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.