Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #240 on: March 05, 2020, 04:08:45 PM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #241 on: March 05, 2020, 04:29:53 PM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum?
A vacuum.
I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.
Of course there is work done by a gas when there is pressure.

All the videos you guys have posted clearly prove this!

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #242 on: March 05, 2020, 04:33:41 PM »
Well that video of the gun being fired was inside a vacuum chamber, and work was done as the bullet punched right through the chamber wall. Where was the pressure in the chamber?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #243 on: March 05, 2020, 05:09:53 PM »
Well that video of the gun being fired was inside a vacuum chamber, and work was done as the bullet punched right through the chamber wall. Where was the pressure in the chamber?
Well, I suggest you look at the gauge on the chamber and determine what the reading on the gauge is.

Aside from the fact there is no "exhausting" of the gas until the "explosion" occurs.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #244 on: March 05, 2020, 06:47:52 PM »
So it was hard to read on the other video, but I think the gauge was around 13 in. HG or about 50% vacuum.

I found a clip from the MythBusters that reports a full vacuum (~90% vacuum)



Again I ask how do you define a vacuum? Or where is the pressure in the chamber?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #245 on: March 05, 2020, 06:58:57 PM »
Post details of the repeatable scientific experiment that shows that a hot gas can produce work by expanding into a vacuum . That is all you have to do . Why won't you do this ?
Because the experiment you're asking for - once again showing a serious lack of understanding of the physics involved - has nothing to do with how rockets work.
Thrust is not produced by "hot gas expanding into a vacuum", it is produced by one mass (gas) accelerating in one direction and another mass (rocket) accelerating in the opposite direction.
=> Newton's 3rd Law.
You are challenging Newtons's 3rd Law, so ... why don't you post details of a repeatable scientific experiment that proves Newton's Laws wrong?

The reason you don't do this is because there isn't one , hence your waffle .
What is your definition of "waffel"? One definition I found (among others) is "write using a lot of words but without saying anything interesting or important".
Sounds pretty much like what you keep doing: Ignoring all arguments, refusing to provide counterarguments and repeating the same rebutted arguments over and over again.
In your favor ... you're not using that many words.
In contrast, while I use more words, I do so to provide relevant details or at least respond to your arguments.

iC

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #246 on: March 06, 2020, 09:32:44 AM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.

The same laws of physics predict that a rocket engine ( which is not a bomb) will do no work in a vacuum .
Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber and known to science - Joules

iCare is unable to provide the definitive repeatable scientific experiment and it's results showing that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum . This is because it cannot be done . In order to protect the fallacy that rockets work in the vacuum of space he provides a wall of waffle , garbage , shoite or whatever description .

He has to do this - I mean dig through the annals of science and provide the requested scientific proof - it's a straight forward request .

ICare says that a law derived from repeatable scientific experiment in a vacuum should not apply to the vacuum of space but cannot show why and refuses to provide the scientific basis for his claim .






*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #247 on: March 06, 2020, 10:22:09 AM »
The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.

The same laws of physics predict that a rocket engine ( which is not a bomb) will do no work in a vacuum .
Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber and known to science - Joules

The propellant/explosive in a bomb or bullet expands when ignited.

Are you claiming that rocket fuel does not expand in the same fashion when ignited?

Do you have any examples of bullets or bombs being exploded in a vacuum, under repeatable/repeated scientific experiments?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #248 on: March 06, 2020, 11:33:47 AM »
I make no such claim . The laws of physics in vacuum or under pressure are clearly known .

Where is the experiment that violates the known laws of physics ?







 





*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #249 on: March 06, 2020, 01:21:57 PM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.

They absolutely don't predict that. Whether containers explode in a vacuum depends on the pressure inside the container and whether the container is strong enough to contain that pressure. Planes maintain a higher pressure than the surrounding atmosphere they fly in - otherwise all the passengers would die - but the planes don't explode because the materials they're made of are strong enough to withstand the pressure differential.

This sentence alone shows how little you understand about physics.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #250 on: March 06, 2020, 03:54:06 PM »
I make no such claim .
You claim, that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Rockets work because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Newton's 3rd Law works in a vaccumm.
=> You claim Newton's 3rd Law is invalid ... prove your claim.

The laws of physics in vacuum or under pressure are clearly known .
I did hope so.
But even if they were clearly known, it seems they are - as you keep demonstrating - not clearly understood by everyone.
 
Where is the experiment that violates the known laws of physics ?
I wouldn't know, as I'm not in violation of the laws of physics; that's why I asked you - as your claim (rockets don't work in a vacuum) violates Newton's 3rd Law, you should be able to point to such an experiment.

The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.
Agreed, they will explode if the explosive force is greater than the containing force of the container - regardless of vacuum or no vacuum.
Which laws are you referring to, specifically?

The same laws of physics predict that a rocket engine ( which is not a bomb) will do no work in a vacuum .
While a rocket is not a bomb, they pretty much do the same thing: A chemical reaction creates (among other things) gas and heat.
They differ insofar, as a explosion happens in a short period of time, is (once it starts) uncontrolled and the explosive force goes "everywhere", whereas a rocket burns fuel over a longer period of time, can be controlled and is directed in a specific direction.
So why would one work and not the other?

What would happen if an explosion occurred in a deep bowl  at the end of a "rocket"?
As you agree that explosions work in a vacuum, it would work and the "bowl" would direct its effect in one direction, away from the rocket => the rocket would be accelerated the other way.
Not smoothly as with the controlled burn of a rocket engine, but accelerated nevertheless.
=> Doesn't really matter, if you call it bomb or rocket ... it works in a vacuum.

Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber and known to science - Joules
Joules experiment is/was not performed in a vacuum chamber (it could be, but that's not relevant).
And it still doesn't apply to rockets ... see below.

iCare is unable to provide the definitive repeatable scientific experiment and it's results showing that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .
You cannot tell, if I'm unable - but I can assure you, that I see no need to provide a "definitive" experiment to prove laws, that are already proven, while you're not even able to provide a simple experiment proving your claim.

This is because it cannot be done .
No, it is because it has been done over and over again.
While the experiments shown in the videos postet in this thread before (and many others readily available online) may not have reached complete vacuum, they did get close enough as to make no difference.
If the lack of resistance would have a (negative) impact, that would also show in very low pressure - it doesn't.

In order to protect the fallacy that rockets work in the vacuum of space he provides a wall of waffle , garbage , shoite or whatever description .
I think shooting your mouth off like this ... makes it quite obvious, that you are the one who is trying hide his fallacy behind a wall of waffle - not me.

He has to do this - I mean dig through the annals of science and provide the requested scientific proof - it's a straight forward request .
Rest assured, I do not have to do this.
I have already done a lot of research and laid out the scientific proof (e.g. Newton's 3rd Law) repeatedly and in detail.
In contrast you still haven't addressed any of the questions I asked, instead resorting to repetition and bluster.

ICare says that a law derived from repeatable scientific experiment in a vacuum should not apply to the vacuum of space but cannot show why and refuses to provide the scientific basis for his claim .
No, he doesn't.
I said, that an a law and an experiment, that are based on specific circumstances (Joule: constant amount of gas, no change in temperature, closed container) do not apply to a completely different situation (rocket: increasing amount of gas, increasing temperature, open container).
I have provided ample scientific basis for this, which actually isn't a claim but simply the presentation of known facts.
I think it would be a good idea for you to review those facts, as you still fail to understand what Jule's Law is about, how it is set up and when it can (and when it cannot) be applied.

iC
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 03:57:03 PM by iCare »
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #251 on: March 07, 2020, 11:29:18 AM »
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.

They absolutely don't predict that. Whether containers explode in a vacuum depends on the pressure inside the container and whether the container is strong enough to contain that pressure. Planes maintain a higher pressure than the surrounding atmosphere they fly in - otherwise all the passengers would die - but the planes don't explode because the materials they're made of are strong enough to withstand the pressure differential.

This sentence alone shows how little you understand about physics.

Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers . So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates. All in accordance with

Rest of your post is complete bollocks and your ignorance of scientific principles and laws is reaching epic proportions .

iCare Newton's laws follow a logical progression . The shoite talked about "ooh this is where newton's 3rd takes over"is drivel . There can be is no reactive force or thrust if there is no active force .

Show the definitive scientific paper with related experiment that proves a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #252 on: March 07, 2020, 12:09:45 PM »
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers . So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates.

So you agree that the reaction of the explosive/propellant takes place without any interaction with surrounding atmosphere?

That the reaction, the expansion of combustion/exhaust product, initially within the bullet casing, but striving to get out once ignited, is sufficient to drive the bullet forward at high speed, whilst also generating recoil, felt by the holder of the gun, in the opposite direction?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #253 on: March 07, 2020, 12:42:49 PM »
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers .
Well, most of the time, they are not.
A common bomb is mostly solid until it is detonated, the same is true for a cartridge (isn't the bullet only the part that gets expelled?).

So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within
Looks like we agree on that at least; the (chemical) reaction will create pressure (by rapidly increasing the amount of gas and heat).

these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates. All in accordance with
And what, as I have already asked serveral times, is the difference between bursting the shell, ejecting a bullet and expelling gas?
It's all the same basic process (chemical reaction creates force) and it doesn't care about vacuum or any other environment at all.

Rest of your post is complete bollocks and your ignorance of scientific principles and laws is reaching epic proportions .
Repeating an unproven claim doesn't prove it.
Adding superlatives to unproven accusation doesn't prove them.
Says more about the person who feels the need to stoop to that level than the one it is directed at.

iCare Newton's laws follow a logical progression . The shoite talked about "ooh this is where newton's 3rd takes over"is drivel . There can be is no reactive force or thrust if there is no active force .
As above: Resorting to name-calling does not prove your point. It only demonstrates your "competence" with foul language ...

The logical procession is, that when a chemical reaction (be it burning fuel or exploding) creates gas and forces said gas away from the location of the chemical reaction.
The reactive force is accelerating the rocket in the opposite direction.

Wherever did you get the notion, that there is no force?
Joule's law states, that no work (in the context of the law) is done; it does not state, that there is no force. No work does not equal no force (as already explained).

Show the definitive scientific paper with related experiment that proves a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .
Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Nuxralkj8, maybe it will help you understand, what Joule's law actually is.
Jule's law requires a closed container/system; it doesn't expel mass - a rocket is, by definition, an open container/vessel.
Thrust is created by expelling mass in one direction => requires open system, e.g. a rocket.
Both laws are not in conflict, unless someone (sorry, but that would be you) tries to apply them incorrectly.

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

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #254 on: March 07, 2020, 02:38:17 PM »
Let us consider a gun held in standard fashion.



There are three axes against which we can consider forces acting.

The X axis - along the line of the barrel, where +X leads away from the barrel in the direction of the bullet, and -X back toward
the person pulling the trigger

Y axis - left to right, across the plane of the person's point of view, on a horizontal - -Y = left, +Y = right

Z axis - +Z = up, -Z = down

Ignition of the propellant in the casing generates expansion in all directions. Since the casing is broadly cylindrical, and
symmetrical along the Y and Z axes, there is equal force in the + and - direction on each of the these axes, forces which cancel
each other out, neither leading to either vertical or horizontal deflection of the gun due to recoil. All forces between these
two axes also cancel out due to the cylindrical shape

On the X axis, the expansion force on the bullet drives it forward along +X, out of the casing and the barrel, and
the force -X produces recoil against the person's hand and body.

Agreed?




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

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

Nearly?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #255 on: March 07, 2020, 05:55:46 PM »
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers
No, they aren’t. I suppose you could call a bomb a container but it isn’t pressurised.
When it detonates then it does so with explosive force, that does create a pressure stronger than the container can withstand so it fragments. But what if the container was strong enough to withstand the force? Then on detonation nothing would happen (in an idealised scenario, imagine a spherical bomb like in cartoons where the explosive force was equal in all directions). You would probably her it but it wouldn’t go anywhere.
Now imagine there was a hole in the spherical bomb. On detonation. The hot gas would vent out of that hole at high speed and because of Newton’s third law the bomb would rocket off in the opposite direction. I use the word rocket advisedly because that’s pretty much what a rocket is. With a rocket of course the combustion is more controlled and sustained and there’s the hole to vent the gas out of but that’s about it. The hot gas resulting from the combustion has momentum, conservation of momentum does the rest. That is a law of physics which applies in a vacuum as much as it does in the atmosphere.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #256 on: March 07, 2020, 06:50:29 PM »
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers .
Well, most of the time, they are not.
A common bomb is mostly solid until it is detonated, the same is true for a cartridge (isn't the bullet only the part that gets expelled?).

So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within
Looks like we agree on that at least; the (chemical) reaction will create pressure (by rapidly increasing the amount of gas and heat).

these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates. All in accordance with
And what, as I have already asked serveral times, is the difference between bursting the shell, ejecting a bullet and expelling gas?
It's all the same basic process (chemical reaction creates force) and it doesn't care about vacuum or any other environment at all.

Rest of your post is complete bollocks and your ignorance of scientific principles and laws is reaching epic proportions .
Repeating an unproven claim doesn't prove it.
Adding superlatives to unproven accusation doesn't prove them.
Says more about the person who feels the need to stoop to that level than the one it is directed at.

iCare Newton's laws follow a logical progression . The shoite talked about "ooh this is where newton's 3rd takes over"is drivel . There can be is no reactive force or thrust if there is no active force .
As above: Resorting to name-calling does not prove your point. It only demonstrates your "competence" with foul language ...

The logical procession is, that when a chemical reaction (be it burning fuel or exploding) creates gas and forces said gas away from the location of the chemical reaction.
The reactive force is accelerating the rocket in the opposite direction.

Wherever did you get the notion, that there is no force?
Joule's law states, that no work (in the context of the law) is done; it does not state, that there is no force. No work does not equal no force (as already explained).

Show the definitive scientific paper with related experiment that proves a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .
Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Nuxralkj8, maybe it will help you understand, what Joule's law actually is.
Jule's law requires a closed container/system; it doesn't expel mass - a rocket is, by definition, an open container/vessel.
Thrust is created by expelling mass in one direction => requires open system, e.g. a rocket.
Both laws are not in conflict, unless someone (sorry, but that would be you) tries to apply them incorrectly.

iC

Grown up version .

 

The good professor will walk you through the process . You will learn the relationship between pressure temperature and volume . You will learn that there is no transfer of energy , no conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy which all heat exchange engines work by , no force produced , no work done . The size of the container is irrelevant - he'll show you how to work it all out .

Joules law was derived from experiment in a closed system because you couldn't have a vacuum without one on earth now could you . A little rocket chamber and the big vacuum of space  - a closed system ?

All known by real scientists up until 1930's - rocket engines do not work in a vacuum .

Have you managed to find the experiment that proves rocket engines can produce thrust in a vacuum ?
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers
No, they aren’t.

Yes they are unless they are assembled in a fkn vacuum.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #257 on: March 07, 2020, 07:14:56 PM »
All known by real scientists up until 1930's - rocket engines do not work in a vacuum

What do you reckon happened in the 1930s, then? Why that decade in particular?


Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers
No, they aren’t.

Yes they are unless they are assembled in a fkn vacuum.

So ... what IS the pressure within a typical bullet, do you reckon?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #258 on: March 07, 2020, 09:26:35 PM »
Grown up version .
Well,I'd say it's teenager version at best.
As - once again - you miss the relevant points, you might want to understand the kids' version first.

The size of the container is irrelevant - he'll show you how to work it all out.
I didn't say, the size was relevant, but it is relevant, that it is a container.
The gas and the vacuum are in one enclosed space; no openings.
If it is not a container, you run into havoc with V2.

Also, he explicitly states "if T1=T2" quite at the beginning.
That is not true for rockets, so is T1<>T2 everything after that is void ...

Joules law was derived from experiment in a closed system because you couldn't have a vacuum without one on earth now could you .
No, it was derived from a closed system, because the closed system is a requirement.
You conveniently ignored the part, where the amount of gas and the temperature are consant.
He emphasizes - more than once - that the temperature is kept constant, no heat added. This is obviously not true for rockets.
On a side note: even with a closed system ... do you really think, they could get a true vacuum, when we have a hard time getting close even now?
Come to think of it ... Joule's Law experiments most likely don't get closer to true vacuum than the experiments showing rockets/guns working in "close to vacuum" conditions.
By your own reasoning ... doesn't that invalidate Joule's Law?

A little rocket chamber and the big vacuum of space  - a closed system ?
Nope, definitely not. The rocket is an open system, not connected to the "bounds of space".
If you consider the "big vacuum of space" V2, it would be infinite. You can't meaningfully have a constant PV, if V2 is invinite.
And this is not even taking into account, that the amount of gas changes when launching a rocket, whereas it must not change for free expansion.

All known by real scientists up until 1930's - rocket engines do not work in a vacuum .
A lot of things have been known by scientists in the past, which had to be reconsidered when new knowledge was gained.
What did make scientists before 1930 believe, that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum?

Have you managed to find the experiment that proves rocket engines can produce thrust in a vacuum ?
Until you manage to grasp even the basics of the problem, I really see no reason to do so.
As pointed out several times, the experiments provided in this thread nicely show, that rockets will work in very low pressure.
There is no scientific reason, why going from "almost vacuum" to "vacuum" should make a significant difference.
 
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers
No, they aren’t.
Yes they are unless they are assembled in a fkn vacuum.
No, they are not.
You can "safely open" a bomb or a cartridge without any pressure escaping either.
Might get a little, if they were assembled at sea level and you open them high in the mountains, but that is merely ambient pressure, true for any container, that gets sealed at a certain environmental pressure.

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #259 on: March 09, 2020, 10:38:48 AM »
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?

Your claim that Joules 2nd law does not apply to rockets in a vacuum needs to validated by such an experiment . Otherwise your spouting bs .