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

2

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

« on: May 09, 2020, 08:54:36 PM »

However the evidence in point 3 is pretty compelling in itself that there are invisible wires being used.

In which way?
I looked at the time codes you pointed out in slow motion and if anything, it shows, that the way the people move would be difficult to impossible with a wire harness.
The hand of the guy who supposedly grabs the wire moves totally unhindered, showing that there is no wire impeding his movement even by a fraction. And his movement makes sens in response to the other guy doing acrobatics in front of him.
Finally, looking at the overall body movement, tension and balance: That consistent is with weightlessness and inconsistent with someone suspended in a harness.

You may note, that in many shots the astronauts are not fully shown (often feet/lower legs are not in the picture) so it is much more likely that they're pushing off a foothold (which they tend to maintain for stability) than that they are pulled up by some wires.

And as the guys wondered why in the last scene (and the one before) the heads were tilted "unnaturally" - it is only unnatural, if you don't think about it.
As they're suspended weightlessly at an angle to the person holding the camera, they will naturally tilt their heads to align it (within reason) with the person they are facing; that is what we are used to and being weightless, it is easy to do.
In contrast, if they were suspended by wires, they could hardly keep their heads tilted that way without showing some signs of strain (which they don't).

Could it be, that you are seeing what you want to see, because you're not looking closely enough?

iC

3

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

« on: May 09, 2020, 08:03:53 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iC

4

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

« on: May 08, 2020, 08:43:07 PM »

So sorry. I didn’t mean to duplicate a post. I guess after 15 pages it gets hard to keep track of everything that’s been said.

No need to be sorry. I didn't want to criticize  your effort (I hope you didn't take it that way), just make you aware that it has come up before.
Here it says page 30, so believe me, I know the feeling.

Yeah I just wanted to find some common ground between everyone, since it has become so contentious (I was part of that, of course).

A commendable effort; it usually makes sense to get the things we agree on out of the way and focus on the aspects we disagree about.
At this point the "uncommon ground" has already been pretty much established as "does free expansion prevent rockets from working or not"? (It does not.)
There was some side discussion, if fuel would burn in a vacuum. (Rocket fuel will burn in a rocket in a vacuum.)

From how I understand it, a gas freely expanding in a vacuum has a velocity, no matter what. If it is a stable state, then the velocity distribution is maxwellian, but obviously for a rocket it wouldn’t be.

If gas is expanding, it is obviously moving, so it would have to have a velocity.
With maxwell you're not looking a "the gas" as such, but the molecules it is composed of.

In the case of a rocket those molecules will share a common velocity vector by having been expelled together (it will, of course, not be exactly identical for each molecule).
This is significant for propulsion and has recently become known as "oomph" in this thread.

They will also have individual (comparatively small) velocity vectors due to the way gas molecules constantly move.
This part will make the gas expand (freely) and is not significant for propulsion.

So in the compartment example, it expands with a maxwell distribution. And if it hits an object, then work would be done I suppose. But then it really wasn’t a vacuum, right?

It wouldn't be a total vacuum and as the object would be "hit" in an non-stable state, I guess work may be done depending on the circumstances of the experiment. 

I see the rocket gas as the same thing - just a velocity determined by the deflagration.
I don’t think the distribution affects the thermodynamic behavior of free expansion, but I could be wrong.

What kind of distribution and behavior are you referring to exactly?

iC

5

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

« on: May 08, 2020, 04:16:57 PM »

Imagine a container with a barrier cutting it in half. In one half is a gas, and the other is a vacuum. If we suddenly remove the barrier, the. The gas expands into the vacuum, and zero work is involved.
I think this is the idea that you are talking about. And I absolutely agree with you.

I'm not sure how long you have been reading along or how far you backtraced this discussion - that specific "image" came up around page 14.
And it has been pointed out at the time, that there is an obvious difference between free expansion (top half) and a rocket engine (bottom half).

As far as I remember nobody has doubted Joule's Law, i.e. no work being done if gas expands freely.
Gas may expand freely, but it can also expand otherwise.

The difference between this thought experiment and a rocket is that the gas is propelled from the rocket with a velocity. Since the rocket fuel is burned (a deflagration) which converts stored chemical potential energy into kinetic energy.
Since the rocket + fuel starts off with no initial momentum, as the fuel leaves in one direction with a velocity, there must be a corresponding momentum of the rocket in the other direction to cancel it.

Agreed, that would be a direct result of Newton's Third Law.

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

Now, that requires some pondering ...
It is not relevant for rocket propulsion, as this part of the process takes place "after the fact", but is it really fully covered by free expansion?
The exhausted gas will disperse, pretty much in accordance with free expansion, but it also still carries momentum from being expelled - if it was to hit some random object in space, wouldn't it transfer that momentum and do work?
Also "no work" is requires an stable end state, which will never be reached in endless space. (We went back and forth about this at about the same time we were discussing the referenced image.)
Admittedly, rather philosophical questions with little bearing on the question at hand (if rockets in a vacuum). 

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

I agree with your explanation of the process (except, maybe for the philosophical part) and I'll leave it to totallackey to disagree with you, if he so chooses.
However, his conclusion is "rockets do not work in a vacuum" and my conclusion is "rockets do work in a vacuum" we cannot both be correct.

iC

6

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

« on: May 08, 2020, 03:32:23 PM »

And when a plume is formed, the rocket can react to the plume.

Please do take my advice and take a look at the different stages of the process. Propulsion does not happen by interaction with the plume.

When the rocket is exposed to a vacuum, no plume can be be formed...because gas expelled into a vacuum freely expands.

If it is expelled, it does not expand freely (see below).
Even if it would expand freely, that is not an instantaneous process, so a plume will form in any case.
So even if your assumption of free expansion was right (which isn't), the result still wouldn't be what you suggest (no plume).

The distinction made here is between expelled as in "forced through a nozzle" (rocket propulsion) in contrast to being released as in "expanding without restriction" (free expansion, if being released to a vacuum).

Gas, when placed in any container, is under pressure.
When said gas is expelled from said container, it comes out of said container, under pressure.
You claim that said gas can be provided more "oomph,"

Indeed.
Unlike in free expansion, where the amount of gas and the energy contained in it, are (as Joule requires) constant, the exothermic reaction in a fuel burning rocket increases the temperature and amount of gas. That would qualify as adding "oomph", I'd say.
It definitely raises the pressure in the combustion chamber significantly. More gas, at higher temperature and higher pressure should have more "oomp" than less gas at less temperature and less pressure, shouldn't it?
It not only seems logical (and common sense), that adding energy to gas must result in more "oomph", it is also scientifically required to maintain conservation of energy.

when coming out of a rocket in order to miraculously overcome the law that states gas will freely expand in a vacuum...

You need to get your understanding of basic science straight:
There is no law to overcome; there is no law stating, that gas can only expand freely into a vacuum.
Gas does not need to be forced into a vacuum, because - due to its nature - it will expand anyway, trying to reach equal distribution.
(If the available volume - e.g. space - is much larger then the volume the available gas can fill that way, that will change it behavior. Hence releasing gas into an enclosed vacuum is different from releasing it into an endless vacuum.)
If it expands freely into a vacuum, it will do no work. That does not mean it must only expand freely.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down freely (when it bounces back to the same height, its energy is the same again); that doesn't mean you can't still add energy and throw it down (it will bounce back higher, having gained energy, as you added energy).
So the energy added by the endothermic chemical reaction must have an effect, i.e. forcing the gas through the nozzle instead of having it "leisurely" expand under lower pressure.
That effect - in an atmosphere - is to accelerate the rocket. If that effect is - as you claim - doesn't take place in a vacuum, you need to explain where that additional energy "miraculously" goes to, if it doesn't do any work:

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

It disappears when gas is released into a vacuum.

Force doesn't just "disappear". Where does it go to?

Your claim is proven wrong, right in front of our very eyes, courtesy of these fine videos found in the thread.

As stated before, that may be what you want to see in them, but it cannot validly be concluded from those videos (and it is not what the majority of people in this thread see in those videos).
Unless you have to add any actual reasoning to reiterating your disputed claim, the "Period." is on you for being wrong and stuck with it.

Take a CO₂ cartridge and have them open it up in a vacuum...see what happens...time it...compare...

Sadly I don't have access to a total vacuum. But as I'm in full accordance with the relevant scientific laws, there is no doubt about the outcome - the  CO₂ cartridge would accelerate pretty much the same way.
But you sound pretty sure of the result "no acceleration" (which would be in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law), so - if only to prove me wrong - you can surely provide some evidence, can't you?

I am not going to bother with the rest of your post now...I will later...probably already linking to prior written replies since you first posted.

If you can't add anything substantial beyond reiterating your mantra "vacuum => always free expansion => never any work", please don't go to any effort on my account.
Rather use your time to learn how to objectively analyze a scientific problem how to read, understand and correctly apply scientific laws to solve it.

iC

7

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

« on: May 08, 2020, 12:42:49 PM »

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

Yeah, which is what is isentropic at the nozzle.

It doesn't matter, if this happens at the nozzle. It is not all that happens at the nozzle and it is not the most relevant aspect for rocket propulsion.
Please stop looking only at cherry-picked bits an pieces from sources and taking them out of context.

Period.

Adding "Period" to a wrong statement doesn't make it any less wrong.
It just shows your inability to discuss a topic objectively.

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

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

That may be the case colloquially speaking.
The distinction made here is between expelled as in "forced through a nozzle" (rocket propulsion) in contrast to being released as in "expanding without restriction" (free expansion, if being released to a vacuum).

Take a CO₂cartridge and pop a hole in it.
When you do that, the gas is expelled under great force.
The gas goes one way, the cartridge goes the other...INSTANTLY!!!

Not quite instantly, but given the mass/force relation the delay is likely not obvious.

Now do the same thing when the CO₂cartridge is in a vacuum...nothing, nada, zilch, bupkus...
You are wrong, as usual...

It is you, who is wrong.
That is (in principle) how a cold gas thruster works.

Gas released or expelled to a vacuum does 0 work.

See above:
released => same amount of gas, no restriction => no work done when freely expanding.
forced: => increasing amount of gas (CO₂ is in liquid form while in the cartridge.), restricted by nozzle => work done

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

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

See above ... if the nozzle is restricting the flow, the gas does not disperse freely, but is forced through the opening; what happens at the back end of the bell is (mostly) irrelevant to propulsion. => 0 work does not apply.
You are confusing different aspects of the propulsion process.
So please, do take the time to look at the whole propulsion process to see what kind of process takes place exactly where and when and which laws are relevant at those stages.

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

The fact that I can explain it in detail based on accepted scientific laws indicates, that I got it right.
And honestly, it doesn't take a lot of trying - this is straightforward physics.
Keeps me wondering, why you're having such a hard time understanding it ...

The video evidence is clear and the science is clear.

Indeed it is and it is fully in line with what I keep trying to explain in the hopes that - at one point - you will understand it.

You're wrong.

See above.
My reasoning is based on the correct and logically consistent application of laws of science.  => I'm right.
In contrast your reasoning is based on your mantra "vacuum => always free expansion => never any work" which is in conflict with (at least) Joule's Law and Newton's Laws - as frequently and validly deduced. => You're wrong.

Give it up.

As long as you keep making invalid, unsupported claims and there's still a sliver of hope, that you might get past your preconceived notions and see the truth, I intend to keep it up.


iC

8

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

« on: May 07, 2020, 04:22:43 PM »

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

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

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

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

The gas is not released, it is expelled. => "does 0 work" does not apply.
Once the rocket is operating, the inside of the "bell" will be filled with gas. => no vacuum. Even after leaving the bell there will not (immediately) be exposed to vacuum as the dispersing exhaust is still there.
And even if it were exposed to vacuum, it would still be an isentropic flow, because a gas flow is forced through a nozzle - for it to be isentropic it doesn't matter where it is forced "into".
It does, however, matter if it is forced (increasing amount and temperature of gas) or expanding freely (constant amount and temperature of gas). When being expelled, it is not expanding freely.
Requirements for isentropic flow are met, requirements for free expansion are not met.

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

It disappears when gas is released into a vacuum.

Force doesn't just "disappear". Where does it go to?

Essentially what you guys are writing is that Joule's Law is wrong and that gas when released to a vacuum can do work.

No.
I have repeatedly and explicitly written, that I do not doubt Joule's Law.
The problem is, that you keep applying it to a situation it does not apply to (see above and below).

You can call it final as often as you want, that is not what Joules proved.
If there is no resistance, gas does not need to be forced; it does not mean it cannot be forced.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down; that doesn't mean you can't still throw it down.
With a rocket engine there is resistance by the simple fact of the nozzle restricting the flow of gas created by the chemical reaction. There is a force. This is not (in conflict) with Joule's law of Free Expansion.

iC

9

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

« on: May 07, 2020, 03:44:45 PM »

BR, ICare, JSS, AllAround and friends; my brain is starting to hurt.

Very understandable.
In this thread I sometime feel like talking to (bad) customer service.
In such cases customer service reps will latch onto a keyword ("vacuum") or a catchphrase and throw the standard corporate reply from their cheat sheet ("no force") at you - with no regards to context or your actual question/problem.
You then try to clarify your problem in more detail and get a similar answer - just close enough to be considered an answer, but to far away from your question/problem to be useful.
This process can be repeated ad nauseam. Probably to make you give up rather then stick with your legitimate request.

It's a pain in the b...rain, but what the would be alternative?
Should we let unsupported, faulty claims ("gas cannot be forced into a vacuum") win over scientifically supported facts ("rockets work in a vacuum")?

iC

10

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

« on: May 06, 2020, 07:13:42 PM »

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

Just a guess, but I think people in general have a hard time imagining things outside their direct experience.

I'd say, that's a good guess and probably something everybody has experienced to some extend.
Looking at thermodynamics I can certainly confirm, that they don't always feel intuitive to me. 
But then, that's an important aspect of science - going beyond direct/subjective experience/perception and looking at how things really work beyond the obvious.
Taking that step, science clearly shows that (and why) rockets work in a vacuum. 

The idea that you can move without shoving against something else fixed to a planet can seem strange and unusual if you never thought about it before. Laws of momentum can seem abstract and hard to grasp because you can't see, touch or feel them.

Agreed, however, people (in this thread) arguing against the laws of physics, that make rockets work in any environment, claim they have extensively thought about it ... how does that fit in?
And even with the idea of needing "something to push against", doesn't it seems more probable to have a rocket "push against its own exhaust" than to expect thrust to just disappear?

iC 

11

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

« on: May 06, 2020, 04:35:38 PM »

"Oh yeah, I see the rocket doesn't work in a near vacuum environment! But trust me...when it gets to total vacuum, it'll work, cause....cause...reasons...like sound being isentropic!"
Quite laughable really...
Just indicates they have no clue...

The described isentropic flow through the nozzle applies to sound and has nothing to do with propulsion.

Why would isentropic flow through the nozzle have anything to do with sound? It is about thermodynamics not acoustics. The speed of sound is relevant, but not sound as such.
In contrast isentropic flow is relevant to work being done, so it is relevant to propulsion.

Isentropic ist not "cause....cause...reasons...", it is in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics (and is not about accoustics).
If "sound being isentropic!" is what you got from that source and the ensuing discussion, you have convincingly proven that is you, who hasn't a clue.

Rockets working in a vacuum really fits in nicely with accepted and proven physical laws.
Whereas I still haven't seen a plausible explanation, why/how the force propelling rockets in an atmosphere could suddenly disappear when the rocket is surrounded by a vacuum.
All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

iC

12

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

« on: May 06, 2020, 04:14:10 PM »

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

As far as I remember, there hasn't been any disagreement about that.
This is what happens when rockets change momentum in an atmosphere and it is the same when they do so in a vacuum.
Claiming that there is no force, however, is in conflict with accepted laws of physics.

• The increase of gas and its temperature within the combustion chamber creates pressure against the resistance of the nozzle. There is a force.
• Also mass (gas) is accelerated (expelled, not to be confused with free expansion). => There is a force.

Neither is dependent on the environment (esp. the presence of atmosphere).

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

Regardless of the semantics (to avoid calling it sophistry) if it is a law, a theory, a principle or anything else:
If one mass is accelerated in one direction, another must be (equivalently) accelerated the opposite direction - as described by Newton's Laws (3rd).
If you want to disprove conservation of momentum, you need to disprove Newton.

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

So where do you see a problem?
Newton's Third Law ("Action-Reaction") describes exactly that: two vectors "equal in magnitude and opposite in direction" (rocket goes one way, exhaust goes the opposite way) => their sum is 0 => momentum is conserved.
This does not preclude, that various parts of the total mass could travel in any direction at any speed as long as the total of all vectors remains constant.   

iC

13

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

« on: May 01, 2020, 01:33:58 PM »

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

Don't we all know the feeling. 

Rockets have and maintain momentum.
Rockets can work in space.

I looks like we (as in at least you and I) agree to that extend.
For all practical purposes (esp. the question if rockets could have taken us to the moon) we'd be done now.
In space, esp. when looking at rockets going into orbit around earth or as far as the moon, we cannot assume a (perfect) vacuum.
So the question, if rockets work in a vacuum, becomes somewhat philosophical (in the sense of being of fundamental import, but of no relevance to "real live").   

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surround pressure to contain a plume.
Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

This is where you keep going wrong.

The force (opposite to the force accelerating the rocket), is not the force acting from the plume towards the containment by atmosphere.
It is the force expelling (accelerating) the mass (gas/exhaust) from the rocket. Mass flow (exhaust) accelerated one way, rocket accelerates equally in the opposite direction.
Hence whatever happens to the plume after leaving the rocket/nozzle is of comparatively little relevance to the process. It will have a different shape and dissipate differently in different environments, but that's all "after the fact". When the question of vacuum or no vacuum becomes relevant, propulsion has already happened.

iC

14

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

« on: May 01, 2020, 11:15:16 AM »

I think a clearer picture is to focus on momentum strictly. Conversations on here tend to fragment early, and pretty soon everyone’s taking about anomalous dilation equivalence recalcitrant tango foxtrot Charlie niner, or something.

Unfortunately, your a right. When the main argument cannot be easily disputed, people tend to go of into specific examples (under special conditions) or special cases and then try to either deflect from the real question or reverse engineer a (perceived) contradiction (or both). 

I don't know since when you've been reading along, but there were many posts by several people making good and convincing cases for rockets working in any environment by focusing on momentum.
I referenced one example, which will get you to the general location of the discussion in this thread.
(On a side note: The quotes totallackey uses out of context in his signature to create the impression of a contradiction are from that discussion.)

Your "take on things" requires that you explain within those laws of physics ,

And so I have done, several times, at length.
Latest example:

Newton's Laws do not prevent rockets from functioning in a vacuum, they require them to function.
As explained before when one mass is accelerated one way, another mass moves must be accelerated the opposite way.
This is a basic law and it is easily observable that gas (which as a mass) is leaving the rocket; to do that it must accelerate.
If you wan't a rocket to fail in a vacumm you must dispute Newton's laws.

It should be quite obvious, that a rocket works because of Newton's Laws.
Mass (gas) is exhausted (accelerated) one way, consequently a corresponding mass (rocket) needs to accelerate the other way.
Newton's Laws are independent of the environment; nowhere does it say "Newton's Laws only work in an atmosphere.".
=> It really is up to you, to prove (or at least explain), why you dispute Newton's Laws.

As far as I remember, all "prove" was (wrongly) based Joule's Law, which lead to the discussion of thermodynamics.

You are the one claiming that gas can be somehow "FORCED," into a vacuum.
For the final time, it cannot.
Joules proved this.

You can call it final as often as you want, that is not what Joules proved.
If there is no resistance, gas does not need to be forced; it does not mean it cannot be forced.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down; that doesn't mean you can't still throw it down.
With a rocket engine there is resistance by the simple fact of the nozzle restricting the flow of gas created by the chemical reaction. There is a force. This is not (in conflict) with Joule's law of Free Expansion.

You cannot "FORCE," gas into a vacuum.
Gas, when released to a vacuum, finds no container, and freely expands.
As proven by Joules.

Joules has proven, that gas meeting no resistance in an enlarging volume (as part of it is contains a vacuum) expands freely within the volume.
He has not proven, that

• it cannot be forced.
• this would also be the case, if it were expanding "outside" a closed volume (he didn't have the means to do such an experiment).
• this would also be the case, if energy were added to that gas (that is explicitly prevented in his free expansion experiment).

So, as explained by several people in several ways:

• Newton's Laws require rockets to work in space/a vacuum.
• This is not in conflict with Joule's Law of Free Expansion.
• Rockets work in space/a vacuum.

iC

15

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

« on: April 29, 2020, 03:14:38 PM »

There are three laws of motion:
1) An object in motion (or at rest) will stay in motion (or at rest) until some outside force acts upon it, or inertia.
2) F= m*a
Since we know that gas does 0 work when released to a vacuum, we know that F must = 0.

No it needn't.
The "F" in F=m*a (when talking about rocket propulsion) is the force "forcing"  the mass flow through the nozzle and expelling it from the rocket - with an equal, opposing force accelerating the rocket.
That F is (much) greater than 0. We agree, that m is greater than 0. => The acceleration is greater than 0 and the rocket works in a vacuum.

The F being 0 due to free expansion is a different F and does not apply here (valid reasons haven been provided multiple times and in detail), so the rest of your conclusion is invalid.
You are working with a faulty perception of the process, which unsurprisingly leads you to a wrong conclusion.

iC

16

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

« on: April 28, 2020, 05:13:53 PM »

Despite quoting it, you skipped the part explaining, why those videos show no valid prove of rockets not working in a vacuum.
Fine with me, I'll accept it as tacit agreement.

Just like everything else you have written in this thread, that would be wrong too.

Obviously assuming "tacit agreement" would have been wrong - hence the " ".
In contrast, most of what I have posted in this thread has been correct.
Not everything, as I recalled some (non-critical) details incorrectly, but - as mentioned before - part of why I enjoy this discussion is because I can refine my understanding of the issue.

It is the evening out that is necessary to deefine the plume.
Once the fuel is ignited, the rocket is off the pad.

Doesn't to even something out mean to make it even all over. In this case pressure/exhaust/surrounding atmosphere will interact till there is no pressure differential.
Defining a plume on the other hand should mean to have a distinct plume separated from the atmosphere. That certainly doesn't sound like evening out.
 

Because the only delay found for model rockets to liftoff is the fuel to ignite.

I've started small rockets myself and seen others do it and my observations differ.
The fuel ignites, there is visible exhaust and a delay before the small rockets take off.
As small rockets do have a different mass/thrust ratio (in addition to other differences) that delay may be so short as to appear nonexistent to you.

The article posted refers only to sound in reference to the activity at the nozzle.

Please, do read the reference again. I just did and it does not refer to sound, but to the speed of sound and the velocity of the flow in relation to it.
Which part of the source does refer to sound in your opinion?

The flow of gas into a vacuum is non-isentropic.
The flow of gas coming from an exhaust of a rocket, supposedly in outer space, is taking place in a vacuum.
Non-isentropic.

And non-relevant.
As you're simply repeating previous claims, please refer to my previous responses why they don't apply.

Hence the jibber jabber, ridiculous double speak in the source provided by stack...

If it sounds like "jibber jabber" to you, that may be because it is or because you do not understand it correctly.
Comparing the source in question (or the one you provided for the closed-system-discussion) to your interpretation of it, I'm leaning towards the latter.

iC

17

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

« on: April 28, 2020, 02:56:30 PM »

Despite quoting it, you skipped the part explaining, why those videos show no valid prove of rockets not working in a vacuum.
Fine with me, I'll accept it as tacit agreement.

The delay you see when rockets launch on TV (i.e., the government or private industry launches) is due to the fact that the plume is not yet contained enough by the surrounding pressure in order for the rocket to take flight.

How about this explanation:
A rocket engine (like many engines) needs a certain time to get up to full working power.
While the thrust provides less acceleration than gravitation (or UA if one leans that way) working the other way, the rocket remains stationary.
Then acceleration will be very slow, but increasing until the rocket engine provides constant acceleration (depending on the rocket engine, that might be adjustable, but for take-off it's reasonable to assume constant full thrust).
The observable result would be a delay until somethings happens, then slow and finally constant acceleration.

On the other hand:
How can a gaseous atmosphere "contain" a plume?
The atmosphere will do some "shaping", as it is being displaced by exhaust, but that effect quickly evens out, as the amount of exhaust is rather insignificant in comparison to the amount of atmosphere surrounding it.
The exhaust is expelled at speed and will be slowed done by the resistance of the surrounding atmosphere. At the same time it will dissipate, as exhaust and atmosphere mix.
Impressive to look at, but irrelevant for propulsion. Pushing yourself off "thin air" doesn't work much better than pushing yourself off a vacuum.
Rockets work in any environment, because they do neither.
 

This does not apply to model rockets of course, because the weight is not sufficient enough to require it.

Why are you making a special case for model rockets?
 

The described isentropic flow through the nozzle applies to sound and has nothing to do with propulsion.

Why would isentropic flow through the nozzle have anything to do with sound? It is about thermodynamics not acoustics. The speed of sound is relevant, but not sound as such.
In contrast isentropic flow is relevant to work being done, so it is relevant to propulsion.

iC

18

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

« on: April 28, 2020, 01:32:39 PM »

I have responded to all of the points raised.

I only found a response to my first statement - are you referring to this?

Rockets will always remain still for a short while after ignition, as thrust needs to build and inertia must be overcome.

Sure they do, even in a pressurized environment.

Doesn't alleviate the fact a pressurized environment is required, as evidenced and presented in the videos in this thread.

You agree, that rockets remain still for a short while after ignition in any environment, thereby invalidating your claim, that the delay would prove a vacuum/lack of pressure.
The "requirement of a pressurized environment" is not a fact, but what has been challenged; those videos do not evidence that requirement, much less do they make it a fact.. 

To draw a valid conclusion from the videos that would have to be taken into account, i.e. by a series of experiments to calibrate for different levels of pressure .
With the data provided in the videos this may or may not be coincidental.

If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.

If you repeat an experiment with roughly the same parameters, you would expect to get roughly the same results. That (being one of the points I made) doesn't really tell us anything.
Without a baseline and a set of experiments to eliminate potential unwanted effects, you can't validly tell, if the level on the gauges is
- really same because of the pressure reached at that time,
- coincidentally the same at time at which inertia has been overcome or
- coincidentally the same due to any other aspect of the experiment we may not even be aware of.

So yes, you did respond to that.
However, you agreed with me for an important part and didn't provide valid reason for disagreeing with the remaining part.

The concept the creators of these videos demonstrate is that clearly rockets do not work in a vacuum.

As repeatedly explained (e.g. see above), that is not what those videos demonstrate.

Rockets do not care about the vacuum (or any environment) because the relevant parts of the propulsion process (isentropic flow through a nozzle; creating thrust) is independent of the environment.
When the exhaust "enters the vacuum" and dissipates, the work has already been done.
=> Rockets work in a vacuum.

iC

19

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

« on: April 27, 2020, 04:47:21 PM »

Yeah, they can fire...but they do not move until the pressure in the container is of a sort to be able to provide a defined plume.

You have claimed so before und it still can't validly be concluded from what is shown in the videos - as explained e.g. here:

Rockets will always remain still for a short while after ignition, as thrust needs to build and inertia must be overcome.
To draw a valid conclusion from the videos that would have to be taken into account, i.e. by a series of experiments to calibrate for different levels of pressure .
With the data provided in the videos this may or may not be coincidental.

That may be what you want to see in them, but it cannot validly be concluded from those videos.
First of all, those experiments are more "proof of concept" on an enthusiast level than reliable scientific experiments. (No offence to the creators; I appreciate their effort and the experiments do illustrated some aspects well.)
We don't really know enough about the setup and all parameters in detail to tell if what you believe to see is a direct result of pressure rising or just coincidence.

As far as I recall, you haven't responded to either explanation, so they stand unchallenged.

iC

20

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

« on: April 24, 2020, 02:36:55 PM »

I have repeatedly stated, that while I do not doubt free expansion, it does not apply in that case of firing a rocket, as the scientific requirements for free expansion are not met.

Yeah, we know...you simply deny.

When I state something, I usually provide the reasoning behind that statement.
If you review this thread, you will find several posts in which I provided detailed explanations why free expansion does not apply to how rockets work.
You will also find others agreeing with my reasoning.
=> Stating I would "simply deny" is obviously a false claim. Please do not do that. 

To refresh your memory, here a three reasons:

• Free expansion requires a constant temperature of the gas. In rocket motors the gas gets (a lot) hotter.
• Free expansion requires a constant amount of gas. In rockets the amount of gas increases (dramatically).
  (Note: Free expansion requires the gas to actually being present "as gas" at the beginning; this is not about the total amount of gas "potentially" available as fuel.)
• Free expansion requires free expansion, i.e. not through a nozzle/valve - which by definition restricts expansion.

Rockets do not meet (at least) three requirements Joule set for free expansion. => Free expansion does not apply. Gas being expelled from a rocket can do work.

The part of gas being being released into a vacuum doing no work somehow escapes you.

It does not. But - as explained above - rockets do not "freely release" gas, they "forcefully eject" it. Different story.

That interpretation <of videos> has been convincingly challenged several times by various people.

Nah...not even challenged...because the people know what they see.

Maybe you have a different interpretation of challenge than I do, but I recall several people making a convincing case against your interpretation.

The source material states the word TUBE.

Indeed it does.
However, it does not state, that it has to be a closed/endless tube, does it?
The source states that gas is forced through a tube and that is obviously true for a rocket.

• Gas is in the combustion chamber. => "Beginning" of the tube.
• Gas is forced through the nozzle. => Still a tube, smaller diameter.
• Gas is expanding in the => Still a tube, increasing diameter.
• Gas leaves the restraints of the rocket completely. => Tube ends, gas dissipates, isn't relevant to propulsion anymore.

This is the same in an atmosphere and in a vacuum.
If rockets wouldn't work, because there "is no tube" they shouldn't work in an atmosphere either.

You are ignoring relevant restrictions  (see the three examples above) to make it look like free expansion would support your point of view.
On the other hand you unduly dismiss valid laws by extending restrictions beyond their relevance (requiring a tube a point of the process, where it does no longer matter).   

A rocket certainly works, but it certainly cannot work in a vacuum.

Atmosphere or vacuum makes no difference for the workings of a rocket. None of the relevant laws makes a distinction between atmosphere being present or not.

The evidence and science are clear.

Indeed, they are. And they clearly show, that rockets will work both in an atmosphere and in a vacuum.

iC